# Changes to UK Copyright Law



## celliottuk (Jun 13, 2013)

There was recently a change to Copyright Law in the UK which seemed to throw away any form of Copyright protection, as it seemed to state that if someone couldn't find the original copyright owner, there was deemed to be no copyright ("Honest guv, I looked for 1 second, couldn't find any ownership info, so it's now mine")

There was a petition against this to The Government and a response has been given
Read the Petition and the response http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422

The key part of the response in my mind is that the Government believe that EXIF metadata will now be used to assess who has ownership, whilst then going on to state that ...

"A Working Group has been set up by the industry-led Copyright Hub to consider the issue of metadata and try to obtain cross-industry agreement on ensuring that metadata is not removed from copyright works."
i.e. they think that there are flaws in this approach

Is anyone aware of any mechanism which ensures that Metadata will ALWAYS stay with a photo, regardless of how the file is saved or manipulated?


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 13, 2013)

It is just a solution to a real problem regarding copyright law, namely who owns the copyright if the owner cannot be determined whilst the work is clearly still under copyright? Well, one solution, which is used here in South Africa, is that the State then becomes the curator of the copyright. And it seems that in the UK it now lapses into the public domain. Honestly, I cannot see the problem.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 13, 2013)

sooo... some photographer signs his name on the back of the print, the recipient of the print takes rubbing alcohol and a cotton swab and carefully cleans off the name on the print... oh darn, we dont know who took the photo, so we own it now.... these laws are so finicky and dangerous in some situations... And then there's the issue where it's common assumption where if you take a photo, alter it something like 30% or whatever in photoshop, and now that becomes your copyright... All these gray areas are one of the many things killing professional photography...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 13, 2013)

seemed.

Can you send me a link to the change in the act?


----------



## RGF (Jun 13, 2013)

I have heard that a number of sites, such as facebook, remove metadata from photos. Instant loss of copyright protection.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 13, 2013)

RGF said:


> I have heard that a number of sites, such as facebook, remove metadata from photos. Instant loss of copyright protection.



On a not too recent change in facebook terms and conditions, any photo you post on facebook is now facebooks... watermark watermark watermark


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 13, 2013)

awinphoto wrote

"some photographer signs his name on the back of the print, the recipient of the print takes rubbing alcohol and a cotton swab and carefully cleans off the name on the print... oh darn, we dont know who took the photo, so we own it now".

I have already encountered a similar situation to this. In my case the customer purchased a print, then had the nerve to tell us what they were going to do. They were informed that they had purchased a print not the copyright but this made no difference. We literally saw them remove the sticky label from the back of the print and take it to a local lab to be scanned, so that they could reproduce it as a card for resale. Luckily when we reiterated copyright to them again in the lab, the lab assistant refused to scan it and confiscated the print. But if we were not there at the time i'm sure the lab would have scanned it


----------



## Universeal (Jun 13, 2013)

I know this from some time but it passed?


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 13, 2013)

bitm2007 said:


> awinphoto wrote
> 
> "some photographer signs his name on the back of the print, the recipient of the print takes rubbing alcohol and a cotton swab and carefully cleans off the name on the print... oh darn, we dont know who took the photo, so we own it now".
> 
> I have already encountered a similar situation to this. In my case the customer purchased a print, then had the nerve to tell us what they were going to do. They were informed that they had purchased a print not the copyright but this made no difference. We literally saw them remove the sticky label from the back of the print and take it to a local lab to be scanned, so that they could reproduce it as a card for resale. Luckily when we reiterated copyright to them again in the lab, the lab assistant refused to scan it and confiscated the print. But if we were not their at the time i'm sure the lab would have scanned it



Yikes... a few years ago, my business offers restoration of old photos and a nationally known moving company contacted me saying they moved a clients photos and the photos were damaged in transit and the client was furious... they wanted me to scan, reprint and remount to look identical... They wanted me to do it because they figured it would be cheaper than going to the original photographer. In the end we didn't do it because of copyright, but I wonder how often this happens to other professional photographers...


----------



## celliottuk (Jun 13, 2013)

Universeal said:


> I know this from some time but it passed?


Yes, it received full Royal ascent (it became law) on 25th April 2013 http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/enterpriseandregulatoryreform.html


----------



## rs (Jun 13, 2013)

celliottuk said:


> Is anyone aware of any mechanism which ensures that Metadata will ALWAYS stay with a photo, regardless of how the file is saved or manipulated?


Nope. If its a file they can download to their computer, its editable. And even if there was some clever system to make it uneditable, what's to stop anyone taking a screen shot?

I think the only reliable option is a watermark. Preferably not in a place which can simply be cropped or edited out.


----------



## celliottuk (Jun 13, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> seemed.
> 
> Can you send me a link to the change in the act?



It's a lot to read!!
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/enterpriseandregulatoryreform/documents.html


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 13, 2013)

celliottuk said:


> Is anyone aware of any mechanism which ensures that Metadata will ALWAYS stay with a photo, regardless of how the file is saved or manipulated?



It is impossible. Even if the operating system or displaying application somehow protected the photo from having it's metadata removed, one could always place a camera in front of the screen and take a photo, pretty much the way people use video cameras to shoot movies in cinemas

Then there are photos taken with film cameras, and photos printed on some sort of physical media, e.g. a magazine.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 13, 2013)

It's all being blown bigger than it is:

http://mark.goodge.co.uk/2013/04/stop-the-lies-from-stop43/


----------



## celliottuk (Jun 13, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> It's all being blown bigger than it is:
> 
> http://mark.goodge.co.uk/2013/04/stop-the-lies-from-stop43/


It's interesting to read the interchange between the author and some of the commentators on his blog. There's a lot of trolling and counter-trolling going on, but I'm left with the uncomfortable feeling that his statements aren't undebatable.


----------



## RGF (Jun 14, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard that a number of sites, such as facebook, remove metadata from photos. Instant loss of copyright protection.
> ...



Good to know - I post maybe 5 pictures a year there and mostly snaps.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 14, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> It's all being blown bigger than it is:
> 
> http://mark.goodge.co.uk/2013/04/stop-the-lies-from-stop43/



I think the replies are not satisfactory.

E.g. take the sentences "After all, what benefit does the owner of an orphan work actually get from their copyright? They can’t earn any money from it, as nobody can find them to pay them." and the two sentences in the following reply which say the same thing.

I know an Israeli professional photographer who makes money, among other things, from shooting nudes for the private use of whomever is being photographed. The photos are naturally not registered, and belong to the person photographed. One time his studio was broken into and all the equipment stolen, along with photos still on computer for processing.

Say the thieves removed the metadata in Israel (to make it harder to trace the photos to whomever they stole the photos from), and put the photos on the Internet. If a UK porn site wants to put the photos on it's pages, then (a) the photos would appear to be orphan until published & the owner finding out about it, (b) the owner doesn't care about money, but rather about privacy, and (c) sorting ownership via international process could be far from trivial.

The answer have a strong bias toward the creative process and making money, at the expense of owners' other rights, e.g. to object their work from being further copied. It's convenient for the UK government to make money first and maybe pay it later, it might not be so convenient for the copyright owner.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 14, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> sooo... some photographer signs his name on the back of the print, the recipient of the print takes rubbing alcohol and a cotton swab and carefully cleans off the name on the print... oh darn, we dont know who took the photo, so we own it now....



Wrong. Signing a name on something does not assert or create copyright ownership.


----------

