Well, that's the thing, unnecessary criminalisation of perfectly innocent behaviour really. Your example with a blog. I can understand why would somebody want to have their photos (lets stick with this example) removed from my blog if let's say it was in some way offensive, sexually explicit or contained strong political messages you are not subscribing to and do not want your original work to be associated with. But then wouldn't it be possible to sue straight away on the grounds that such unauthorised use already caused emotional distress, was defamatory by association etc. On the bloggers side how on earth would he/she know that the author (unable to be identified) would be offended? There was no illicit intent there. The least I'd say the whole thing looks rather two faced, slippery and proves huge scope for arguments between opposite sides.

I think the copyright should stay and is extremely important but should be modified really. How much simpler it would be if when you wanted to publish any of your original work and would like to limit copyrights use to it you'd have to clearly state it so there is no doubt whatsoever. Then if you do not care that much and as long nobody claims authorship and creates income using your original work then you do not mark your work and grant a fair usage license to everybody upon publishing?

Edited 19 November, 201213 yr by Jabozuma

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at really. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how you have used someone else's image, the fact is you are simply not allowed to distribute, copy, publish or do anything else which is considered 'author's rights'. Just because you weren't offending anyone doesn't mean you have a right to use the image/text/music/lyrics or whatever the work may be. Even if you name the author you still aren't allowed to use it if they haven't given permission. As stated before, if the owner goes rushing off to court without any proof of damage the. They aren't likely to succeed with suing, however if you refuse to remove the infringed work then you will be ordered to.

I mean, if someone used my image in a positive light and I was credited then I'd probably be grateful of the exposure, but it's still within my right to tell them to remove it.

They will never change copyright so that you have to state it. It about protecting the work that has gone into something, the morality of it, the sweat of the brow. How completely unfair would it be to make your work available to anyone who decided to steal it. For example books have been stolen prior to release - they would be unpublished and not meant for anyone to see so wouldn't have any markings to say they were copyrighted, so in your world the thief could then sell then on (this has happened and the court stopped it being released). It can't and won't ever happen, and rightly so!! If you want to grant a licence then do it. Otherwise it should be yours and yours alone. It's hard enough to trace your work being used, but if there is ambiguity as to whether its even protected it would be far to hard to protect what is yours.

Sorry, your last sentence doesn't make sense.

Well, that's the thing, unnecessary criminalisation of perfectly innocent behaviour really. Your example with a blog.

So if I saw your back door open, I could happily walk into your home and make a cup of tea? It's all innocent - I'm on a bit of a walk with the dog, say, and got thirsty. No harm done. Or is that a bit 'off'? Perhaps trespass?

It's no different to seeing a nice lamp on display at the shopping centre and saying "Oh yes, that'd look great in my dining room" and then walking off with it expecting not to pay. Just because a digital image is not a physical entity doesn't mean it has no 'manufacturing' value.

If it's not a problem to use someone else's work, then why don't you pick up a camera and recreate the image yourself? - No copyright issues there at all. But people don't do that because they don't have the time, equipment, skill or inclination. And that's why photographers want to be paid (or at least asked), because they do have all those things that anyone who steals an image doesn't value in the slightest.

Part of my job is photography at a University and I constantly have students asking if they can have a copy of photographs I take at events/shows and shoots. I've never once in the past 8 years refused to give a high-res image or two to them. However it still makes me grind my teeth when I see my work taken from (my own) Facebook page, cropped to remove the watermark, and then re-published by a student on flyers/posters/Facebook montages etc. etc. I'm 100% sure it's innocent, but they know who took the photo and how to find me, they just don't bother. If my entire job and livelihood was taking photographs I'd very much clamp down on unauthorised use of my images.

If it's not a problem to use someone else's work, then why don't you pick up a camera and recreate the image yourself? - No copyright issues there at all.

Not strictly true.

Earlier this year a photographer (working for Pepsi) was taken to court for recreating a Bob Carlos Clarke picture (of lips) and presenting it as his own.

Another photographer was pulled up for presenting a picture of a red London double decker in front of the houses of parliament (with everything except bus reduced to B&W) which was exactly the same concept as one previously used in an advertising campaign a few years earlier. (link to pictures is the first one in the article).

In both cases, the pictures were slightly different to the original, but near enough for it to have been deemed to have been an infringement of the copyright of original works.

Ok, make that; create a similar 'inspired' or 'referenced' image for your own blog/use

Though, even that sort of thing is dubious I guess ( http://landscapephotographymagazine.com/2012/take-a-view-lpoty-2012-controversy-again/ )

Edited 20 November, 201213 yr by Mort

Lolz, Mort, you are getting the wrong end of a stick here and completely missing the point. You are writing about one thing and I am writing about something completely else.

Take the book example. This has not been published, is kept under wraps in the publishing house and if anybody publishes anything out from it without permission (teasers are a common practice but this is done by the publishers themselves) it is plain and simple theft. Of course ALL the original work should be protected. When you release said book it has copyright marks and per se is copyright protected but notice the status change here. Before it was a project not meant to be published (same goes for music, films, artwork, industrial designs, anything) until it was ready to be presented to the general public for consumption under copyright license. If somebody takes excerpts from that book, change a sentence or two and claim it is their own original work it is theft, plain and simple, and that is how it should be. Same goes for using clips from songs, bits (or whole) of artwork etc in your advertising campaigns, on your commercial websites etc. But now it is out there in the open under very specific license.

Same situation applies in IT world in shareware and freeware software. It is out there, you may use it but within certain boundaries clearly stated in T's&C's.

What I am trying to say here is that there is a huge change of status of any original work at the point it of being published. Authors retain their copyrights, unless they state it is a "freeware" for anybody to whatever they want with it as long as they state the source and author for example, but necessarily, depending on the author's wishes. All a matter of the specific license. If you do not want anybody to use your work do not publish it and if somebody takes it is a simple theft. You said it is fine if you like the use your published image was adopted for but would come down like a tone of bricks with all might of copyright law if you didn't like it. I think this is rather obvious such approach is deeply flawed - can't have the cake and eat it! The only thing it does is it creates a great market for intellectual property legal services firms there to argue the toss one way or another. Simply put a license to make money for artificially creating offences due to flawed law which desperately needs to be amended!

Hence me saying, if you release your original material out there into the big bad world of thieving scumbags clearly mark it as copyrighted with all the necessary info on how to obtain a license and then there is no problem. If anybody uses it without your express and per case permission they are stealing. On the other hand if you just want to float it into the open to achieve the maximum proliferation do not come down with copyright police if you happen not to like the use your pictures were put to. This is the deemed fair use policy I am talking about. That's the change I am advocating. You still will have all the protection you want, just state what LEVEL of protection you wish for your publicly released original work. This would save huge amount of grief for everyone involved. The only thing I consider to stay ironclad irrevocable would be the authorship of works. So when you release your original work with fair use open policy and somebody changes such work and re-publishes it'd have to contain you details as the "original" author.

I think it is really simple and would work a treat.

I will tell you why it will never be introduced. Legal services industry will never, in million years allow, too lucrative a business. there is no arguing when somebody steals original material, it is as plain as shoplifting a lamp! The arguments are when we get into that shady are of licensing.

What KBPhoto wrote as an example is the only REAL are where copyright legal specialists should be employed and decide the level of "similarity" when artwork is "recreated".

What you are doing Mort is a bit of a disservice to your students. If your students remove copyright markings and are using your original material omitting your "authorship" the are simply stealing! You would do future generations a great service if you went and educated them in that matter. Not necessarily taking them to court straight away . Just tell them, provided you agree, how to use copyrighted material. How to apply and use the license etc. I am sure they will be very grateful to you as even you don't seem to have the grasp of this legislation (not saying I am an expert) even though you are dealing with original material day-in day-out..

You are right, taking something just because it is there is stealing unless is there for the taking and this is where the difference lays. You lay out your wares outside your house and then hide in the bushes with dozen of CCTV cameras pointing... you see what I mean?

There is a huge industry thriving on those ambiguities, openness to interpretation, degrees of plagiarism, the level of fair usage - just trace the money and you will see what is going on.

I hope I explained what I mean a bit better...

I hope I explained what I mean a bit better...

Not really? You seem to be saying if I put my images on the internet without a big copyright sign on it then people should be allowed to take my image and do what they want with it.

I'm quite happy with my knowledge of IP legislation thank you. I create an image - it's my image. I can show as many people as I want and should expect them not to steal that image to use for themselves without consulting me first (even if it is an attempt to publicise my work on my behalf).

Your argument seems to be based on the fact that anything on the internet that isn't marked as copyrighted should be free-to-all. I don't see how that's any 'easier' than assuming everything on the internet is owned by it's author and shouldn't be taken, modified or otherwise used unless you get permission for that use first?

If you want to limit/prohibit the use but still publish on the internet or elsewhere then yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You will be very clearly saying what are the terms of your license when you publish this. If the only thing you want is for other people to look at your pictures than say so. At the moment the max protection is assumed and according to the Intellectual Property Law nobody can do anything unless expressly allowed to by the copyright holder.

I do not think this is a good solution, that is all. When published and if not stated otherwise a specific fair use license should be automatically granted.

It is easier as it limits the scope for very expensive spurious and disproportionate legal action to be taken, which currently is the state of affairs. Proving liquidated damages may be sometimes difficult by proving moral distress, defamation, potential loss of profit - solicitors flock to that in droves pumping up the legal costs.

Read here:

http://www.number10....onSense_acc.pdf

And I think I rest my case below. Note I was completely unaware of this piece when I started writing here!

http://www.ipo.gov.u...-ia-bis1056.pdf

Edited 20 November, 201213 yr by Jabozuma

At the moment the max protection is assumed and according to the Intellectual Property Law nobody can do anything unless expressly allowed to by the copyright holder.

I do not think this is a good solution, that is all.

And that's where we disagree, no foul.

If I create an original artwork (painting, photo website etc.) I want the default status of that work to be All Rights Reserved. If I put it on a website or anywhere else I want people to assume that they can't use it in any way.

IF, however, I don't care about its use, or want to let people do something with it. I'll drop a CC BY-ND, CC BY-NC-SA, CC BY-SA, CC BY-NC or even CC BY on it to show that I'm licensing some rights with the photo. If there's no licensing terms visible I want people to assume they have none. Otherwise I have to be in court a lot explaining that someone didn't see the copyright on my website stating all images are protected or I have to plaster my art with legal disclaimers and make it look awful.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I disagree completely. If confusion occurs I'd rather onus drop on the side that means 'don't use my image' rather than 'go ahead and use it' and then have to waste money and time chasing up the infringement when I find it. In my eyes it's people who think that because an image comes up on Google that they are entitled to take a copy and use it rather than photographers et al being lawsuit happy.

Looks like we agree to disagree. Thing is that legal experts (the ones who do not see the world through their fee scales) agree with me as in those reports/studies I linked to. Wouldn't you rather publish your original work, few good examples with your advertising info and open CR license to promote yourself? And keep the rest on your website only heavily protected with warnings plastered instead of spending your creative time in courts arguing the toss and feeding intellectual property lawyers?

I think we do agree that if original material is published and somebody wants to steal it they will and there is no stopping them really... everything can be removed from images, it takes huge amount of time and knowledge but all, even the best hidden watermarks can be removed. But you are still protected because you have your originals and nobody can disprove they are not yours!

The argument is about publicly releasing original work and copyrights management. I strongly believe that it is better to adapt the law so it doesn't blanketly criminalise the whole thing. That government advisory/study seems to agree...

Wouldn't you rather publish your original work, few good examples with your advertising info and open CR license to promote yourself? And keep the rest on your website only heavily protected with warnings plastered instead of spending your creative time in courts arguing the toss and feeding intellectual property lawyers?

I do. That's my point. If I want to promote images that I'm not so protective over, I slap a CC license on them and usher them off into the big wide world to fly free as a bird.

If I have a personal interest in an image I will add no CC license onto it (or CC BY-NC-ND if I'm in a really good mood) and have it on my own site/flickr etc. Hopefully in the knowledge that because I have not explicitly granted any license for it that it is fully covered by law to not be used by anyone else.

I need to release my work in order to gain clients. And clients want to see my work, not a collection of '©2012 Blah Blah. All Rights Reserved' text with an image underneath it. So the current criminalisation of people who take my work and use it without my permission just because it's not crippled with watermarks is, in my opinion, valid. If they didn't use my intellectual property without asking then I wouldn't have to pursue them in court for damages or loss of income. <- And that's the reason why I believe you're wrong.

As to whether you are actually wrong; that's not my decision to make

I see your point.

But I do not agree with it. And I think plenty of other people, including UK Government are of the same opinion

Not strictly true.

Earlier this year a photographer (working for Pepsi) was taken to court for recreating a Bob Carlos Clarke picture (of lips) and presenting it as his own.

Another photographer was pulled up for presenting a picture of a red London double decker in front of the houses of parliament (with everything except bus reduced to B&W) which was exactly the same concept as one previously used in an advertising campaign a few years earlier. (link to pictures is the first one in the article).

In both cases, the pictures were slightly different to the original, but near enough for it to have been deemed to have been an infringement of the copyright of original works.

Not quite true either, as higlighted by the 'shock decision' headline and the fact the judge said he had difficulty in coming to that decision. You are, generally speaking, allowed to take a photo of whatever you want. In some cases of a copyrighted work, without it infringing (such as a painting) depending how it's done. I think these are quite exceptional cases and shouldn't be taken as 'you can't take a similar photo as someone else without infringing their work'. There wa a case where some props had been set up to take a photo for a music album cover. They were annoyed that someone had taken photos of it and claimed copyright infringement. But no, there is no sopyright inherent in setting out a few props to take a photo of. anyone can take photos of it. There may be some privcay issues if it's on private land, but NOT IP.

I'm not even going to quote anything of your Jobozuma because it's so filled with flaws that I'd just fill up my whole post with what is effectively your selfish drivel.

If I want to be able to share my photography work, then I should be able to. Part of the joy of photography for me is being able to view other peoples work and be inspired, and share my own for comments and for people to enjoy. I took up photography as a hobby, I've done it for years. I've put photos on the internet so that they aren't wasted hidden away on my hard drive. If several years down the line I want to be able to sell that photo, you're saying that I can't because I've given away rights to anyone to sell it - NO.

I go out for a day to take photographs. I take my EXPENSIVE equipment, I use MY skill, MY knowledge which its taken my years to learn, I use MY time to do it. No one should then be able to just pick it up and use it because I don't cover it in C's. And if I did, and someone removed them, then put it on the internet, and someone else found it, liked it and sold it - how do I have any comeback? They say they found an un-watermarked image so thought they had free rein on it? Utterly ridiculous, far too coplex and the people who put the work in would end up suffering. It will never happen because it's completely ridiculous, even harder to police than how it is now and you'd basically find it hard to keep rights over your own work.

What if a musician is playing a song? Does he stick a big C on his head so that all the people in the crowd know it's protected?

Also, stop harping on about people taking peolpe to court or 'coming down like a ton of bricks' . This has already been explained to you several times. The first step is to issue a cease and dissist. I find a photo of mine used by someone else on their flyer. I contact them, point out it's my image and that I don't want them to be using it. They'd then have to stop using it, or pay me a fee to buy it and continue using it. It wouldn't even be heard in court unless they either refused, or had done something really bad causing me loss, or had been actively selling the image making profit from it. Which ANYONE would be able to work out is wrong.

Of course it's hard to Police, it always will be, especially with the internet. People have to be more vigilant and will still miss infringements. But your idea has more holes than a sieve.

You are mistaking shadows on a cave wall for a real world Lolz :(

Haven';t you read anything in here at all http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-ia-bis1056.pdf

If you consider all that to be bull$hite that I'd seriously consider asking for you money back on that Intellectual Property Course or whatever it was you did.

the law as it is stifles everything and leads to masses of unnecessary litigation, it just doesn't work as should this day and age. People much smarter that you and me not only arrived at this conclusion but also did economic modelling review to show the monetary effects.

I not advocating liquidation of Intellectual Property Laws but changing the way they operate as it is out of date and was left behind in the previous Century.

Just because you like your old cosy ways doesn't mean that it will stop the progress.

the worst thing is that you are contradicting yourself within a space of few sentences really

Problem

And if I did, and someone removed them, then put it on the internet, and someone else found it, liked it and sold it - how do I have any comeback?

Solution

I find a photo of mine used by someone else on their flyer. I contact them, point out it's my image and that I don't want them to be using it. They'd then have to stop using it, or pay me a fee to buy it and continue using it. It wouldn't even be heard in court unless they either refused, or had done something really bad causing me loss, or had been actively selling the image making profit from it. Which ANYONE would be able to work out is wrong.

Please read that document I linked to if you are unable to follow the simplest logic and I am clearly not able to get through to you :(.

You are also wrong in that example about taking a similar photo. It is not a photo that is the subject of copyright but the original art. Doesn't matter if you recreate the same photo by setting up props, doing a photorealistic 3D rendering (no props) or simply copy and enhance a photo from a website. You are still breaching copyrights as they are currently if you did not have a specific permission do do so. If what you are saying was true reverse engineering would be running rampart! Utter nonsense!

I thought about changes in IP Law based on my experiences etc, then read and searched about it some more following posting here and it turned out that I am not the only one with such ideas. It is a problem and should be recognised. AGAIN, nobody here talks about stripping anybody from their right to their creative work. It is about application.

If what you are saying was true reverse engineering would be running rampart! Utter nonsense!

Reverse engineering is 100% legal? I'm confused? Please explain this for me.

Jab, you are talking out of your ar5e. Oh and it was a law degree, not an IP course. I assume you've not studied it at all? So chances are I know a lot more about it than you.

You seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between THE LAW and your proposed version of the law.

My FIRST comment highlights the problem with YOUR idea - that I would find it almost impossible to prove I held any IP rights over that image. the SECOND somment hghlights how right now, with the current law I CAN excercise my IP rights, because they are automatic!! If I tried the cease and dissist under YOUR idea, I'd probably get nowhere and someone else could steal my work because I can't prove that I once put a watermark on it when I released it. Do you understand now? you seem to be hard work.

Wrong again - copyright protects the Expression, not the contents. If you go and take a photo of lochness, does that mean I cant go and do the same? Of course not! Thats my version of it, I expressed it in my own way - I chose shutter speeds, lighting, positions. Please at least get a grasp of what you are talking about before trying to sound clever.

I'm not going to read your link. Do you know why? Because I did a law degree and I know for a fact that in EVERY area of the law, be it criminal, IP, company law, family law or anything else there are pages and pages of reports from different people about proposed law reform. PROPOSED law reform. Ideas that one person, or maybe a small group of people thinks is a good idea, but in fact probably wouldn't work, or is less effective than the current law and so never happens. I know, I've read it all and it was all very boring and pointless. the law is the law, and generally it is that way for a reason. Your idea wouldn't work, it would just cause problems and would cause more damage to the authors than the current, poorly policed law.

Edited 20 November, 201213 yr by Loz

Reverse engineering is 100% legal? I'm confused? Please explain this for me.

That is the point, according to Lolz it would . You are not copying a jpeg file but recreating the image and shooting it with your kit and your skills and your props so you are creating your own original work, which just happens to be identical to that other photo - WRONG. It is not the jpeg that is protected but the IDEA, DESIGN, ORIGINAL THINKING etc. And this is how it should stay. The problem is how it operates. It's only 11 pages, please read

Of course it is not. Look on this forum in VCDS Diagnostics section where Ross-Tech's been fighting a futile battle with some copycats who are selling illegally their ODB-II cables with modified software emulating hardware key embedded in those cables. Ross-Tech's price is around £200 and they are selling for £76. Ross-Tech is unable to get, even fleebay is uncooperative ... They simply reverse engineered hardware in that cable and made software emulating it. So they didn't copy anything really, created a brand new piece of software, not copied the hardware without license. They created the software doing hardware's job and this is still tech copyright breach.

Oh and pelase stop saying 'lolz' how old are you, 12?

EDIT: I've just realised are you trying to say my NAME? **** me, you can't even read and correctly spell a 3 letter nickname?!?!? jesus f'ing christ! I'm wasting my time here aren't I!!!!!!!

Edited 20 November, 201213 yr by Loz

Jab, you are talking out of your ar5e. Oh and it was a law degree, not an IP course. I assume you've not studied it at all? So chances are I know a lot more about it than you.

You seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between THE LAW and your proposed version of the law.

My FIRST comment highlights the problem with YOUR idea - that I would find it almost impossible to prove I held any IP rights over that image. the SECOND somment hghlights how right now, with the current law I CAN excercise my IP rights, because they are automatic!! If I tried the cease and dissist under YOUR idea, I'd probably get nowhere and someone else could steal my work because I can't prove that I once put a watermark on it when I released it. Do you understand now? you seem to be hard work.

you can prove in exactly the same way as you can prove now that it was you original work - no difference.

Wrong again - copyright protects the Expression, not the contents. If you go and take a photo of lochness, does that mean I cant go and do the same? Of course not! Thats my version of it, I expressed it in my own way - I chose shutter speeds, lighting, positions. Please at least get a grasp of what you are talking about before trying to sound clever.

I'm not going to read your link. Do you know why? Because I did a law degree and I know for a fact that in EVERY area of the law, be it criminal, IP, company law, family law or anything else there are pages and pages of reports from different people about proposed law reform. PROPOSED law reform. Ideas that one person, or maybe a small group of people thinks is a good idea, but in fact probably wouldn't work, or is less effective than the current law and so never happens. I know, I've read it all and it was all very boring and pointless. the law is the law, and generally it is that way for a reason. Your idea wouldn't work, it would just cause problems and would cause more damage to the authors than the current, poorly policed law.

I will print your post, frame it and hang on the wall to show to everybody as the best example of UNIMAGINABLE ARROGANCE of people who wasted few years doing a "Law Degree". Sure, don't read anything at all, you know the best! World doesn't change. You have that diploma to prove it right?

Oh and pelase stop saying 'lolz' how old are you, 12?

EDIT: I've just realised are you trying to say my NAME? **** me, you can't even read and corertnly spell a 3 letter nickname?!?!? jesus f'ing christ! I'm wasting my time here aren't I!!!!!!!

Sorry, I am dyslexic and consider your comment to be discriminatory. As somebody with Law Degree you should know what it means . As far as spelling try re-reading your posts, incorrectly spelled word in almost every sentence... including the one above, despite being edited

I am at work - I don't want to read your article right now, nor do I have to. I'm pointing out that law refom text is everywhere on every matter. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, and you don't like the fact that I've pointed out the problems in what you are saying.

How? How can I prove it's mine if they claim there was no watermark? In your wolrd that means free rights. Make your mind up!

Dyslexic? Like the other 99% of people that can't spell. Whatever! My name is on EVERY POST! You don't have to remember how to spell it, it's in front of you, you even used the quote function. I find it offensive that you didn't check it was correct.

I spelt ONE word wrong, thats beacuse I am rushing as I'm at work. Every word spelt wrong? Hahahaha! jesus christ you're funny.

I did actually notice and go back to edit it, because I can actually spell

you can prove in exactly the same way as you can prove now that it was you original work - no difference.

I will print your post, frame it and hang on the wall to show to everybody as the best example of UNIMAGINABLE ARROGANCE of people who wasted few years doing a "Law Degree". Sure, don't read anything at all, you know the best! World doesn't change. You have that diploma to prove it right?

I don't "know best" I know what I was taught, what I spent a year researching and reading up on. Just because your idea isn't a good one, why go round insulting people who actually do know the law and are pointing out the fundamental flaws in your argument? Just admit it won't happen and move on.

As for arrogance - you were the arrogant one back at the beginning asking me 'if I was sure' about what I'd said, as though your assumption had more founding than my actual knowledge. I only get involved in discussion when I actually have knowledge to base it on.

Edited 20 November, 201213 yr by Loz

Also, how can I discriminate against someone when I don't know about the 'condition' against which I am supposedly discriminating against? You are on a losing streak here.

Of course I am, it is you who Have that diploma after all.

And people like prof. Ian Hargreaves have no authority with you.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm

Honestly, you need to keep with the developments in your own profession, will save making a fool of yourself .

I was just mocking the system and I do apologise for misspelling your handle, was not intentional. Autocorrect on iPhone doesn't help either