# Copyright Protections In The Uk - Changes



## wotsch (Jan 5, 2011)

Dear Forum Friends!

I'm pretty sure that this may be a controversial topic, but I would like to stimulate some debate on the forum.

A recent legislation change in the UK brings in some significant changes to the way in which copyright is dealt with - in particular regarding how copyrighted works can be commercially exploited. The best overview I have found so far is an FAQ published recently by TheRegister. I would highly recommend anyone to read it (click here) especially before entering in to a discussion in this thread.

Although I haven't fully understood the implications yet, the legislation change does disturb me somewhat.

I believe, for photos as well as for any other creative works including music, writings and film, that copyright should be respected. This means that the creator of a work should be able to determine how that work is used and anyone who uses a work should properly state the source of the work. In my opinion, plagiarism and the disrespect of source and copyright is at best laziness and at worst fraudulent. This applies to 'private' usage - for example when posting photos to a forum like this - but particularly to commercial usage where a work is used for promotion, advertising or otherwise for the benefit of a profit-making business. In my opinion, if someone wants to profit from a work, then the creator of the work (whoever that is - professional or hobbyist) should be recognized and compensated if they so wish (that should be the choice of the work's creator).

Things start to look complicated on the internet, where it is so easy to copy, upload and link to other people's work. However, just because it is easy to be lazy or even fraudulent, does not mean that it is right to do so. As easy as it is to copy, upload and link on the interwebs, so the internet makes it just as easy to contact the creator of a work in case it is to be copied and used in another context or to properly state the source in case the work is simply linked to or cited.

As I understand the change in UK law (see the FAQ linked above), it will in many cases no longer be necessary for the commercial exploitation of copyrighted works to request permission from and to compensate the creator of a work. Depending on the strength of one's opinions on this, this could be no issue at all, it could be the legitimation of rudeness and disrespect or it could even be the legitimation of all-out theft. With my current understanding, I tend towards the stronger end of the scale.

Should the change in law come into effect, I am seriously considering removing all of my photos (which I currently publish on flickr - under "All Rights Reserved" copyright) from public internet access until a mechanism is in place to actively enforce my copyright. This would be a great shame for two reasons. Firstly, I enjoy (and invest increasing amounts of time) taking photographs of my watches, sharing them with you on the forum and receiving your feedback - this would no longer be possible. Secondly, I would find it extremely damaging to the forum that even more threads are filled with "photo not found" or "this photo was removed" blank spaces that happen when photos stored on photobucket, flickr and the like are linked from the forum and then removed. However, I don't see any other way of maintaining my rights as creator of my own photographs. Anyone is welcome to look at, link to (with proper identification of the source) and comment on my photos. No one is welcome to use my photos without recognizing me as creator or to profit from them without asking my permission and compensating me where appropriate. I'm no professional photographer, but I still see my rights as important and do not want to see them stripped.

What do you think?

I look forward to your comments and an interesting debate.

-wotsch


----------



## harryblakes7 (Oct 1, 2010)

Interesting, i think there is a difference from the "average Joe" of taking a picture to a "professional photographer" taking a picture, i think it used to be the case of the photograph content itself copyrighted, for example professional pictures of Lady Diana etc, but this seems a new field having pictures themselves being copyrighted when the subject itself can be of an ordinary watch movement etc...........

I'm sure there are just quango's who sit in room's trying to think of new laws............. this must be an EU law............. bring back bent cucumbers, that's what i say!! Another bone of contention is that big lorries are allowed to do 60 mph in the UK but under EU law they have to be limited to 90 km/h, just on 56mph, coaches too limited to 100 km/h or 62mph under EU law but they are legally allowed to do 70 mph in the UK......................

Sorry for going off topic, but under EU law am not allowed to comment further.........


----------



## wotsch (Jan 5, 2011)

Hmmm, I believe in this case it's the UK going it alone in opposition to (according to the articles I've read, at least) international conventions and EU law. I find it difficult to pin this one on the EU. But *let's keep the discussion on topic* as it would be a shame to kill the thread when it's just got started with a debate about the EU (which for sure belongs in the "Politics, Society and World Affairs" area, not here).

Regarding the average Joe argument - an analogy to that would be that it's fine to take a car without permission and use it for the day if it belongs to a private person but not if it currently belongs to a car dealer. IMO, private persons should be equally protected against exploitation (especially commercially-motivated exploitation) as professionals and this applies here as well.

-wotsch


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

Worms - - Tinopener - - - MINEFIELD :bangin:


----------



## Phillionaire (Jan 23, 2010)

The way I see it, you put something on the Internet, it's fair game. You can't expect to post your credit card details onto google and not expect people to have a crack at it can you?

Just cane the $hit out of your images with watermarks, like everyone else does


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

Assume you take a piccie of the Eiffel Tower?

How many other people in the world have taken that same picture from the exact same spot, with the same lighting conditions, same exposure (especially on auto), same everything? Any differences will be infinitesimal and probably indistinguishable?

We are in debate now in the dance world regarding descriptive scripting for dances - - since we all use the same basic textbooks and descriptive terminology, thus it follows we will all produce almost exactly the same description of any dance we observe. This is logical, however some claims are being made as to copyright of written descriptions of dance moves? *BONKERS* :yes:

It's like me writing down how YOU walk from observing you, and then claiming a copyright on that description forbidding you to walk in that manner without paying me a fee for use of my copyright material.


----------



## wotsch (Jan 5, 2011)

Phillionaire said:


> The way I see it, you put something on the Internet, it's fair game. You can't expect to post your credit card details onto google and not expect people to have a crack at it can you?
> 
> Just cane the $hit out of your images with watermarks, like everyone else does


The problem I have with this argument is it's the same as saying: Well, you can't go parking your car on the public street and not expect someone to knick it for a joy ride. Except you can expect that because there is a law against doing so. And there is a copyright law against someone ripping off creative works.



mel said:


> Assume you take a piccie of the Eiffel Tower?
> 
> How many other people in the world have taken that same picture from the exact same spot, with the same lighting conditions, same exposure (especially on auto), same everything? Any differences will be infinitesimal and probably indistinguishable?
> 
> ...


Isn't it more like you writing down how I walk and then expecting someone not to just rip off your text and present it as their own without crediting you for your fine writing skills? The way I walk isn't copyrighted, but your (presumably masterful) description of it is.

Similarly, it's not the Eiffel tower itself that is copyrighted, but the photo of it. The point with an Eiffel tower photo is that there are so many of them that no-one would need to rip one off for commercial gain as there are already plenty about.

As I said above, anyone is welcome to use my photos for private purposes *provided they link to the original and give me credit for having taken them*. But why should it be all right for someone to rip them off, present them as their own and even profiting from them (now I'm pushing the limits of expectations of my own photos worth, I admit) without compensating me for having done the work to create them?

-wotsch


----------

