UK Gov bans non-consensual photography in public

TalkieWalkie

The Digital Economy Bill : what's yours is ours

The end game is now in sight. The Digital Economy Bill is now expected to become law within the next 6 weeks. It introduces orphan works usage rights, which - unless amended, which HMG says it will not - will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search. That is potentially about 90% of the photos on the internet.

read more... http://www.copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public?page=1?abc

digme

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

The Digital Economy Bill : what's yours is ours

The end game is now in sight. The Digital Economy Bill is now expected to become law within the next 6 weeks. It introduces orphan works usage rights, which - unless amended, which HMG says it will not - will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search. That is potentially about 90% of the photos on the internet.

read more... http://www.copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public?page=1?abc

Nice copy and paste...Maybe that website should charge you a fee for copying and pasting their content no?What you think?

Richard tea

digme wrote: »

Nice copy and paste...Maybe that website should charge you a fee for copying and pasting their content no?What you think?

Fantastic job on catching him doing a copy and paste. Good for you.:)

digme

Richard tea wrote: »

Fantastic job on catching him doing a copy and paste. Good for you.:)

Thank you for your kind words.It's actually my first offence,must be the accumulation of sh!tty threads lately.
Since he copy and pasted another persons work, he now owes me a percentage payable by credit card.

Torakx

Im a bit sleepy today so forgive my ignorance.
Does this mean in England they can claim money or footage off the police and security firms for taking the publics pictures on cctv's?
And does this effct people videoing at all? or just photographs?

studiorat

If it means orphan works are now in public domain is that reall a bad thing?

TalkieWalkie

digme wrote: »

Nice copy and paste...Maybe that website should charge you a fee for copying and pasting their content no?What you think?

It's certainly worth thinking about. Then if I had scrambled the words up and put my own spin on it, I could have made out it was a TalkieWalkie exclusive and charge you for reading it.

You didn't know about it prior to my posting, now you know about it, it's how news gets around.

TalkieWalkie

studiorat wrote: »

If it means orphan works are now in public domain is that reall a bad thing?

That part would, i imagine only be bad for photographers. But it has been updated.

The UK Gov have been forced to drop clause 43 of the bill which had been opposed by photographers.
They wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. They have failed.

Earlier the government removed its proposed clause 18, which could have given it sweeping powers to block sites, but replaced it with an amendment to clause 8 of the bill. The new clause allows the secretary of state for business to order the blocking of "a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright".

The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming protested that this could mean the blocking of the whistleblower site Wikileaks, which carries only copyrighted work. Stephen Timms for the government said that it would not want to see the clause used to restrict freedom of speech – but gave no assurance that sites like Wikileaks would not be blocked.

There, i knew there was some conspiracy stuff in there somewhere

Full update http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/08/digital-economy-bill-passes-third-reading