The Act that that includes these changes also includes provisions to allow compulsory licensing of "orphaned" copyright works: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/section/77/enact...
UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
31–40 of 138 posts
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#32I'm trying to understand what problem this law is trying to solve. Without this law, would it be legal for me to buy a Damien Hirst painting, photograph it and sell the photographs? Or is it that I could run an unofficial information website (say, on Apple laptops) on which I list detailed photos, and the brand owners want to limit that?
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#33I'm trying to understand what problem this law is trying to solve. Without this law, would it be legal for me to buy a Damien Hirst painting, photograph it and sell the photographs? Or is it that I could run an unofficial information website (say, on Apple laptops) on which I list detailed photos, and the brand owners want to limit that?
In the case of paintings it is already illegal, this law just extends that to all other objects (well it only mentions designer chairs, but obviously it must apply to kids toys and anything else, they will claim they are artistic).
The government has just recently confirmed that digital reproductions to not create new copyright, so you already need to pay Damien to sell pictures of your Hirst.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#34I have not read the laws but mostly likely this applied to commercial use already for years and they wanted it applied to private use. However, it's a racket. To give an example, the happy birthday song is illegal to 'broadcast without permission of copyright holders'. But, the restaurant owner can buy a license from a copyright group for a fee. Second example; Imagine being a school and dealing with students who sub…
In a sudden outbreak of common sense, Warner lost their claim to owning the copyright of the Happy Birthday song a few months ago.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-s...
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#35Is this some contrived plot to repel people from taking UK citizenship?
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#36I'm trying to understand what problem this law is trying to solve. Without this law, would it be legal for me to buy a Damien Hirst painting, photograph it and sell the photographs? Or is it that I could run an unofficial information website (say, on Apple laptops) on which I list detailed photos, and the brand owners want to limit that?
In the case of paintings it is already illegal, this law just extends that to all other objects (well it only mentions designer chairs, but obviously it must apply to kids toys and anything else, they will claim they are artistic). The government has just recently confirmed that digital reproductions to not create new copyright, so you already need to pay Damien to sell pictures of your Hirst.
So if I posted a picture on Facebook of my son playing with a Fisher Price telephone, then Fisher Price could contact me and order me to take it down? I'm assuming they couldn't sue for 'loss of earnings'? And if I run an unofficial Apple blog on which I do teardowns of Apple equipment then they could order me to remove any photos?
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#37I do not think this can pass. I think it would be incompatible with EU law, which has higher priority than local country law.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#38What I miss in this kind of articles is more details in how this kind of laws are cooked. They say "the UK government", OK, but who in the UK government, and who is really behind. Not that we don't know, but making the process explicit would be helpful.
The UK is bringing some copyright law in line with the EU, eg they just ruled that reproductions of out of copyright pictures do not create a new copyright, unlike what some museums like to tell you. This might be related, certainly design is more protected in eg France than in the UK, not sure though.
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#39I do not think this can pass. I think it would be incompatible with EU law, which has higher priority than local country law.
Which bit of EU law? I figure if I can understand this in more detail, then I could write to my MP.
EDIT: Seems this is actually to align EU and UK law:
> The repeal of s. 52 was brought in by statute - by section 74 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The rationale for the repeal was that UK law was incompatible with the EU following the Court of Justice of the European Union's decision in Flos v Semeraro (Case C-168/09). The purpose of the repeal was to align the period of copyright protection across all artistic works and to eradicate inconsistencies between the term of protection afforded by copyright in different Member States.
http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/commencement-of-repeal-of...
Re: UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own
#40I do not think this can pass. I think it would be incompatible with EU law, which has higher priority than local country law.
How is this different from not being allowed to photograph the Eiffel tower at night, or having to abide by the terms of games, music or films you have purchased?