Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby MULTILINGUAL NIKONIANS English Café (Public) topic #88102
View in linear mode

Subject: "Any one seen this?" Previous topic | Next topic
Scotty Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Feb 2002Mon 29-Apr-13 03:44 PM
4817 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"Any one seen this?"


Ely, Cambridgeshire, GB
          

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

D2Xs + AF20-35mm f2.8 + AF35-70mm f2.8 + AF80-200mm f2.8

or

FE + Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AIS

Hunger pays a heavy price to the shining Gods of speed and steel

Check out my website...
http://alexjpscott.wix.com/photography

LIKE me on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/AlexJPScottPhotography

Follow my blog...

http://alexjpscottphotography.blogspot.co.uk/


Look me up on Flickr...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_jp_scott/


Alex

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
01st May 2013
1
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Scotty Silver Member
01st May 2013
2
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
02nd May 2013
6
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
archivue Gold Member
01st May 2013
3
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
02nd May 2013
7
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
02nd May 2013
8
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
AMusingFool Silver Member
01st May 2013
4
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
02nd May 2013
5
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
02nd May 2013
9
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
02nd May 2013
11
          Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
02nd May 2013
13
               Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
02nd May 2013
14
                    Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
02nd May 2013
15
                         Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
02nd May 2013
16
                              Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
02nd May 2013
17
                                   Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
02nd May 2013
18
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
AMusingFool Silver Member
02nd May 2013
10
          Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
02nd May 2013
12
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Bump57 Silver Member
06th May 2013
19
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
06th May 2013
20
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Bump57 Silver Member
06th May 2013
21
          Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
06th May 2013
22
               Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Bump57 Silver Member
07th May 2013
23
               Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
09th May 2013
27
                    Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
09th May 2013
28
                    Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
archivue Gold Member
09th May 2013
29
                    Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
09th May 2013
32
                         Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
archivue Gold Member
09th May 2013
37
                              Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
09th May 2013
38
                    Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
09th May 2013
30
                         Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
09th May 2013
31
                              Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
09th May 2013
35
                    Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
09th May 2013
33
                         Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
09th May 2013
34
                         Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
09th May 2013
36
                              Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
09th May 2013
39
                                   Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
10th May 2013
40
                                        Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
10th May 2013
41
                                             Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
10th May 2013
42
                                                  Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
10th May 2013
43
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
JonK Moderator
08th May 2013
24
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Bump57 Silver Member
08th May 2013
25
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
JonK Moderator
08th May 2013
26
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Clint S Silver Member
13th May 2013
44
Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
13th May 2013
45
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
13th May 2013
46
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
JonK Moderator
13th May 2013
47
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
13th May 2013
48
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
13th May 2013
50
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
13th May 2013
52
          Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
nrothschild Silver Member
13th May 2013
54
     Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
13th May 2013
49
          Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
13th May 2013
51
          Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
13th May 2013
53
               Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
13th May 2013
55
                    Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Ned_L Moderator
13th May 2013
56
                         Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
agitater Gold Member
13th May 2013
57
          Reply message RE: Any one seen this?
Clint S Silver Member
16th May 2013
58

Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberWed 01-May-13 02:09 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#1. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 0


Philadelphia, US
          

Yes I have, and it's really troubling, and didn't need to be done.

Quite some time ago I stopped posting photographs on Facebook because of their privacy rules, and because they strip metadata as does Twitter. I also removed all the photos I uploaded to Facebook in the past. I won't even link a photo on Facebook. I don't post photos via Twitter either. Flickr apparently doesn't preserve all metadata at all times, only sometimes. (More testing needs to be done on Flickr.)

It's been reported that metadata doesn't show up if you use Kodak or Google Docs under most circumstances too. I haven't tested that myself.

The biggest problem with the law, and the reason the UK should be changing the law back is because it allows self-fulfilling theft to become legal. Example, a photographer uploads a photo. The photo is taken illegally by someone and it gets stripped of the metadata, and the thief might even remove a copyright on the face of the photo, simply by cropping. The photo is reuploaded to the Internet in its new state. Now because the photo has no identifying information due to its theft, anyone can use it legally under the new UK law because it's an orphan.

How is that possibly right? Where's the justice for the photographer?

I know several UK photographers who are moving all their work on the Internet to the US.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Scotty Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Feb 2002Wed 01-May-13 03:32 PM
4817 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#2. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 1


Ely, Cambridgeshire, GB
          

Worried me also as I promote my business on FB - so am now in a quandary as to my next course of action...

How would I move my work on the Internet to the US?

D2Xs + AF20-35mm f2.8 + AF35-70mm f2.8 + AF80-200mm f2.8

or

FE + Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AIS

Hunger pays a heavy price to the shining Gods of speed and steel

Check out my website...
http://alexjpscott.wix.com/photography

LIKE me on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/AlexJPScottPhotography

Follow my blog...

http://alexjpscottphotography.blogspot.co.uk/


Look me up on Flickr...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_jp_scott/


Alex

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 02-May-13 01:13 AM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#6. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 2


Philadelphia, US
          

Your host company would have to be a US company.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
archivue Gold Member Nikonian since 26th Mar 2002Wed 01-May-13 05:02 PM
5464 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#3. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 1
Wed 01-May-13 05:06 PM by archivue

Paris, FR
          

Er... Flickr doesn't strip the metadatas, the © are included, but when importing you must specify you want to keep the EXIFs (some groups or contests in groups ask for them). Up to now, Flickr has been quite good and quick at answering complaints...

While we're at it, the Tallenge site has this legalize... (I've been asked to join so I went and had a look around , I didn't join !!! )

(...)"By submitting your Entry, you irrevocably grant Tallenge, its successors, subsidiaries, parent and related companies, transferees, licensees, assignees, and third parties acting on Tallenge's behalf, a perpetual, non-exclusive worldwide, royalty-free right and license to use, exhibit, license, sub-license, distribute, perform, post, display, copy, publish, promote, re-format, reproduce, prepare derivative works of, adapt, make available online or electronically transmit and exploit the Submission, for free, in whole or in part, alone or in combination with other content or material, for any purpose whatsoever, in any in any media formats and through any media channels known now or devised in the future (including by way of example but in no way a limitation, the Internet, television, IPTV, home video/DVD, theatrical, mobile devices, and through any future means or methods of downloading and/or streaming now known or hereinafter devised), on the Tallenge website or any associated media platform connected to Tallenge."(...)

Seems we need to be cautious !

Added: I'm not sure that that Act would stand in Bruxelles' EU laws ?

Jacques

"Un photographe, finalement, c'est quelqu'un comme les autres, mais qui prend des photos." - Man Ray
My Gallery...
My Other Gallery...

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 02-May-13 01:15 AM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#7. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 3


Philadelphia, US
          

You're absolutely right. I moved away from Facebook before I knew about the metadata problem there. I deleted my photos from Facebook because of their privacy policy and terms of use. They are extremely predatory.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 02-May-13 01:36 AM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#8. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 3


Philadelphia, US
          

Thanks very much for your info on Flickr Jacques.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

AMusingFool Silver Member Nikonian since 30th Dec 2012Wed 01-May-13 09:13 PM
206 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#4. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 0


Arlington, US
          

It doesn't seem to be nearly as bad as indicated there. There are some protections included.

"Geeks of All Nations, Compile!"
Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 02-May-13 12:42 AM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#5. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 4


Philadelphia, US
          

"But there's another important issue here. The real threat to photographers and their livelihoods is not the UK's new orphan works legislation; it is the unauthorized stripping away of metadata from uploaded photos. Instead of attacking the new law, photographers should be fighting for full metadata to be retained wherever and however they upload their pictures, at least as an option."

While the article's author was right about fighting the stripping of metadata, the author, in my opinion, is wrong about the UK's new orphan works legislation. It is very bad legislation.

The only safety factor in the law is the so-called "diligent search." The problem is that a diligent search can come up with zilch. I do diligent searches regularly to find unauthorized copies of my work, and more often than I'd like, I find some. So you might think you can accomplish a diligent search, but the reality is, it's hit and miss. In these searches I never find many authorized copies of work I know are there, and I've verified those copies existence by actually going to their location. They are at client's websites who purchased the images.

There is currently no way to accomplish a reasonable "diligent search" of images on the Internet to find copies of work, and have any reasonable conclusion upon not finding copies, that the work is a true orphan image, in my opinion.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Thu 02-May-13 12:02 PM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#9. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 5


US
          

Well put, Ned. The entire argument that the law is reasonable is totally predicated on the effectiveness - today - of the Google image search.

So you have a law whose reasonableness is totally dependent on a single product made by a certain business. And that product, software, can be changed daily, and no one outside Google knows what is going on under the covers.

What would or will happen, in the real world, is that those who want to cop images will experiment with the boundaries of the google search and will learn how to defeat it with simple minor changes to the image. And then, when the masses learn how to do it, web sites will pop up explaining the procedure. Similar to software piracy sites.

Even if, hypothetically, the Google search were 100% effective today, it would be poor law to be based on such a thing. And further, the law would effectively grant Google, a private business, total control over the due diligence process. That is not such a hot idea either.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 02-May-13 01:42 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#11. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 9


Philadelphia, US
          

Neil, there actually are several other products for the search. For example, in addition to Google, I use Tineye.

There are others too, including Image Witness, but products like that are pricey. Just to monitor 250 images monthly via Image Witness it would cost $180/year. I've got lots of photos on the Internet which have been published outside of my galleries. To monitor 4,000 images it would cost $600/year.

That's way too expensive for me and a trial of it showed me it's better than Google and Tineye, but it still didn't find photos I know are on the Internet.

It's a bad law.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Thu 02-May-13 04:07 PM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#13. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 11


US
          

OK, but does that law require paying that kind of money for "due diligence" or is it silent on that? Are searchers required to use more than one source? Will the rules be known before it becomes cast in stone, forever, as legislation? Can the rules be changed at whim at any point in the future?

Will Google buy Tiny Eye next year? The long term trend in high tech is this kind of consolidation where there are very few choices, at least for free.

Regardless of how many choices we have to do automated searches- one, two or three, the principle is the same. They can be defeated, there will be a very organized attempt to defeat it, and the secret sauces under the covers are under the control of a very few private companies. And the law therefore implicitly depends on those privately controlled secret sauces to solve the due diligence problem.

I don't like the smell of that.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 02-May-13 05:05 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#14. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 13


Philadelphia, US
          

The law is silent about any cost of search requirement. The definition of a "diligent search" is the purview of the independent authority, which makes perfect sense to me. It's just that it's unfortunate that the lawmakers didn't adequately explore and/or got bad advice on the feasibility of obtaining an effective and therefore successful search. Unless and until the technology dramatically improves, it's clearly not possible, and until it's possible, the law should be shelved.

We can say there are other things we should be pushing to get changed, such as stopping the sites from stripping the metadata, but that doesn't in any way mitigate the fact that this is a bad law.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Thu 02-May-13 05:51 PM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#15. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 14


US
          

Perhaps you have more faith in such an "independent authority" .

Regardless, we are in the same choir, perhaps debating what key to sing in -

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 02-May-13 07:21 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#16. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 15


Philadelphia, US
          

Faith in the independent authority is irrelevant to me, as a so-called "diligent search" is currently, and likely to be for the foreseeable future, a figment of a lawmaker's imagination.

Just because the search is certified doesn't mean it's any good.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Thu 02-May-13 07:44 PM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#17. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 16


US
          

Agreed. I was just pouring more salt in that wound.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 02-May-13 08:08 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#18. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 17


Philadelphia, US
          

Fine with me. I think the author of the article is at best naive.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
AMusingFool Silver Member Nikonian since 30th Dec 2012Thu 02-May-13 01:41 PM
206 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#10. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 5


Arlington, US
          

The searches would have to be verified as diligent by independent authorising bodies


The fact that an independent body would have to agree that the search was diligent is worth nothing?

"Geeks of All Nations, Compile!"
Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 02-May-13 02:21 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#12. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 10


Philadelphia, US
          

Yes, I read that in the law. The problem is that it presupposes a diligent search is an effective search.

The most diligent search available today would not be an effective search. Therefore, I conclude that no matter how diligent the search, verified or not by anyone, the search will not be effective and therefore many diligent searches, probably today the majority of diligent searches, will incorrectly conclude the work is an orphan.

So yes, at this time, due to the capability of image searching, I would say that having an independent body certify the search was diligent is essentially worthless.

It's an exercise in logical absurdity. It's modus ponens. Believing in the value of the independent certification to prove it was an effective search is believing in a justification that for the "trust in inference is the belief that if two former assertions are not in error, the final assertion is not in error"

An example ...

If it's raining, I'll meet you at the movie theater.
It's raining.
Therefore, I'll meet you at the movie theater.

More directly ...
If the diligent search is certified by an independent body, it's an effective search.
The diligent search is certified.
Therefore the search is an effective search.

For the inference to be true, we have to trust that both assertions are true. The problem is, the first assertion is false. Therefore the inference cannot be made.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Bump57 Silver Member Awarded for his high skill level in Landscape and Nature Photography and willingness to share his learning experiences to help others. Nikonian since 01st Apr 2007Mon 06-May-13 04:11 AM
6475 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#19. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 0


US
          

Hey all, I have been watching this thread for a bit. I have a few questions and thoughts. What kind of photos are you uploading where you would be worried that someone would steal them? Are you guys uploading full res photos? If so I can understand you're concern. But then I have to ask why are you uploading full res or large files to anywhere on the net? All the files I upload no matter where that is are only at best 1024px landscape and 800px portrait both at 72dpi and saved at a quality of 8 to keep them under 300k. The other thing is concerning FB is no matter what size file you upload there FB is going to down sample the photo again. Unless I am missing something if someone wants that photo that bad they can have it. I mean at that quality & size what can they do with it anyway?

.
.



Scott Martin Sternberg

Scotts Fine Art

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberMon 06-May-13 05:42 AM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#20. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 19


Philadelphia, US
          

>Hey all, I have been watching this thread for a bit. I have a
>few questions and thoughts.

>What kind of photos are you
>uploading where you would be worried that someone would steal
>them?

Travel, wildlife and sports photos.

>Are you guys uploading full res photos? If so I can
>understand you're concern.

Not where the public can see the photos or search engine can get to them.

>But then I have to ask why are you
>uploading full res or large files to anywhere on the net?

I agree with you implied statement, with regard to publicly available photos. But the problem remains that lower res photos, even of limited size are still useful for website enhancement and therefore prey for thieves.

>All the files I upload no matter where that is are only at best
>1024px landscape and 800px portrait both at 72dpi and saved at
>a quality of 8 to keep them under 300k.

Mine are slightly higher res at no more than 125ppi as their are some devices and screens for which 72ppi doesn't show as well as I want it to display. But my longest side is 800 pixel not 1024 pixels. 800 is big enough to show off the image, in my opinion.

> The other thing is
>concerning FB is no matter what size file you upload there FB
>is going to down sample the photo again. Unless I am missing
>something if someone wants that photo that bad they can have
>it. I mean at that quality & size what can they do with it
>anyway?

I don't care how much they want it, and any size or res. If they want it, pay for it, or at least ask, if they are a worthy non-profit, to use it as a donation. You're forgetting how many photos are used on websites, and in emails, and they are low res and often quite small.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Bump57 Silver Member Awarded for his high skill level in Landscape and Nature Photography and willingness to share his learning experiences to help others. Nikonian since 01st Apr 2007Mon 06-May-13 04:36 PM
6475 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#21. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 20


US
          

"lower res photos, even of limited size are still useful for website enhancement and therefore prey for thieves."

Agreed but this is never going to end or go away and there is no way right now to stop it. Like you said, if someone wants it they are going to get it. The ONLY way to get around this is to not upload it. What I would like to see in the future is a way to lock metadata within the image. But that I think is going to be tough because in the end it is still just 1's & 0's. I reached the point many years ago that if someone wants one of my images I upload they are going to get it. So I give them the worst possible file I can yet still be enjoyable to viewers, tough line. Years ago I used to do tons of sporting events, theft was a big issue and I needed galleries to sell images. I was uploading pretty large files back then, not full res but still. I learned quickly to not do that anymore. Today my images are as I stated above in size and quality. Although I don't like it someone may in fact steal one of my images for more then personal use on a desktop. The desktop part I don't mind, since it has my name on it I think of it as a business card. If they want to go through the trouble to dismantle my frame & watermarks there is not much I or anyone else can do about unless we catch them. Which I have done. I have sent out more then a dozen legal letters to date. It is unfortunately something we all have to live with, it will never stop I'm afraid unless we just don't upload.

I agree Ned, in the end it is theft no doubt, it can really get under one's skin and if someone uses one of mine or anybodies image for that matter they should pay for it. But in the digital world we live in now that is impossible to control/police for most people. In the end we have to advertise and the net is one of the biggest placed to do that.

.
.



Scott Martin Sternberg

Scotts Fine Art

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberMon 06-May-13 05:45 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#22. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 21


Philadelphia, US
          

Scott, I think we generally agree, and use many of the same deterrents. I do scan regularly for stolen images, and find quite a few over a year's time. I have a procedure I follow when I find stolen images. It's worked fairly well so far. I am resigned to the fact I can't find them all.

I have done a few other things too. I don't load images on to Facebook and have completely pulled the images which were there. I've done that due to Facebook removing metadata and their predatory unnecessary privacy rules and terms of service which are generally a rights grab. I no longer transmit images via twitter too. In fact overall I'm backing off all social media with regard to loading images until I have a chance to test them and thoroughly review their terms of service.

The lousy thing of all of this is, it takes time away from real photography, and my writing, but that's the way it is.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Bump57 Silver Member Awarded for his high skill level in Landscape and Nature Photography and willingness to share his learning experiences to help others. Nikonian since 01st Apr 2007Tue 07-May-13 02:05 PM
6475 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#23. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 22


US
          

"The lousy thing of all of this is, it takes time away from real photography, and my writing, but that's the way it is."

I could not agree more. It is kind of why I slowed down worrying about it. It is not something I can really control or change.

.
.



Scott Martin Sternberg

Scotts Fine Art

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Thu 09-May-13 09:18 AM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#27. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 22


Toronto, CA
          

>I have done a few other things too. I don't load images on to
>Facebook and have completely pulled the images which were
>there. I've done that due to Facebook removing metadata and
>their predatory unnecessary privacy rules and terms of service
>which are generally a rights grab. I no longer transmit images
>via twitter too. In fact overall I'm backing off all social
>media with regard to loading images until I have a chance to
>test them and thoroughly review their terms of service.

I think the reality of the social web (irrespective of whether or not we approve of the mass movement) and ubiquitous online multimedia (irrespective of whether or not we can even come to vaguely control the dissemination of anything we post/list/put online) is that as photographers we have to think clearly about what goes where.

Rather than avoiding photo-based posts on Facebook, I only post photos that I want to be disseminated. I also never post anything that does not originate with my iPhone or BB. In fact, I hope that some of the photos I post from time to time on Facebook or Twitter absolutely get stolen/reposted/ etc., etc., (or whatever you want to call it) My point is that the two purposes of Facebook and Twitter are for the owners to make money by providing a vehicle and platform for users to publicly exchange everything. With that in mind, only post photos that you want to share. They're information and photo sharing sites, so why should any of us be uncomfortable with the notions of header stripping and re-use? We put things on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram to be publicly shared - we essentially and willingly give up/give away our thoughts and our photos, but then get upset when the reality of that giveaway hits home? Zuckerberg and all his competitors are righty bemused at all the ruckus over copyrights - about the fact that some Facebook members are up in arms over the loss of rights to information and photos that those members willing put into the public domain.

Only post on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., those things that you want to give away. Then, stop worrying about it.

>The lousy thing of all of this is, it takes time away from
>real photography, and my writing, but that's the way it is.

Ned - I think, in this thread only, you're mixing the willing participation in public domain sharing (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) with the actual theft of photos that you're trying to rightly control. In this day and age, the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

You and I have agreed on copyright issues on almost all levels. But I think we have to acknowledge the reality of contemporary marketing and the reality of digital file publishing. Frankly, in order to lower our stress levels somewhat, I think we have to adjust our thinking to allow for the fact that no matter what we do now, we are from time to time going to lose control of some images. The new backstops of digital image copyright registration will protect our rights in most situations and help us get appropriate compensation in a variety of situations after successful trackdowns.

The proposed new legislation in the OP is not going to affect most photographers except when further liberalization of 'rights' on the social networks are used by miscreants to push the theft envelope. Those miscreants are not the problem, and they represent a tiny fraction of the overall amount of idiotic behaviour. The real problem was and may always be the legitimate companies, agencies and publishers (of mags, 'zines', ads, marketing collateral, etc., etc.) who cheap out on projects and steal instead of buying images. If Facebook, on the other hand, wants to figure out a way to make money on the low-res junk I willingly post there, good luck to Zuck and all his buddies.

The aforementioned thieves would starve to death if any of them had to survive on the pathetically tiny fees paid for stock photos by Getty, iStockPhoto and all the others. Yet they still steal, and to pour salt on the wound even the stock agencies are pushing the fees even lower.

Some guy (a budding photographer traveling through PIsa) asked me during my most recent trip (I'm heading home on Friday actually) about getting into professional photography. I told him to go get his head examined.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Thu 09-May-13 09:39 AM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#28. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 27
Thu 09-May-13 10:27 AM by nrothschild

US
          

Hi Howard,

You seem to be suggesting that any image posted anywhere on the net (including my Pbase galleries, for example) are immediately in the public domain and we have willingly given up any right to control distribution.

I'll just say I totally disagree with that idea, and leave it at that. We should be able to share images without giving up rights, regardless of venue. Nor do I see Facebook as unique in terms of the rights we should have. It is just a different host. Facebook or Pbase, my rights are my rights.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
archivue Gold Member Nikonian since 26th Mar 2002Thu 09-May-13 10:25 AM
5464 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#29. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 28


Paris, FR
          

I'm with Neil (and Ned) on that one...
Whatever virtual the gallery is, in a "real life" one it wouldn't seem "correct" to get in a free exhibition, take a frame and sell it outside for your own profit, or cover the tag of one author by another tag of someone else...
While it can be understood that the owner of the gallery has a share in any sales of the pictures displayed, that doesn't mean he gets all the rights on the pictures displayed !

The point is that we still are in the infancy of net authoring, while technology goes quicker then law designing, there will be a point in time when one will catch up with the other. The trouble is that laws aren't the same in different countries while web access is (almost)...!

Most of these problems lies with education, sharing for "free", i.e. "giving away", always existed, but sharing a work on different medias doesn't mean it's there to steal and use at will !

Jacques

"Un photographe, finalement, c'est quelqu'un comme les autres, mais qui prend des photos." - Man Ray
My Gallery...
My Other Gallery...

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Thu 09-May-13 11:35 AM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#32. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 29


Toronto, CA
          

>I'm with Neil (and Ned) on that one...
>Whatever virtual the gallery is, in a "real life"
>one it wouldn't seem "correct" to get in a free
>exhibition, take a frame and sell it outside for your own
>profit, or cover the tag of one author by another tag of
>someone else...

We're in complete agreement, but for the fact that your example has nothing to do with Facebook and other social networking sites. Exhibitions have rules, copyrights are variously protected or modified or licensed, etc., etc. And with Facebook, its rules are also stated for all to read. Don't participate if you don't like the rules - it's just a choice - but let's not participate without reading the rules and let's not try to make the rules over into something that suits us better as serious photographers; that's not what Facebook is about, and wishing otherwise is simply inappropriate.

>The point is that we still are in the infancy of net
>authoring, while technology goes quicker then law designing,
>there will be a point in time when one will catch up with the
>other.

Precisely! Couldn't agree more. Whether we realize it or not, this thread may be more about the painful transition that occurs when we try to apply old rules to a radically altered landscape. As much as I respect your gallery exhibition analogy, it's inappropriate when discussing Facebook. That social networking site (and most others) have never been about exclusivity or rights controlled photo exhibitions or anything of the kind. Quite the contrary, Facebook and all its kind have always been about sharing in a public domain.

>Most of these problems lies with education, sharing for
>"free", i.e. "giving away", always
>existed, but sharing a work on different medias doesn't mean
>it's there to steal and use at will !

Of course you are right, but you've also made a contradiction in terms. When a site, such as Facebook, declares that anything and everything we post there can be used for profit or for further sharing as the site sees fit, we will see and understand that after reading the usage agreement - that respects your point about educating ourselves. We must not then share messages, personal information and photos with the expectation that we still have copyright control, because doing so is completely unrealistic.

By comparison, when we post on a photography subscription site such as SmugMug or photo.net, we have a full expectation of copyright control for ourselves. If we also register photo copyright before we post photos on such sites, we have a degree of copyright control which we can exercise when something is used without our permission. Again though, expecting such control over photos posted on Facebook does not make sense.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
archivue Gold Member Nikonian since 26th Mar 2002Thu 09-May-13 05:44 PM
5464 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#37. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 32


Paris, FR
          

OK, I wasn't speaking (writing ?) about FB ! I'm not a subscriber because I don't have the use for it, and understand the rules of the game for such peculiar "sharing" sites vs "showing" ones
I tend to read the fine prints on the sites I go to or join...

The problem of the original posting was about the orphan files, as Vivian Maier's negatives...!
Think of the work of Morel about he Haiti earthquake and the use by AFP and Getty through Suero !
What should Morel have done ? Twitter was the last access to the world, it could have been FB or some other site... In this precise case there was a true hijacking, recognized by courts, but tomorrow it might be more difficult for the next Morel's to fight in courts ?

I guess it's more about education then laws, but that sort of beginning to allow a "free pass" on orphan files reminds me of several tries on land property in France, when a small lot with a deceased owner and no inheritors can block for years a TGV path (or whatever). Some lawmakers have tried to argue about those "orphan" lots, giving the state or big financial groups the right to "use" that part of land after a quick look in our official "cadastre"... Up to now those tentatives have been rebuked each time !
The way it's done is for the state to expropriate, with full value paid to an account that stays open for years, for any would be (and proven) relative to show up from whatever part of the world...


Jacques

"Un photographe, finalement, c'est quelqu'un comme les autres, mais qui prend des photos." - Man Ray
My Gallery...
My Other Gallery...

Attachment #1, ( file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Thu 09-May-13 06:21 PM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#38. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 37


Toronto, CA
          

>OK, I wasn't speaking (writing ?) about FB ! I'm not a
>subscriber because I don't have the use for it, and understand
>the rules of the game for such peculiar "sharing"
>sites vs "showing" ones
>I tend to read the fine prints on the sites I go to or join...
>

Then you are, in my opinion, a wise user of the Internet. FB, Instagram and all the rest of the social networking sites are the worst 'offenders' so far, but iStockPhoto and Getty sometimes seem to be trying to catch up!

>What should Morel have done ? Twitter was the last access to
>the world, it could have been FB or some other site... In this
>precise case there was a true hijacking, recognized by courts,
>but tomorrow it might be more difficult for the next Morel's
>to fight in courts ?

But this is the way of the world! I agree fully with you that the situations are unpleasant - disgusting insofar as the conduct of big corporations is concerned. But such things have transpired for centuries, and it sometimes falls to the common person to engage in legal battle with a very big and greedy adversary. Nobody ever told me that pursuing any trade or profession was not without pitfalls.

>I guess it's more about education then laws, but that sort of
>beginning to allow a "free pass" on orphan files
>reminds me of several tries on land property in France, when a
>small lot with a deceased owner and no inheritors can block
>for years a TGV path (or whatever). Some lawmakers have tried
>to argue about those "orphan" lots, giving the state
>or big financial groups the right to "use" that part
>of land after a quick look in our official
>"cadastre"... Up to now those tentatives have been
>rebuked each time !
>The way it's done is for the state to expropriate, with full
>value paid to an account that stays open for years, for any
>would be (and proven) relative to show up from whatever part
>of the world...

One problem with the example you've presented is that the state has no money except for that which it collects through taxes - your money in other words. So when does it become the responsibility of landowners to assert their rights through proper Wills and proper bequests so that the state (using your money and my money) is not left to do the work instead? People and families must take care of such things. The state cannot, in my opinion, be the backstop for all of the dithering or arguing or carelessness out there.

So it is the same, I think, with copyright, orphaned files and so on. Getty and iStockPhoto and other agencies may try to get away with all sorts of nonsense from time to time, but the provenance of stock works are clear because of the systems those same companies insist on having in place specifically to preserve copyrights, royalty rights, licensing rights and so on. Those companies are not about to start stripping headers and watermarks, because doing so as a matter of policy will simply kill their own businesses. So the ones I worry about are FB and the other social networking sites and that's why I place so much emphasis on the social networking sites in my contentions.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Thu 09-May-13 10:53 AM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#30. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 28


Toronto, CA
          

>You seem to be suggesting that any image posted anywhere on
>the net (including my Pbase gallries, for example) are
>immediately in the public domain and we have willingly given
>up any right to control distribution.

That is not at all what I wrote! Your inference is completely wrong. I referred specifically to social networks which have always stated their public domain usage intentions for any and all posted content. If you want to insist that Pbase and photo.net and SmugMug are also social networks, by all means feel free to do so. But they are not and their subscription agreements are clear on the matter.

Bu contrast, Facebook is a public domain social network. If we post in such a public domain, with the intention of publicly sharing, under a usage agreement that states the site on which we post can do what it wants with the content, what's the problem? Either post messages but not photos or video, or post only photos or video that we're specifically willing to give up, or simply don't participate in such social networks because we feel the available choices aren't up to snuff. I respect any of the decisions without comment. But we can't complain that Facebook is doing something archly devious. Anyone who reads the Facebook usage agreement is free to avoid the site - no argument from me at all.

Since you reiterated the subject of publicly displaying photos we absolutely want to control, I have an issue with Photo.net where I post collections. I've been ripped off at screen res. But the problem is not strictly a photo.net issue as we all know. W3C has to do much better job with HTML 6 - controls that respect copyright control have to be fully integrated in the next standard. Same goes for the JPEG working group. Until all that happens, IMO we're going to have to take care to either distinguish and post what we don't mind in the public domain from those photos and video we want to fully control. More work for us, and I stand by my previous post.

>Facebook or Pbase, my rights are my rights.

I disagree. Participating on Facebook entails understanding the usage agreement. Facebook is not Pbase (or photo.net or SmugMug or 500px, etc.). We don't play football according to the rules of hockey, and by the same token we shouldn't participate on Facebook according to the, e.g., SmugMug subscription agreement.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Thu 09-May-13 10:59 AM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#31. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 30


US
          

You are suggesting we all accept the world (Facebook here) as it is, and not complain about it or discuss it. Fair enough. But I don't think you will convince many here to do that.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Thu 09-May-13 02:54 PM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#35. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 31


Toronto, CA
          

>You are suggesting we all accept the world (Facebook here) as
>it is, and not complain about it or discuss it.

Not at all. This discussion is wide open. I do not personally use Facebook as often as the site's owners would like. I also don't post anything that I don't mind losing. It's a simple formula. It's just my opinion that those who want Facebook to be something other than it is are going to have a hard time with it. My argument is simply that people should read and understand the usage rules for Facebook and other social networks in order to determine if any particular social network site is conducting itself in a way that is acceptable. But asking or propounding that a social network be something other than it is, can also be a legitimate argument full and proper I agree. I just don't think that Facebook is listening to this copyright and file header shout out. It doesn't have to listen because not enough people give a darn.

>Fair enough.
>But I don't think you will convince many here to do that.

I'm not trying to convince anyone about anything. I'm expressing the opinion (not just the assertion) that Facebook as defined by what some photographers prefer it to be, is not what Facebook actually is.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 09-May-13 12:15 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#33. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 27


Philadelphia, US
          

>I think the reality of the social web (irrespective of whether
>or not we approve of the mass movement) and ubiquitous online
>multimedia (irrespective of whether or not we can even come to
>vaguely control the dissemination of anything we post/list/put
>online) is that as photographers we have to think clearly
>about what goes where.

Ok, I certainly agree, that any photographer who posts their work blindly on the Internet, without understanding the ramifications of the post is a fool. Moreover, each location we post typically has a number of dissimilar parameters, even among locations which might seem highly similar/uniform on the surface, with regard to the consequences, such as what we find in Facebook vs. Google+.

>Rather than avoiding photo-based posts on Facebook, I only
>post photos that I want to be disseminated. I also never post
>anything that does not originate with my iPhone or BB. In
>fact, I hope that some of the photos I post from time to time
>on Facebook or Twitter absolutely get stolen/reposted/ etc.,
>etc., (or whatever you want to call it)

Okay, I'm following your thought here so far.

>My point is that the
>two purposes of Facebook and Twitter are for the owners to
>make money by providing a vehicle and platform for users to
>publicly exchange everything. With that in mind, only
>post photos that you want to share. They're
>information and photo sharing sites, so why should any of us
>be uncomfortable with the notions of header stripping and
>re-use? We put things on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram to
>be publicly shared - we essentially and willingly give up/give
>away our thoughts and our photos, but then get upset when the
>reality of that giveaway hits home? Zuckerberg and all his
>competitors are righty bemused at all the ruckus over
>copyrights - about the fact that some Facebook members are up
>in arms over the loss of rights to information and photos that
>those members willing put into the public domain.

Okay, if I'm catching this in the right light, you are saying that there is a contrary model to the traditional one for photographers, with regard to showing off our wares, that allows us to drum up business by saying here take it and enjoy. In other words we're giving out free samples, as it were, through the social media sites.

Okay, to that point, I can't disagree, and I think a mix of different marketing approaches, including that one, are fine.

Moreover, with regard to Facebook's and alike's TOS, in that case, I also have no problem, if I'm giving my photos away on those sites as a marketing tool. So I think we agree to this point.

Now, however, I think we diverge.

In order to market through social media, when we give away our work, is the critical importance of the identification of our work as ours. Take for example the millions of packets of clothes washer soap given away each year through the mail, at public gatherings and events, etc. They're giving away their product to get people to know about them, and possibly try their product, without having to pay a dime. Those packets are clearly identified as to brand and who makes it, so you can find where to buy it later if you like the product.

The problem then with Facebook is real when they strip out metadata. This goes way beyond copyright. I'm even, within this giveaway marketing model to place into my copyright notice that the particular photo is allowed to be used by anyone freely. The problem is that when stripping out the metadata, it strips out all the contact information too. Without the contact information staying intact, there is no marketing and the model falls apart.

If, as the photo is used and passed around, no one can possibly tell it's mine, then even as a loss leader, all value is lost, and the marketing plan fails miserably.

>Only post on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., those things
>that you want to give away. Then, stop worrying about it.
>

Okay, I'm with you on giving away, but not on metadata stripping.

>Ned - I think, in this thread only, you're mixing the willing
>participation in public domain sharing (Facebook, Twitter,
>Instagram, etc.) with the actual theft of photos that you're
>trying to rightly control. In this day and age, the two ideas
>are mutually exclusive.

No, I don't think so. Even if I'm willing to put the use of the photo into the public domain, I'm not willing to erase the fact it's my work. I'm agreeing with you that a photo of mine in the public domain can have significant value, even though no one is paying for its use, but again I believe that's only true if it can be determined that the photo is my work.

In other words, a photo in the public domain can have real value to the photographer, but an "orphan" photo has no value at best.

>You and I have agreed on copyright issues on almost all
>levels. But I think we have to acknowledge the reality of
>contemporary marketing and the reality of digital file
>publishing. Frankly, in order to lower our stress levels
>somewhat, I think we have to adjust our thinking to allow for
>the fact that no matter what we do now, we are from time to
>time going to lose control of some images. The new backstops
>of digital image copyright registration will protect our
>rights in most situations and help us get appropriate
>compensation in a variety of situations after successful
>trackdowns.

We do agree generally. I think we can trackdown many violations, though not all, and clearly since I post thousands of photos on the Internet, I'm satisfied with the overall value, despite the thefts, even though tracking thefts down is not something I want to have to do, it's become a necessary part of a professional photographer's business.

I agree that the current copyright law, at least in the US, which includes the DMCA is generally sufficient in terms of remedies of theft of the work, and of stripping of metadata by the user.

I even agree that a business model where we're consciously giving away work has real value in it, but that presupposes the give aways are clearly marked as ours, so when someone says wow, this is a really nice shot, I want to see more of this photographer's work, and maybe purchase some, they can find us.

>The proposed new legislation in the OP is not going to affect
>most photographers except when further liberalization of
>'rights' on the social networks are used by miscreants to push
>the theft envelope. Those miscreants are not the problem, and
>they represent a tiny fraction of the overall amount of
>idiotic behaviour. The real problem was and may always be the
>legitimate companies, agencies and publishers (of mags,
>'zines', ads, marketing collateral, etc., etc.) who cheap out
>on projects and steal instead of buying images. If Facebook,
>on the other hand, wants to figure out a way to make money on
>the low-res junk I willingly post there, good luck to Zuck and
>all his buddies.
>
>The aforementioned thieves would starve to death if any of
>them had to survive on the pathetically tiny fees paid for
>stock photos by Getty, iStockPhoto and all the others. Yet
>they still steal, and to pour salt on the wound even the stock
>agencies are pushing the fees even lower.

Well, from a practical sense, yes and know. I have a real problem with the government instituting a scenario which goes way beyond the kind of situation we have on Facebook, where the photographer decides what's being done with their work.

If I post on Facebook, at this time, I know my metadata is being stripped. Therefore, I know I'm not just putting the photo in the public domain, I'm making the photo an "orphan." The onus is on me because I've made a conscious decision to do so.

That being said, the problem I run into with this law is that decision has been taken out of my hands. The law allows a "self-fulfilling" theft to become legal. Example, a photographer uploads a photo. The photo is taken illegally by someone and it gets stripped of the metadata, and the thief might even remove a copyright on the face of the photo, simply by cropping. The photo is reuploaded to the Internet in its new state. Now because the photo has no identifying information due to its theft, anyone can use it legally under the new UK law and it's then not just in the public domain, it's become an orphan, and that's all happened illegally. While I would have recourse against the perpetrator, the odds of finding that particular person is minute.

And the only requirement then protecting me is a "diligent search." If there really was a such thing as a "diligent search" I might be more inclined to say okay, but there isn't. We just can't find enough of our work through a search at this point.

If the technology caught up to the situation, and the cost of using the technology were not onerous (Image Witness actually does work much better than the free products, but in my opinion, most can't afford its pricing model, including me.) I might be inclined to not strenuously oppose this new UK law.

>Some guy (a budding photographer traveling through PIsa) asked
>me during my most recent trip (I'm heading home on Friday
>actually) about getting into professional photography. I told
>him to go get his head examined.
>
I can't disagree with that (LOL).

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Thu 09-May-13 02:22 PM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#34. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 33
Thu 09-May-13 02:39 PM by agitater

Toronto, CA
          

>Okay, if I'm catching this in the right light, you are saying
>that there is a contrary model to the traditional one for
>photographers, with regard to showing off our wares, that
>allows us to drum up business by saying here take it and
>enjoy. In other words we're giving out free samples, as it
>were, through the social media sites.
>
>Okay, to that point, I can't disagree, and I think a mix of
>different marketing approaches, including that one, are fine.

I think that we used to be able to think in terms, as either serious or as professional photographers, of marketing and self-promotion as an always-on opportunity. Forget about that now - we're slowly catching up to a technical world in which the always-on opportunity to market our photos or our services has been blended with environments that are founded on the utter absence of personal controls. There may be the illusion of control (privacy switches, private posts, PM, configuration options, and so on), but those things are just customizations and don't affect or enhance copyright to any extent that satisfies serious photographers or writers. The deal on Facebook and other social networking sites is simple: Don't post anything you don't want publicly known and distributed.

Each and every upload we now contemplate has to be judged not on the merits of the photo we're about to post, but on the appropriateness of the site/vector/presence/environment in which the uploaded photo will exist. That means, the copyright of a formalized online exhibition of our photos (e.g., in an online lightbox on our own personal site, on SmugMug, on photo.net) cannot be confused with respect for our rights over a collection we choose to post on Facebook. Because there are so many opportunities to post online in so many places, I think that many Nikonians may be blending one thing with another in an online world in which doing so is a terrible decision. More work for each of us - every site, every prospective post and every contemplated share has to be assessed solely on its own merits. Attempting, after a post, to go back and read the usage agreement only to find out that rights don't obtain according to practiced, assumed conventions is a mistake, plain and simple. The desire or urge that some photographers feel to post a really great photo to share on Facebook flies in the face of their subsequent complaint that they lost control of the photo!

>Now, however, I think we diverge.
>
>In order to market through social media, when we give away our
>work, is the critical importance of the identification of our
>work as ours. Take for example the millions of packets of
>clothes washer soap given away each year through the mail, at
>public gatherings and events, etc. They're giving away their
>product to get people to know about them, and possibly try
>their product, without having to pay a dime. Those packets are
>clearly identified as to brand and who makes it, so you can
>find where to buy it later if you like the product.

You're applying successful conventional marketing thinking to an unconventional, non-marketing environment. Facebook has never been promoted as a conventional marketing vehicle for anything at all except personal aggrandizement. That so many people are using Facebook for marketing purposes has only created a situation in which Zuck and his pals rub their hands with glee and shout, "Holy mackerel, look at all the free stuff we're getting from hundreds of millions of people!?!"

>The problem then with Facebook is real when they strip out
>metadata. This goes way beyond copyright. I'm even, within
>this giveaway marketing model to place into my copyright
>notice that the particular photo is allowed to be used by
>anyone freely. The problem is that when stripping out the
>metadata, it strips out all the contact information too.
>Without the contact information staying intact, there is no
>marketing and the model falls apart.

You know full well I respect your experience, research, application and diligence with respect to copyright and professional conduct. But Facebook has been co-opted as a marketing tool when it was never meant to be any such thing and when it always reaped whatever was posted in order that such content could be used by Zuck for whatever money making purposes could be devised. By all means (or perhaps just by some means), use Facebook for marketing purposes simply because many other good and successful photographers are making it work for them, but don't post anything you can't afford to lose. Only post things on Facebook that you want to give away.

>Okay, I'm with you on giving away, but not on metadata
>stripping.

On Facebook? Who cares. Don't post anything you don't want to lose. If SmugMug or photo.net started doing it, that would be a very, very, very different kettle of fish.

>No, I don't think so. Even if I'm willing to put the use of
>the photo into the public domain, I'm not willing to erase the
>fact it's my work. I'm agreeing with you that a photo of mine
>in the public domain can have significant value, even though
>no one is paying for its use, but again I believe that's only
>true if it can be determined that the photo is my work.

In a fundamental way, I support your contention. I just don't think the contention is being correctly applied in this specific instance. Think of it this way. When a wedding photographer does an affair, he/she retains all right to the photos even though the happy couple have paid the photographer for the services. Metadata isn't an issue because the clients never get their mitts on any digital files. Those are the rules and that's the contractual deal when the couple signs on for the photographer's services. When you license one of your shots, to an agency or a corporate client, that's all they get - a usage license, and part of the agreement states that header information, copyrights, etc., etc., must remain intact. When you or I sell a high-res print, the right to scan or otherwise copy that framed print is not part of the deal - it's a one-off deal only and any violation comes with serious consequences and it's all written into the purchase & sale agreement. If someone signs up with Facebook, the deal is that Facebook can do what it wants with the content that person subsequently posts. Don't like the deal? Don't sign up. Don't like the deal but the person still wants to sign up? That person shouldn't post anything he doesn't want to lose.

>In other words, a photo in the public domain can have real
>value to the photographer, but an "orphan" photo has
>no value at best.

Again, I don't care and other photographers shouldn't care either as long as they always comport themselves in a way that always includes assessing what and where they're posting photos. That will mean that so-called orphans will simply be photos deliberately posted online in the full knowledge that they'll be used elsewhere by the site which hosted them.

>We do agree generally. I think we can trackdown many
>violations, though not all, and clearly since I post thousands
>of photos on the Internet, I'm satisfied with the overall
>value, despite the thefts, even though tracking thefts down is
>not something I want to have to do, it's become a necessary
>part of a professional photographer's business.

Agreed. Well said.

>I agree that the current copyright law, at least in the US,
>which includes the DMCA is generally sufficient in terms of
>remedies of theft of the work, and of stripping of metadata by
>the user.
>
>I even agree that a business model where we're consciously
>giving away work has real value in it, but that presupposes
>the give aways are clearly marked as ours, so when someone
>says wow, this is a really nice shot, I want to see more of
>this photographer's work, and maybe purchase some, they can
>find us.

That sounds suspiciously like what we used to call "sweat equity" which by any other name was actually giving away something for nothing in the hopes that what was initially valued at nothing would somehow appreciate in value. It's a notion used to dupe the inexperienced. Always has been. The number of times a recognition sale actually happens over the years is very rare until a particular photographer has risen through the ranks to some significant level of prominence. With more photographers competing with each other than ever before in history, such sales are getting rarer and rarer. You and I (and many other Nikonians too) are way past our sweat equity years, so I only post on Facebook and other social networks those shots that I'm fully willing to lose.

>Well, from a practical sense, yes and know. I have a real
>problem with the government instituting a scenario which goes
>way beyond the kind of situation we have on Facebook, where
>the photographer decides what's being done with their work.

The legislation proposed in the UK won't make it through the process IMO. Individual copyright will be respected, but the principle of caveat emptor will and must apply when anyone signs up for a Facebook account or for an account on any other social networking site. What is it suddenly? People now need Facebook lessons to understand things just like people have to take lessons and pass a government mandated driving test before being unleashed in a car of their own? Surely we're not all that helpless.

>If I post on Facebook, at this time, I know my metadata is
>being stripped. Therefore, I know I'm not just putting the
>photo in the public domain, I'm making the photo an
>"orphan." The onus is on me because I've made a
>conscious decision to do so.

Absolutely. Well and clearly said.

>That being said, the problem I run into with this law is that
>decision has been taken out of my hands. The law allows a
>"self-fulfilling" theft to become legal. Example, a
>photographer uploads a photo. The photo is taken illegally by
>someone and it gets stripped of the metadata, and the thief
>might even remove a copyright on the face of the photo, simply
>by cropping. The photo is reuploaded to the Internet in its
>new state. Now because the photo has no identifying
>information due to its theft, anyone can use it legally under
>the new UK law and it's then not just in the public domain,
>it's become an orphan, and that's all happened illegally.
>While I would have recourse against the perpetrator, the odds
>of finding that particular person is minute.

It's not law. It's proposed legislation. it won't fly because the privacy and copyrights advocates are going to kill it before it ever sees the light of day.

>And the only requirement then protecting me is a
>"diligent search." If there really was a such thing
>as a "diligent search" I might be more inclined to
>say okay, but there isn't. We just can't find enough of our
>work through a search at this point.

. . . and we both know that even the stupidest legislators can spit through this asinine "diligent search" nonsense as the base, blatant, avaricious theft-enablement that it is. Facebook, Google and all the social networking sites are on one level terrified of a class action copyright attack against them, while at the same time sleeping fairly soundly on their existing usage agreements. The proposed legislation is a salvo by lobbyists tasked with adding more legal weight to Zuck's intentions among others. That dog won't hunt.

>>Some guy (a budding photographer traveling through PIsa)
>asked
>>me during my most recent trip (I'm heading home on Friday
>>actually) about getting into professional photography. I
>told
>>him to go get his head examined.
>>
>I can't disagree with that (LOL).

Amen.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Thu 09-May-13 03:58 PM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#36. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 33


US
          

Hi Ned,

>> If I post on Facebook, at this time, I know my metadata is being stripped. Therefore, I know I'm not just putting the photo in the public domain, I'm making the photo an "orphan." The onus is on me because I've made a conscious decision to do so.

I'm not sure I understand your thinking here regarding the "I'm making the photo an orphan" part.

Is your watermarked image an orphan because it does not have redundant copyright metadata?

Anyone that crops out the watermark would also presumably strip the metadata. Therefore it is unclear to me what special significance you place on the metadata verses a watermark.

Just trying to understand your thinking. You seem to have thought this through a bit deeper than I have

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberThu 09-May-13 11:47 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#39. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 36


Philadelphia, US
          

OK, as you know there are essentially two ways we can assert our copyright notice on a photograph. We can put it on the face of the photograph, and we can put it in the metadata. Of course, we can use both methods.

That said, in the metadata we can also add other very important and crucial information, such as our contact information.

For example, in the metadata of every image I make is the following minimal information Some photos have more information:


  • Description Caption
  • Headline
  • Keywords
  • IPTC Scene Codes
  • Photographer's Name
  • Copyright Notice
  • Image Credit Name/Company
  • Image Source
  • Copyright URL
  • Rights Usage Terms
  • Contact City
  • Contact State
  • Contact Zip
  • Contact Country
  • Contact Email Address
  • Contact Web URLs
  • Event Description
  • Date
  • Image City
  • Image Location
  • Image State
  • Image Country
  • Image ISO Country Code
  • IPTC Subject Codes
  • Intellectual Genre


We all know what it means to have images in the public domain.

If the photo is missing copyright notice and/or contact information, it is considered an orphan. If the copyright notice is on the face of the photo OR in the metadata, it's not an orphan. It's only an orphan if it's missing from both locations.

There is a push by some to have all orphans be declared in the public domain, not just in the UK, but in other countries too.

As to Facebook, I have seen it over and over again that a photo on Facebook is taken and the copyright, usually at the bottom in an area which doesn't particularly interfere with the enjoyment of the image, is cropped out. It happened to me, though I did catch the person who stole the image.

Couple that with the metadata being stripped out and you have an instant orphan.

So, if I was to upload a photo to Facebook knowing the metadata was stripped, and knowing the behavior of many users at Facebook I'm figuring that photo will eventually be an orphan. That's my thinking.

I no longer post photos on Facebook. Such posts could fit my marketing objectives, but since my "brand" will be too likely removed from any images posted there, there is no point to be on Facebook professionally.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Fri 10-May-13 12:00 AM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#40. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 39


US
          

I don't doubt that people download FB images and crop out copyrights.

But I think it is a fair assumption that anyone doing the same to images posted in normal photo galleries is also stripping metadata. After all, they are trying to make an untraceable orphan.

And that's why I still do not understand what the metadata strip has to do with orphans. If the image had metadata, it won't when they get done with it.

I don't like the metadata stripping either, because as you point out, there is other data in there. I just don't see how the strip increases the likelihood of images being orphaned. FB is just saving the thief a couple of mouse clicks.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberFri 10-May-13 12:54 AM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#41. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 40


Philadelphia, US
          

OK, let me try this.

Orphan images are images of which the copyright holder can't be identified. If the image has no copyright information or contact information, and a search can't find a duplicate image with the correct copyright and/or contact information the image is an orphan.

You have only two places to put copyright and contact information.
1. On the face of the photo
2. In the metadata.

Removing either increases the likelihood of the image being orphaned.

In my opinion, many, if not most, Internet users aren't sophisticated enough to know how to strip metadata when they appropriate the image to their website, but virtually everyone knows how to crop an image. Heck you can even do that with such incredibly easy to use online software like that found in Picasa.

By prestripping the metadata, Facebook is helping image thieves make images orphans by immediately orphaning images with no copyright information on the face of the image, or completely step one for the thieves.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Fri 10-May-13 01:47 AM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#42. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 41


US
          

OK. I was assuming your concerns were with more sophisticated image theft operations.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberFri 10-May-13 02:16 AM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#43. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 42


Philadelphia, US
          

There's nothing I can do about the sophisticated thieves other than search for stolen images, and reduce the quality of the photos without making them too bad so they can't do much with them. They don't need help from Facebook.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

JonK Moderator Awarded for his high level skills and in-depth knowledge in various areas, such as Wildlife, Landscape and Stage Photography Nikonian since 03rd Jul 2004Wed 08-May-13 12:50 AM
4462 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#24. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 0


New York, US
          

I've read the thread, and the bottom line for me is that it's my image. Period. This is a bad law and the search protection is onerous at best and worthless at worst.

Jon Kandel
A New York City Nikonian and Team Member
Please visit my website and critique the images!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Bump57 Silver Member Awarded for his high skill level in Landscape and Nature Photography and willingness to share his learning experiences to help others. Nikonian since 01st Apr 2007Wed 08-May-13 01:51 PM
6475 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#25. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 24


US
          

Hi Jon,

I agree with you, they are our images. I have a curious question for you. I viewed your site, very lovely images by the way and noticed the images and gallery are set up using HTML? It looks like you have fully disabled right click in terms of saving the image, which is good. However one can still use print screen and steel your image very easily. When someone does this they get your image free of watermark for one and two there is no imbedded metadata when they so this. Since some people don't know about the imbedded data and if they are going to steel it anyway wouldn't be better to have the metadata in tacked? This should make it easier for you to find if needed and also prove copyright. Also there are scripts out there that you can add to your page that will disable print screen. They are easy to insert. I used to use them on my sports site.

Just some thoughts.....

.
.



Scott Martin Sternberg

Scotts Fine Art

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
JonK Moderator Awarded for his high level skills and in-depth knowledge in various areas, such as Wildlife, Landscape and Stage Photography Nikonian since 03rd Jul 2004Wed 08-May-13 02:15 PM
4462 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#26. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 25


New York, US
          

Thanks, Scott. The current web site was thrown together as a one-night quickie using Apple iWeb with the full intent of designing and executing a better site shortly thereafter.

That was some years ago…

I've done a little hand coding, done a site in Deamweaver, and most recently played with one of the newer WYSSSIWYG apps, Sandvox. But I'm still looking for sofftware to like and a design. The big reason I've stayed with iWeb is speed: export JPGs from Lightroom to a folder, drag folder to iPhoto, drag iPhoto album to iWeb page, and upload. I can shoot an off-Broadway show and have roughs available for producers and PR agency in less than half an hour.

There's some irony about the disabled right click. iWeb does have a permissible download function which doesn't actually work, not that I'd allow it generally. I had wanted those (hidden) client pages to have download ability so that the PR agency could grab what they wanted on deadline, but alas, the provided functionality doesn't.

But I had not realized that metadata got stripped. I'll take a quick look at it this weekend, but then again, there's that dream of someday doing the website right.

Jon Kandel
A New York City Nikonian and Team Member
Please visit my website and critique the images!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Clint S Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Jan 2011Mon 13-May-13 06:45 AM
445 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#44. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 0


Chula Vista, US
          

UK's new orphan works legislation is coming to the US.

It is jsut a matter of time and the US Copyright Offie has already several public hearings concerning "orpahn" work.

Visit my Nikonians gallery - my Spare Time gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Mon 13-May-13 09:48 AM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#45. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 44


Toronto, CA
          

>UK's new orphan works legislation is coming to the US.
>
>It is jsut a matter of time and the US Copyright Offie has
>already several public hearings concerning "orpahn"
>work.


Clint - this post in not directed at you specifically, so please don't take offence.

Why do so many of us put the words "orphan works" in either single or double quotes? I've done it too. I think now that doing so is often a bad idea. Orphan works are real and they have to be dealt with in some practical way.

After generations of simply muddling through the issue of orphan works, and at sometimes huge expense for claimants, litigants and other interested parties, some governments are advancing steps to deal with the issue. Whether or not any of the legislation (proposed, passed, signed into law, or whatever stage it happens to be at in whatever countries happen to be dealing with the matter), the sheer volume of orphaned written works (online and offline) and the sheer volume of orphaned photo works (online and offline) have to be dealt with.

All the blogging, digital image file uploading, video clip uploading and so on has created an enormous pile of headaches because the majority of the people who upload such things for public consumption don't think about copyright from one year to the next. Just because a bunch of photographers on a dedicated photography forum here happen to be sensitive to the issue shouldn't be taken for a general sensitivity to the issue in the general population.

As an investigative researcher who has periodically come across orphaned works, I can tell you that they're most often in that state because of carelessness or ignorance or some combination of the two. Late in the day far too often, a long-dead or a living but disinterested creator who has simply passed away or walked away from any concerns about photos or written documents ends up being the crux of a battle between former associates or distant family members (neither group in possession of any rights provenance of any kind to boast) and some newly interested party intent on acquiring the right to use the works.

Creators who write or make photos have to be the first parties to set forth or assert their copyrights through the means already clearly provided by law in so many countries. It's not hard to do, and if they fail to do so can inadvertently end up creating a problem for others later on.

The Register's 'take' on the issue (see the link in the OP) and legislation in the UK is just one view, and I don't think it should be taken as the only view. I'm a bit fed up with rights holders (elsewhere I should say - not on Nikonians) who step up way too late to assert what they think are their copyrights to something long after they ignored the work and failed to protect the work. They effectively act like a bunch of children who haven't yet learned the lesson that every decent parent teaches every child in every country - if something is yours you have to do what is necessary to secure it, and if you fail to do so or if you act carelessly, someone might take it from you.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of jokers out there who are trying to steal from us or use without permission those works which we are in fact trying to look out for and keep properly secured. But caveat emptor should prevail as the most trenchant advice for all of us. Whether we're talking about posting on Facebook or submitting stock photos for sale on iStockPhoto, the old rules still apply - we have to keep an eye on our stuff to ensure that it is not being misused, and if we fail to do that we have ourselves to blame first.

Enterprise, creativity and independence go hand in hand with diligence. Real orphan works exist in enormous numbers and fall into the realm of disownership, irresponsibility, ignorance, carelessness and, all too often, legal swamps from which there is no real escape. Businesses have to be able to proceed on some consistently lawful basis when perceptibly orphaned works are prospectively involved in some project.

If the other side of that coin is corporate greed or simple callousness through actions such as header stripping and related actions, then don't deal with such companies and don't participate in their online services. If that sort of diligence smacks of a bit of extra work for any of us to sort out, we'd be correct in that assessment. Then again, nobody every told any of us that our social evolution online would not have its problems.

Orphaned works have to be dealt with. Somebody, please, suggest a better method or approach than the legislation that's being considered and enacted in various countries.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Mon 13-May-13 12:25 PM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#46. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 45


US
          

Why do Orphan works have to be dealt with? Do people and businesses have some sort of "God Given Right" to use images obtained on the net with presumably no known author?

Just food for thought. Seems to me that the idea that they "need to be dealt with" is being fabricated by those with an incentive to legally steal them. And I think this is the crux of the matter, not the mechanics of segregating orphans from supposedly copyrighted works.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
JonK Moderator Awarded for his high level skills and in-depth knowledge in various areas, such as Wildlife, Landscape and Stage Photography Nikonian since 03rd Jul 2004Mon 13-May-13 12:32 PM
4462 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#47. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 46


New York, US
          

I agree.

Jon Kandel
A New York City Nikonian and Team Member
Please visit my website and critique the images!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Mon 13-May-13 01:08 PM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#48. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 46


Toronto, CA
          

>Why do Orphan works have to be dealt with? Do people
>and businesses have some sort of "God Given Right"
>to use images obtained on the net with presumably no known
>author?

IMO, no god given rights exist where photos or anything else we create are are concerned. I realize you used the phrase metaphorically, and I also agree wtih you that we have to distinguish true needs from baser wants in these discussions.

The reason I feel that orphan works have to be dealt with now - or at least progressively as time passes over the medium term - is simply that there are so many of them. Let's stick to photographic works only (for example and for the sake of Nikonians) and note that there are tens of billions of photos now online, the majority of which (solely in my estimation) are unprotected by anything but the most basic copyrights. No registrations, no assertions of copyrights, no watermarks, and not even the most basic copyright statement in the EXIF header (and this applies to far too many serious photographers too unfortunately). When someone or some business, through some project need or some other internal incentive or motivation, finds a work they like that appears to be orphaned they always have a choice: either move on to another photo or pursue some course of action to secure the use of the photo. With an orphaned work process in place, they can do that in a way that leaves them far less vulnerable to some after-the-fact claim when some careless individual who notices the use later on wakes up and hollers, "Hey! That's mine!" Not all companies trying to settle on the use of an orphaned work are evil and more than 100% of all orphaned works can be necessarily or absolutely dealt with.

We cannot condone an orphaned works process which enables outright theft before the fact of copyright is normally asserted - I'm in full agreement there - and I also agree (if it's implicit in your post) that some orphan works might have to remain orphaned forever in some situations. I'm basically agreeing with you that just because something is orphaned does not, perforce, require that someone new gets to own it in every instance.

>Just food for thought. Seems to me that the idea that they
>"need to be dealt with" is being fabricated by those
>with an incentive to legally steal them. And I think this is
>the crux of the matter, not the mechanics of segregating
>orphans from supposedly copyrighted works.

There's a bit of a contradiction in terms in your statement. An orphaned work, by definition, is no longer identifiably owned. That means there is nobody from whom it can be stolen. Just as well, we had all better work as hard as is necessary to clearly identify our works and assert our copyrights specifically and manage the use of our publicly accessible works so that they are not randomly or casually or inadvertently classed as orphans. For that reason alone, the mechanics of segregating orphans from works which carry specific copyrights is, in my view, the exact crux of the matter.

What I think was addressed and discussed earlier in this thread is in part what I believe you're quite rightly alluding to now, i.e., the casual stripping of EXIF headers as a surreptitious mechanism for later orphan claims when the company that did the stripping decides it has a use for the orphans. That's definitely a creepy action and utterly needless. It creates orphans in situations where copyright is, if not perfectly clear, at least thoroughly moot enough that a hands-off attitude would seem to be a wiser and more respectfully civilized action for the company.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Mon 13-May-13 01:18 PM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#50. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 48


US
          

Howard, I think you are merely taking the viewpoint of those that have a compelling reason to use these orphans.

My point is simple: the knowledge that they exist does not create a "compelling need" for them to be used by those that have a motivation to use them. Compelling, of course, is in the eyes of the beholder.

The fact that EXIF can be stripped, and is stripped, and watermarks can and are cropped out, means that we can't even determine the legitimacy of orphan status and likely never will be able to do so with absolute certainty. That just adds to my basic premise that they DON'T "need" to be dealt with.

They could just be declared "off limits" for publication and that simply means that publishers would need to source images from known sources. Not the end of the world, merely an inconvenience needed to protect legitimate copyrights.

Ned is welcome to chime in because he may disagree with my basic premise.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberMon 13-May-13 01:47 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#52. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 46


Philadelphia, US
          

I don't agree.

While right now, orphaned images aren't a serious problem for legitimate publishers or photographers because the vast majority of works on the Internet are still copyrighted, it is a problem which will be serious in precious little time.

I think you would agree that most photographs on the Internet today were published on or after 1978. That means these images won't have their copyright expire until 2073. I doubt that those of us participating in this discussion will be around then, of course, but our images will be, and their rights will be owned by whomever we grant ownership.

That being said, there are photos from the 19th and 20th centuries, which have been digitized, and put on the Internet, which are really amazing images and legitimate publishers would like to use them, many in books, for example, about particular times in history, and they aren't copyrighted any longer.

The problem is, if they are orphans, and have been stripped of their copyright and contact information (Back to the stripping problem which I think is a very serious problem.) the publishers put themselves into serious danger of huge legal bills and infringement awards if they use them and they are still copyrighted, even if they've conducted an extensive, diligent and serious search for the copyright information, and if the copyright owner then comes forward. Moreover, the database at the US Copyright Office is useless. Searching through their records, even the ones available online is extremely expensive and time consuming.

These publishers (Please, I'm not putting Google in that class.) want to legitimately use the photos. They are prepared to pay royalties. The problem is they can't find the copyright holder more often than most people realize. I've spoken with publishers. They want to do the right thing, but they also want access to these great photos.

As a photographer, I see no reason they shouldn't have access to true orphaned photos, but, and it's a huge but, there must be a way to protect the copyrights of photographers from unscrupulous publishers who would use this opportunity for a rights' grab, as Google has tried to do. Google's idea of protecting authors and artists, in my opinion, was to bypass the entire copyright registration system and start a whole new system with Google in charge and setting the rules.

In addition, not doing anything, in the long run, will seriously hurt photographers. It will deny them their rights, and deny them royalties. Publishers are rightly saying, in my opinion, that by not having a law with regard to orphaned images, we are extending the expiration date of copyrights way beyond their legal limit, by attaching huge potential costs for the use of an image for which a diligent and serious search turns up no copyright information to contact the rights' holder, if the copyright holder then shows up.

The problem of orphaning also damages the copyright holder, as it prevents them from cashing in on royalty opportunities because publishers can't find them.

So, yes, I think orphan images need to be dealt with in order to help and protect both publishers and most definitely photographers.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
nrothschild Silver Member Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Nikonian since 25th Jul 2004Mon 13-May-13 02:43 PM
10907 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#54. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 52


US
          

I guess it gets down to the definition of "compelling". You list some good reasons but are they compelling when viewed in the context of the rights grab that surely will result and has been discussed at length here?

All in the eyes of the beholder, of course.

>> The problem of orphaning also damages the copyright holder, as it prevents them from cashing in on royalty opportunities because publishers can't find them.

Only in the slim chance a copyright holder finds his worked used under the orphan law.

And I suspect the payments that the publishers will have to pay to the set-aside will be trivial. Especially compared to the true value of those very special images you use in your example.

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberMon 13-May-13 01:08 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#49. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 45


Philadelphia, US
          

On to your more important statement. "Orphaned works have to be dealt with." I most definitely agree. Orphan works are a huge problem for publishers who want to legitimately use a copyrighted work.

My comments below refer to the US.

Searching for information about an image, or trying to locate its copyright are problematic in large part due to the shear volume of copyrighted material, coupled with the situation that:


  • Most copyrighted works are never registered.
  • Many if not most images posted online have had their copyright information stripped.
  • Many, if not most copyrighted works now posted on the Internet, due to the way social media works, are posted multiple times, and displayed with little or no recognizable relationship to the original post location, making it almost impossible to tell who owns the image's copyright, or if it's an orphan.
  • Copyright registrations prior to 1978 are only in printed form or on microfiche, and therefore all searches of copyright registrations prior to 1978 must be accomplished by-hand.
  • The software for searching for photographs in the copyright registry is horrendous, to say the least, as you can't search "by image" but only by title, name, keyword, registration number, or document number. Therefore if you don't have any information, you can't find the image in the registry.
  • For works which are in use online the act of posting the photos often immediately begins the orphanizing of them by stripping out the information essential to publishers who wish to use the work legitimately, including the copyright notice, and contact information of the copyright owner.
  • While even the free online image search software is far superior in finding information about a particular image, compared to the US Copyright Office, I can't say that on a scale of from 1-10 the best online search tools available today are any better than a 4.
  • Many content publishers as evidenced by Google's predatory approach to orphaned copyrighted materials are not particularly interested in finding a solution to the orphan works problem which actually considers the copyright owner's rights in a fair and equitable manner.
  • While the problem of orphan images is serious today, it will be completely out of hand on or about 2105, (I won't live to see that day. LOL) if nothing is done about the problem. That's when the copyright runs out on most photographs published on the Internet today, but knowing if the copyright is valid or not for those billions of images will be close to impossible because most will have been orphaned.

So what can be done?

I have a potential three pronged approach. Part of the problem of orphaned copyrighted materials is will the onus permitting the determination of copyright ownership be on the author/artist, the publisher, or some combination of both.

Google essentially proposed that the entire burden be placed on the author/artist. While I think that authors and artists can't be exempted from being burdened to find a solution, they shouldn't have to bear the burden alone. Since the publishers want to use the materials, they should be partners in the solution.

The government's Copyright Office must be a partner too. Authors and artists who have registered their copyrights have already expended time and cash to do so. Therefore the Copyright Office should provide publishers with a searchable database of the registered work which actually allows someone to find a work in question, without already knowing the parameters of the registration.

While cloud storage today has a real cost, it's becoming less and less expensive. Authors and artists works which have been registered with the Copyright Office should be able to have their work available for a worthwhile search without any extra expenditure or effort on their part. So, first, an online database of copyrighted work which would contain all copyrighted registered works (speaking of images only but this could be expanded to all works), provided by the US Copyright Office, and searchable by the image itself would be created.

Many of the works at the copyright office are no longer copyrighted. To save on cost, those works would be omitted from the initial database. The copyrighted images from 1978 on, are already online, but the problem is the current available search routines are virtually useless for images. Therefore in my opinion, the costs of this part of the project are not at all insurmountable.

The second part of my plan is somewhat problematical from a cost standpoint. There must be a way for authors and artists who haven't or don't want their work product registered, due to costs or some other reason, to have their rights preserved. There should be a database in which they or their rights' successors can post copies of their works with copyright information. I would propose that the major publishers, including Google, etc. cover the cost of the database, and that it's voluntarily used by authors and artists, and their rights' successors, who want to preserve their rights. (This would not expand their rights to statutory rights, as this would not be considered the same as registration.) This database could be financed by reasonable fees for its use by publishers.

Third, a registry of online galleries should be created, and this could be accomplished inexpensively. These galleries would be single artist work galleries.

Then, if we wanted to put in a requirement for a diligent search, we could have a search which might actually work. The search would have to be of the Copyright Office's registered works, the unregistered works database, and the galleries in the gallery registry.

A system like this would put equal onus on both authors/artists, and the publishing industry. I came up with this from the top of my head. I'd bet that if authors/artists and publishers, along with technologists, would get together in a cooperative frame of mind, instead of being as adversarial as they have been, and that a truly representative group of authors/artists would be part of this get-together, not a handpicked group chosen by publishers, since all know about the serious problem of orphan works, an excellent solution could be devised.

Thus far, it's been a mostly publishers' show with most groups of authors/artists left out of the discussion.

Of course, another solution, one that I doubt will happen, is to rework the copyright registration system so that it's far less expensive for authors/artists to register their work, and that the registration procedures are streamlined compared to today, to facilitate registration, and that registration becomes worldwide with just one registration for everyone agreeing to the Berne Convention. Use of written and image materials are already worldwide via the Internet these days. Why not have a worldwide available copyright registration system? Such a system could even quite easily take into account the differences from country to country of registration, with the software programmed for it.

What do you think? I think it's a darn good starting point, anyway.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Mon 13-May-13 01:29 PM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#51. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 49


Toronto, CA
          

>Thus far, it's been a mostly publishers' show with most groups
>of authors/artists left out of the discussion.
>
>Of course, another solution, one that I doubt will happen, is
>to rework the copyright registration system so that it's far
>less expensive for authors/artists to register their work, and
>that the registration procedures are streamlined compared to
>today, to facilitate registration, and that registration
>becomes worldwide with just one registration for everyone
>agreeing to the Berne Convention. Use of written and image
>materials are already worldwide via the Internet these days.
>Why not have a worldwide available copyright registration
>system? Such a system could even quite easily take into
>account the differences from country to country of
>registration, with the software programmed for it.
>
>What do you think? I think it's a darn good starting point,
>anyway.

I think it's a superb idea! But you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the UN or a Berne-like assembly to be convened in order to hash out and facilitate the process. The UN is useless in this matter, at the very time when it should be alloting resources to doing precisely what you suggested. The whole world gathers at the UN, and it is the exact sort of venue into which the suggestion could be pitched. You'd think that individual national governments would leap at an opportunity to get photo copyrights issues off their desks and into a common mechanism that is internationally supported, but apparently not. They're all too busy stealing from each other to take time out to deal with things that actually matter to the citizens they represent.

So what do you want to do about the idea? Who can we pitch it to?

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberMon 13-May-13 01:56 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#53. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 51


Philadelphia, US
          

"So what do you want to do about the idea? Who can we pitch it to?"

I want to pitch it to the publishers' associations. They, even more than authors and photographers want to solve the orphan problem.

(I must add that eventually, once photographers realize that they are also big losers already, with the orphan problem, and that in the future their potential losses could become greater when legislation comes without their input, cutting their rights off at the knees, that they too will very much want to solve the problem to the extent possible.)

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Mon 13-May-13 04:54 PM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#55. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 53


Toronto, CA
          

>"So what do you want to do about the idea? Who can we
>pitch it to?"
>
>I want to pitch it to the publishers' associations. They, even
>more than authors and photographers want to solve the orphan
>problem.

That makes sense. But there's a potentially more important political component - beyond the scope of this forum discussion - which has to be addressed too. I see motivated publishers having any easier time of lobbying if a political component and some ground-level support has already been broached.

I see the problem as an international one, just as you expressed in the previous post. So I'm looking for ideas and communication vectors that will help get a foot in that particular door.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Ned_L Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, especially Travel Photography Charter MemberMon 13-May-13 10:09 PM
6594 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#56. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 55


Philadelphia, US
          

As an international way to go, I would think that despite the problems of the UN, it's kind of the place to go. Actually, from what I can see, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been a darn effective organization, despite it being part of the UN.

It was their work in getting the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty passed in 1996, which eventually led to the US' DMCA being enacted 2 years later, which implements the WIPOCT.

Ned
A Nikonians Team Member

-----------------------------
Visit my Travel Photography Blog and my Galleries.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
agitater Gold Member Nikonian since 18th Jan 2007Mon 13-May-13 10:23 PM
3970 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#57. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 56


Toronto, CA
          

>As an international way to go, I would think that despite the
>problems of the UN, it's kind of the place to go. Actually,
>from what I can see, the World Intellectual Property
>Organization (WIPO) has been a darn effective organization,
>despite it being part of the UN.
>
>It was their work in getting the World Intellectual Property
>Organization Copyright Treaty passed in 1996, which eventually
>led to the US' DMCA being enacted 2 years later, which
>implements the WIPOCT.

Please don't tempt me into a DMCA discussion.

Anyway, making an appointment with any of the leads at WIPO, let alone even broaching the subject in a phone call, seems to currently be a difficult thing to do. Not sure why - maybe everyone over there is just tired from all their World Intellectual Property Day fuss last month. I used to have a solid contact at WIPO, but he's working elsewhere now and also does not have a legitimate access point to recommend because there's been some turnover since he left. The other issue for me right now is that everybody I might want to contact is in Geneva at the head office, and I personally won't be back in that area (Zurich actually - not Geneva directly) for about least 4-5 months. Still, it might be worth another couple of phone calls or three (or four or five, etc.) just to get the lay of the land if possible.

My Nikonians Gallery

Howard Carson, Managing Editor
Kickstartnews Inc. - http://www.kickstartnews.com

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Clint S Silver Member Nikonian since 02nd Jan 2011Thu 16-May-13 05:26 AM
445 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
#58. "RE: Any one seen this?"
In response to Reply # 49


Chula Vista, US
          

As current US laws and courts work, the person seeking compensation for the use of a non-registered item is seldom granted much. In fact it is typically so little that most people never pursue the case through the courts.

My involvement in a historical organization has taught me that that not everything can be preserved because of finances or lack of future value.

Based on both of the previous two statements, I do not think a law should dictate a rights preservation registery if the owner is not willing to go to the effort and cost of registering their items. If one is not willing to do a little to officially preserve their copyright, why should anyone else be required to support such a system?

However I agree that if someone wants to use a work, then they need to compensate the owner. The same as our current US laws work.

Under your proposal - if someone did not put thier works in the public database and a publisher wanted to ue the work, would the publisher still be required to compenstate the artist? If not, then you propoal lacks merit in my mind.

The creation of an online gallery would not be required if all works were in a publically searchable database - a simple query of the database could return the same type of results, if a copy of the image is included with the database. Similar to making a new collection in Lightroom.

Publishers and others searching the database more frequently could be charged a user fee to help fund the process. Thus Author/Artist and publishers still sharing the cost.

Your last one is big one - but software should be available to catalog ones work and be able to upload selections directly to a copyright registry which should help reduce cost and increase efficiency and effectiveness. This should probably happen one way or the other!!!!

Visit my Nikonians gallery - my Spare Time gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Forums Lobby MULTILINGUAL NIKONIANS English Café (Public) topic #88102 Previous topic | Next topic


Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.