For Sale: I'm a Terrorist not a Photographer

For who ?
.

Nazi's

This act gives the power to the user of the image, the owner of the work is responsible for the providing the proof.
With the rise in public-journalism this would provide a bigger library of images for news/marketing.
The videos and footage used in the Guardians campaign against the police violence at the G7 gave the story impact and weight.

Surely allowing free and easier use of this pictures would increase the demand and therefore get the newpapers on the side of the everyday street snaper?

The publications parliment log included this line -

In addressing the orphan works problem, there are some honestly held differences of opinion between the licensing approach in new Clause 116A and the exceptions route represented by Amendment 255B and new Clause 30A. It is clear from contact that I have had with interested parties to the Bill that the licensing route is the option favoured by the majority, but by no means all, of stakeholders. I am well aware that all sides of your Lordships' House wish this Bill to pass into law in this Parliament, which is the basic reason why I shall not press my amendment at this stage. I am also cautiously reassured by the intentions expressed in the Government's recent briefing paper that there will be wide consultation in connection with the framing of the regulations and the code of practice that will derive from them.

Right now its in the house of lords. it could well not matter who you vote for Mr Smith

I will be a witness for the state.

To be honest i'd rather you stay away...

Nazi's

Good move, come to one of our meetings you will be warmly welcomed.

P.S. You're not a fucking Jew are you ?

To be honest i'd rather you stay away...

We will find you.

Surely allowing free and easier use of this pictures would increase the demand and therefore get the newpapers on the side of the everyday street snaper?

The publications parliment log included this line -

Right now its in the house of lords. it could well not matter who you vote for Mr Smith

so an increased demand for free content then? you really think that is a good idea?
and free reign to 'borrow' any content as long as you made a half hearted search for the author but if the work is already 'orphaned' by a third party (like posting on blogs/forums) you will not find the owner which is very convenient if you want free content.

the bill stinks.

Surely allowing free and easier use of [these] pictures would increase the demand and therefore get the newpapers on the side of the everyday street [snapper]?

Not sure what this means ?

Not sure what 'on the side of the everyday street snapper means' ?

How are the papers 'on the side' of anyone ?

And what about councils and Microsoft and McDonald's and Canadian Airlines and Wallmart and Café Nero and Starbucks and Ogilvy and the BNP and the Conservative Party and General Motors and EMI records and Apple and Unilever and Barclays and so on ?

Would open access (through third parties) and fee free usage get them on the side of the everyday street snapper ?

I am not sure I have understood your point (honestly not sarcastically) ?

How many sentences can you end with a question mark in a single post ?

Like, 55 ?

Vote Zanu PF.

i borrowed this from simon crofts photoblog. I hope he doesn't mind.
http://simoncroftsphoto.com/blog/
it gives a breakdown of what this bill means

The Government’s idea is to take control of licensing and pricing of orphan works away from copyright holders and give it instead to one or more central licensing bodies. The proposal is awful news for image creators because:-

• **It doesn’t just affect orphan works. **Although in theory the provisions only apply to ‘orphan works’, with new methods of distributing images digitally both on the web and from computer to computer, orphan works are a huge and increasing pool of imagery. They are influential enough to seriously affect the price of imagery for the whole market. Because market pricing will inevitably move towards the lowest common denominator set by the central licensing body, this will undermine the determination of prices for imagery as a whole.

• It will reward theft and dishonesty. Very many of the orphan works are created by theft of imagery, with the deliberate stripping out of information about the copyright holder. The new system seems to be aimed at encouraging and rewarding such illegal behaviour.

• Copyright will no longer be copyright. The proposal strikes at the heart of that cornerstone of creativity – the right of the content creator to control and license the making of copies of their ‘babies’. There is a good reason why it is called copyright!

• Nobody knows what this bit of the Bill really means. Given the importance of all this for creatives, the new provisions are extraordinarily vague – it tries to sweep the issue under the carpet by allowing the Secretary of State to adopt more or less whatever provisions he wants on the matter, without any supervision from Parliament.

• It will undermine the freedom of the internet. The Bill will stifle creators’ ability to place images online without disruptive watermarking or to deliver images in digital form to clients, achieving exactly the opposite of the intended effect of promoting the digital economy. Once digital copies are out there, the image creator will lose control of their images and the right to sell them at a price determined by the open market. Our reaction will be to make sure that images don’t get ‘out there’.

• They will give away images with no account of their actual value. Some images are much more valuable than others. Some images have a reproduction value for certain uses of perhaps £1, other images may be licensed for the same uses for hundreds or even thousands of pounds due to their quality, their rarity, their creativity, their exclusivity, or the extent of effort and cost that has gone into producing the image. A centrally determined price will be totally unable to take proper account of these subjective market influences.

• **No right of moral objection to the use of your property. **A copyright holder might not even want to license his image out at all – for example, if it to be used to promote a racist organisation such as the BNP. We will lose the ultimate right to say ‘no’ to the use of our images in ways we find morally objectionable.

• Last nail in the coffin for content creators. The position of image creators has already been seriously undermined by the development of a free culture in the digital economy, widespread image theft, widespread availability of images online for free or nominal payment (eg. ‘creative commons’ images on Flickr), and the difficulties faced by the client bases such as media organisations trying and failing to make money from the online content, which has led to the near-disappearance of the market for editorial imagery. All this ultimately has an effect on the quality of content provided to the British media. In the end, good quality content needs to be paid for, not stolen.

The Bill should be aiming to promote a balanced digital economy, not a system of legalised digital theft. Not surprisingly, the Bill is causing a storm of objection among photographers and other visual content creators.
** Orphan works are images where the person wanting to use an image doesn’t know, or pretends not to know, who the image creator was.*

Which makes me think, why would anyone want to be a police officer... begs the question really

Which makes me think, why would anyone want to be a police officer... begs the question really

Human nature dictates a desire for authority.

**No right of moral objection to the use of your property. **A copyright holder might not even want to license his image out at all – for example, if it to be used to promote a racist organisation such as the BNP. We will lose the ultimate right to say ‘no’ to the use of our images in ways we find morally objectionable.

Not ignoring all the other points, I attempted to touch on this in my post above, you see your photo of your little kid used in a BNP promotional item - and your redress is to share a few quid with the government and various agencies - rather than, as it stands now, the ability to reject usage - or impose punitive claims.

what people don't realise is it's so easy to create an 'orphan work'.
grab image, strip metadata.
"i found it on the internet..somewhere"
no comeback or rights for the creator. no moral rights at all.
perhaps a few quid from a government backed licensing agency*

• who pays for that agency? what happens to unclaimed funds?
  mandlson you twisted faced cunt.
  

Human nature dictates a desire for authority.

and get paid for it, still remains one of the most unappealing career prospects for me at least.

I'd feel like a proper bellend telling people to stop taking pictures, due to "terrorism". then calling up higher ranks like big daddies in the sky for authoritative instruction.
It's so absurd.

The more i think of it, the more horrible it becomes.

what people don't realise is it's so easy to create an 'orphan work'.
grab image, strip metadata.
"i found it on the internet..somewhere"
no comeback or rights for the creator. no moral rights at all.
perhaps a few quid from a government backed licensing agency*

• who pays for that agency? what happens to unclaimed funds?
  mandlson you twisted faced cunt.
  
  
  

Shut up you communist bastard.

£10

that's a lot of money in a communist state.

£10?
surely a photograph of me in my Willsbourough infants school uniform is worth more than that?

It's actually amazing, stunning even.

The state has managed to strong-arm itself into the creative revenue stream (as officious as that sounds - can't think of a better phrase).

far too technical for me that Tynan, but is it true, in the aftermath of the 2nd World War the UK was an ad-hoc communist state where the bread and butter of the nation was earned through government owned businesses ? I'm sure i heard some historian mention it....

I'd feel like a proper bellend telling people to stop taking pictures, due to "terrorism".

Never forget the 9/11 photographers flew into the twin towers on hijacked Hassleblads.

when you see the tangled web of the media giants and the government it doesn't look good.
personally with the kind of work i do it isn't going to affect me as much as others but it's a civil liberty that's being taken away from us. and by us i don't mean just photographers but anyone who creates anything.
I also wonder how this legislation crosses over into intellectual property of any form?

less than 0.0000000001% of the population affecting 99.99999999% of the population.

Nice odds huh ?

far too technical for me that Tynan, but is it true, in the aftermath of the 2nd World War the UK was an ad-hoc communist state where the bread and butter of the nation was earned through government owned businesses ?

No, not at all, post war our (unwritten) constitution was based on centuries of hard won liberties, nothing particularly ad hoc.

It's actually amazing, stunning even.

The state has managed to strong-arm itself into the creative revenue stream (as officious as that sounds - can't think of a better phrase).

but that revenue stream will be stifled by all the free content until nothing is produced except that created by willing unpaid subjects for use by the murdochs of the world and governments.

"There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always-do not forget this Winston-always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever.”

I might read about it, cos I'm curious about it. How would you know anyway, i thought you didn't read books. please don't call me a bookist..