Digital Economy Bill & ICO code : important legal changes

<p>Very worrying information for UK photographers<br>

The Digital Economy Bill : what's yours is ours</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The end game is now in sight. <a title="Digital Economy Bill" href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html" target="_blank" title="Digital Economy Bill" >The Digital Economy Bill</a> 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public<br>

This is hugely worrying for both Pro's and Am's.<br>

please write to your MP and encourage your friends, colleagues and competitors to do the same<br>

thank you</p>

<p>andrew</p>

<blockquote>

<p>cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Er... what?</p>

<p>a little vague isn't it Matt<br>

is this the future of photo posting?<br>

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10685120-lg.jpg</p>

 

"cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search" Based on the author's slant I took this to mean he expects everyone will perform a half-assed search for the owner, conveniently not find said owner, and then proceed to use the image while only having to pay the fee to the orphan works organization (rather than having to negotiate with the owner).

<p>the other aspect of this bill is more worrying, especially what they mean by digital media and the obligation of an isp.</p>

<p>photographically, my simple understanding of what the bill stands for mean a respite from paparazzi for those in the public gaze. low grade jpeg images on the web from amateurs who are not making any money out of it would continue to not make any money out of it. professional shooters who already use watermarks should have nothing to fear.</p>

<p>He probably meant to write "through a suitably diligent search."</p>

<p>Nothing new here in the states.</p>

<p>The definition and acid test for "diligent search" for CR owners will eventually find it's way to a court someday soon.</p>

<p>I am unsure how CR works in the UK; here in the U.S, those who are concerned about loss of income due to a CR infringement WILL register our works AND place the © symbol on displayed photos to offset the "<em>We didn't know</em>" defense. In this case, it could be found as "willful misappropriation" where the damages collected are much higher.</p>