Live data from Hacker News

Photographers' anger at law change over 'orphan works'

bbc.co.uk

1–10 of 23 posts

Re: Photographers' anger at law change over 'orphan works'

#4
This is a very dangerous law.

One will believe that now with digital cameras, everybody will took their own photos before taking someone's else. But not.

This is very serious, Big companies will use the web services in other countries like China or Russia to automatically remove copyright info from pictures or text and post them. Then you can just take those documents legally "as there is no copyright metadata" in the picture.

New legislation is making Big companies benefit and small ones to be crushed by them.

If you are from UK, it is time to do something.

Re: Photographers' anger at law change over 'orphan works'

#6
Does that mean from now on, rather than "Copyright © 2013 Kailuo Wang", I have to say Copyright © 2013 my Email address ? Does it mean that if someone steal my photo without permission and removed copyright information, other people can just use download it from there and legally use it however they want because they cannot contact me?

Re: Photographers' anger at law change over 'orphan works'

#7
post #3

Pretty amazed that they would make it legal to steal... The law is too vague on how they would attempt to contact the owner and it does not state how much they have to pay to license it.

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. It's pretty important that we not let this distinction slip entirely from the public consciousness, because they're very different concepts.

Re: Photographers' anger at law change over 'orphan works'

#8
How about a national db of photos that's free for artists to register low res works on. If someone wants to publish with media they don't have a license for you're required to do an image matching search. If you get a match you pay a buck for the contact info of the artist and have to get a license. If the artist finds you used it without paying them a licensing fee and it's registered you pay a fine based on what you made off the usage. So a newspaper maybe has to pay 10% of revenues for the day they ran the image on the front page. I honestly don't know what kind of penalty is appropriate here, but obviously it should be more than can be absorbed as the 'cost of business'.

Re: Photographers' anger at law change over 'orphan works'

#9
How does this interact with existing international copyright law?

For instance, if a professional US photographer's work was infringed and a mere fraction of their going rate were held in escrow by the "independent body", would they get paid a pittance and told "tough luck"? Or could they pursue a more proper recompense?

Re: Photographers' anger at law change over 'orphan works'

#10
post #3

Pretty amazed that they would make it legal to steal... The law is too vague on how they would attempt to contact the owner and it does not state how much they have to pay to license it.

It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. It's pretty important that we not let this distinction slip entirely from the public consciousness, because they're very different concepts.

It's stealing if you infringe my copyright. It's sharing if I infringe someone else's.
Post reply on HN