I saw laws were introduced this week to allow the ripping of cds onto mp3 players etc.
When this law change was first announced, there was talk of it being bad for photographers for some reason, something to do with how hard the user of the work tried to track down the photographer ??
Anybody heard any more of this aspect of the law?
Quote from: Paul Montgomery on August 05, 2011, 10:21:11 AM
I saw laws were introduced this week to allow the ripping of cds onto mp3 players etc.
When this law change was first announced, there was talk of it being bad for photographers for some reason, something to do with how hard the user of the work tried to track down the photographer ??
Anybody heard any more of this aspect of the law?
Where did you see this Paul? It would be interesting to read up on :tup:
Cheers Andy
Quote from: Paul Montgomery on August 05, 2011, 10:21:11 AM
I saw laws were introduced this week to allow the ripping of cds onto mp3 players etc.
When this law change was first announced, there was talk of it being bad for photographers for some reason, something to do with how hard the user of the work tried to track down the photographer ??
Anybody heard any more of this aspect of the law?
Sorry Paul, I don't understand the connection. Music CD to MP3 player I get, but how has someone extended this to photography? I'm not familiar with the law in Britain, but here in Canada they legalized the CD to MP3 thing by placing an added tax on all blank media that goes into some central fund that is then supposedly redistributed to the record companies and artists.
The change in the law is detailed (briefly) here :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14384815
i think it was originally called something like the digital reform bill and I think the idea was to bring the law into at least the 20th century, if not quite the 21st by thinking a bit about digital media in general and copyright, which is where photography comes in to it ..
"The result was the Hargreaves Review, which said the government should make it legal to move digital files you own from one device or format to another."
I think the emphasis is quite clear; ie. it refers to items a person has paid something for, as when you purchase an album and then put a track on another device. Although it would be interesting to see exact wording of the Law, this would appear to be about audio visual (sound track and video) rather than photographs, remembering that a print is a print and not a device.
I think with photographs, the thinking is that you 'licence' some one to have a copy of your picture for use - such as a print to hang on a wall, use on a web site, insert in publication or use in an advert. The fee for such usage is negotiated by you (or your rep such as an agency) with copyright remaining with you.
I suppose the only way this would affect a photographer is if some one purchased a print off you they would now be able to scan it in and use it as wall paper on their computer or similar... They're just viewing it on different forms of medium/ media... and vice versa.
Maybe I'm getting confused in my old age, but I thought that when this was first announced (though its not mentioned in the link I posted) there was an issue with what they termed 'orphan works' which allowed anyone to use an image they found if they couldn't trace the copyright holder - the worry being that it appeared you didn't have to try too hard to track down the holder of the copyright.
Maybe I imagined that bit as I'm the only one who remembers it...
O.K. A bit more research - it looks like I didn't imagine it, but it never made it to the final bill - panic over :) Item 43 in :
http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-digital-economy-bill-quick-guide-to-all-45-measures/
Quote from: picsfor on August 05, 2011, 07:12:51 PM
I think with photographs, the thinking is that you 'licence' some one to have a copy of your picture for use - such as a print to hang on a wall, use on a web site, insert in publication or use in an advert. The fee for such usage is negotiated by you (or your rep such as an agency) with copyright remaining with you.
I suppose the only way this would affect a photographer is if some one purchased a print off you they would now be able to scan it in and use it as wall paper on their computer or similar... They're just viewing it on different forms of medium/ media... and vice versa.
Scanning a picture onto a device is in effect copying and reproducing from a printed format, and that aspect would be like reproducing a book borrowed from a library! - sort of wrong in my book and perhaps the legal beagles will earn from any grey aspects in Law. I hope the Law defines matters with some clarity.