Time to Leave?

[lightworks]

<p><em>"You may not reproduce or distribute, or cause to be reproduced or distributed, any image or material that you retrieve from the Site, without the express prior permission of both photo.net and, in the case of copyrighted materials, the copyright owner, except for such reproduction as occurs in the ordinary course of viewing or commenting on others' User Content using a web browser in accordance with photo.net's guidelines and the Terms".</em> Conduct of Users guide, point 4.<br /> Early in 2012, a work associate of mine broke the above stipulation to use images in one of my galleries in a conduct hearing which could have concluded with my termination of employment. I fought the supposed breach of conduct suspension with my employers, won the case (bar a 1 year reprimand on my record, which is why no discussion until now) and kept my job, but the jarring experience of having someone so use my photography against me in this fashion has left a deep wound.<br /> Now, I find myself facing another troubling conflict.<br /> My membership here is up for renewal shortly, and whilst, in spite of such troubles (which have also included numerous incidents of internet pirating of my work), I've generally enjoyed my time here, I'm wondering what the new UK law regarding the orphaning of internet images -http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2013/04/29/is-the-uk-government-trying-to-kill-of-photographers/ - is going to mean in practice. Is there really much of a future for galleries like those which I've maintained here for the last eight years?<br /> I'd value your thoughts.</p>

[GBarrington]

<p>I'm not sure I follow the meaning of your comment. How is the use of your photo by a third party an issue for Photo.net needs to address? Photo.net probably ought to ban the person who used your photo as a violation of the TOS. But what do you expect from Photo.net? Then again, I might not understand the wording of your post.<br /><br /> Don't any of us run the risk of our work being used against us, or used in a way we wouldn't like, when we publish it? I once read in a post, "If you value your photos, don't show them to ANYONE!" Isn't what you went through an example of WHY that statement is true?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>If you're worried about what the world will think when they see your work, don't show it. If you're worried about people making use of your work by lifting it from web galleries, stick with suitably low-resolution, <em>watermarked</em> images. The watermark also takes care of the orphan issue.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I agree with Matt: Watermark your images. It's better than either having them stolen or never seen. My watermarks are rather large and would be difficult to edit away cleanly. I think most watermarks could probably be cropped away without losing much of the photo, and thus I feel they are ineffective.</p>

<p>I don't think there's any way to prevent your works from being used against you as evidence. I think that would fall under "fair use," at least here in the US. I'm guessing British copyright law is similar?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>If anything, I would think that continued inclusion of your photos on a well known gallery site where they are identifiable as your images and it's possible to contact you through the site would make your case much stronger, should you ever have to try to recover against somebody who's mistaken your photo that's on the site for an orphaned work. It makes your position that a reasonably diligent search would have found the author easier to show.</p>

[peter_e]

<p>The bigger the impact of your work, the bigger the risk that some aspects of it will be used against you or misappropriated. Which means that you can avoid all risk if you stop communicating your work. It also means you have to assume certain risks to have an impact. As an artist or, in my case, as a scientist we have to communicate, thus taking on this risk is part of our profession. There are obviously strategies to manage this risk, but just like a bold watermark covering your image, they may come with some trade-offs. The key is to manage the risks but not to avoid them.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Maybe I'm lost on the concept, but why did you allow someone to inflict pain in such a fashion ? If you are showing work that's sensitive (politically, etc etc)....knowing that it COULD bite you one way or another. Don't mean to be critical, but we are not always "free" to do what are our desires....and in many cases critical thinking is missing in our school curriculum. I take it you know what to do from now on. Good luck.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Does not candor require that you mention what the breech of discipline was that got you in trouble with your employer?</p>

<p>Looking at your portfolio it is mostly nudes. Is it that to which your employer objected? Other than that I see little controversial in your portfolio unless some of the images were shot on the bosses' dime. <br>

As for orphan works. One article I read said the UK law contained this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>(3) The regulations must provide that, for a work to qualify as an orphan work, it is a requirement that the owner of copyright in it has not been found after a diligent search made in accordance with the regulations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a pretty high standard. </p>

<p>We have similar concerns in the US. I am not worried about them. I take a different approach about my work. Once I am trough making money off of it.... I NEVER put on public display anything that I don't want to make public forever. I don't like when a shot is stolen but it is not the end of the world. I don't post photos here except to illustrate a point now and then. Why throw myself under the bus? </p>

<p>Photonet is not here to protect my interests. When it chooses to do that I am gratified but I do not look to them to be a police force. I think you may be looking to the wrong folks for your solution. As Matt said. If you don't want it out there, keep it off the internet. </p>

[lightworks]

<p>Thanks for the responses.<br>

Glen - the person concerned was not a site member - they wished to harm my reputation, so reported a particular gallery to my employers (images taken at a building once used by my employers) and left me to deal with the fallout. It came to nothing, bar a reprimand, as I showed the issue was in no manner related to my employment. My reason for quoting the rules is to show, in cases like this, they are as valueless as copyright or removable watermarking will be once the new UK law is given teeth and unscrupulous companies orphan images to use them - all they have to then do (for ANY image on the net, not just those produced in the UK), is show they made a search but couldn't find the owner, and they can use it as they please - copyright or watermarks not withstanding.</p>

<p>Matt - until now, I've used copyright to shut down pirated uses of my images successfully. My issue is that well be about to change for everyone, so what then?<br>

Sarah - take a look at the link and comprehend what power this new legislation is giving to corporations, and ask if your watermark is really going to help.<br>

Andy - I'd like to think so, but the reason I touched on my own prior experience is that it shows, right now, that existing copyright and website rules are, in reality, irrelevant in real circumstances. No one was interested in my rights in this incident because it involved company rules (which, it turned out, I didn't break), so where will we be in the near future when copyright - our only real guard on the internet - is irrelevant?<br>

Peter - wise words, but I'm seeking to ask if the trade-off will soon still be viable.<br>

James - That's the reality. Several key sites I used to use have gone the same way in the last 12 months, so how long will somewhere like Photo Net really be safe?<br>

Leszek - I didn't allow it - they actively pursued my in my private life until they discovered something they thought would give them leverage - it didn't end with the outcome they wanted. No, we're not 'free' to do as we wish, but when person(s) begin to use your own art as means to exploit their cause (or, as in the case of the new legislation, their business), where does that leave us? Please understand, the new UK law will effectively make your copyright, if exploited properly, mute, so where do we go from here?</p>

[lightworks]

<p>Rick - my employer wasn't the problem (which is why I still have my job) - it was an individual who used the business as a means to an end and, thankfully, failed. An enquiry was required as I created some images in a property where I had previously worked, but the property had changed hands, so was not linked to the business, thus, no case.<br /> Re: The new rules on orphan images. I agree the ruling sounds good, so long as image meta-data remains. As this is often stripped on many web locations, how long will it be before this becomes another popular form of cyber attack against wanted images to negate copyright? Secondly, why doesn't the legislation specifically target orphaned images, say, 50 years older or more? This legislation has the potential to create massive ramifications for the realm of electronic photographic imagery. I'm merely asking isn't it wise for us to take this issue seriously as it becomes legal?</p>

[lightworks]

<p>Re: watermarking. It took me less than a minute on Google to find several ways to remove watermarks from images. Here's a good example: http://scottkelby.com/2010/i-can-remove-your-watermark-with-no-problem/</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".</p>

[starshooter]

<p>People who think watermarks cannot be erased are as smart as the Flat Earth Society people. Dream on...</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Howard, sure, watermarks can be healed over with content-aware fill and cloning. No problem. The resulting image then looks pretty awful, which I think is a point the author of your article makes. He incorrectly supposes the awful looking version of my photo, not attributed to me, won't make me feel any better, but in fact it does. An awful, hacked-up, low resolution version of my photo will never be purchased by anyone for actual, real money, and those who would hack my photos would never pay money for a photo to anyone. So they'll end up with crap photos that look crappy on their crappy websites or sales brochures. Fine. Power to them. May they lose business over it by completely unimpressing potential customers.</p>

<p>If someone is the type of person to pay for a good, unmangled, high-resolution photo of mine, then there is only one way they're going to get it -- by paying me money for it. Simple. It doesn't take a genius from the Flat Earth Society to understand that.</p>

<p>The larger issue that nobody has mentioned here, IMO, is that people no longer buy photography, because there are so many people out there who provide their photography for free. Why would anyone want to hack an image of mine, when there are hundreds of thousands of other images (maybe some even better, maybe most not neary as good as mine, but nobody cares about the quality of an image anymore) that are free for the taking -- no watermarks to be removed, no fee for usage requested, even eagerly offered for nothing more than the joy of recognition?</p>

<p>It's like locking your house. Let's say you're the only person on the block who locks the front door. Whose house will then get robbed? Yours? Do you really think so? How about when your next-door neighbor has placed all of his valuables out on the lawn with a sign reading, "FREE! Please take anything you like!"</p>

[Elstad]

<p>O Howard :/<br>

In California a work is automatically granted copyright to the author by the simple act of creating it. We are protected from abuse if we are willing to pursue it in a court of law. <br>

Not sure how to respond to your predicament Howard but I for one would surely hate to see you go. <em><strong>Illegitimi non carborundum</strong></em> is a mock Latin aphorism meaning "Don't let the bastards grind you down". Aren't you Brits known for stoically keeping a stiff upper lip. Fight the Bastards Howard... Fight!<br>

I suppose that I'm fortunate in that my employers, all artists and photographers themselves, are fully aware and perhaps a bit jealous of what I'm up to with my work. Therefore I fear them not. I'm just careful not to ask any of my students to model for me.<br>

Be Strong my friend!<br>

Raymond</p>

[lightworks]

<p>I suspect, Sarah, that much of this depends upon the skills being employed. The problem isn't the customer who is willing to pay for quality, but the rogue hacker or company that wants to gain something for virtually nothing (and there's plenty of that going around, hence the de-valuing of photography itself).<br>

If someone is out to raid your house, then locks probably won't deter or even prevent them - in such cases, you need someone who can really trouble them to get in the way. Until recently, I found that copyright violation employed well proved to be a viable deterrent to those who sought to miss-use my work. I suspect that is about to change.</p>

[lightworks]

<p>Ah, Raymond - perhaps I've been overlooking the answer... move to California!<br>

I think I'll be staying, but in a very smaller fashion than before.<br>

Thanks for your thoughts - really appreciated.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I guess the rule is not to post anything that might get you into trouble if everyone in the world was aware of its existence. Always assuming you want to avoid trouble (not all artists do!). If you shot images in a place you did not have permission to shoot in, then that's a risk you took.</p>

<p>If you shoot images that some might not appreciate, I guess you can always use a "Nom de camera", like Banksy does for his graffiti work. You can still register copyright I think, even if the images aren't displayed under your actual legal name. If you actually register copyright then I'd think you'd have to use your legal name or a licensed business name. By default you have copyright (but not registered copyright) whatever name you publish under as far as I know.</p>

<p>As for piracy, there's nothing you can do about it before the fact, and little you can do after the fact other than attempt legal action. Watermarking your images obviously provides some protection so it's really a "no-brainer" if you care how and where the images are used. The dilema is whether the keep the watermark small and discreet - in which case it can probably be cloned or cropped out of the image - or whether to make it large (in which case it may detract from the artistic aspect of the image). Your choice. Personally I normally use a small watermark and never put anything on the web large enough to be worth stealing.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>In California a work is automatically granted copyright to the author by the simple act of creating it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

In what state is that not true?</p>

[grh]

<blockquote>

<p>Intellectual property has become a hot button issue. Until about a year ago, you could go to Rapidshare.com and download just about any movie ever made for free, not counting the $10/month to join Rapidshare.<br>

That is now history.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And for that we are grateful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Suggest you read the play. Will was being ironic. It doesn't mean what you think it means.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In California a work is automatically granted copyright to the author by the simple act of creating it. We are protected from abuse if we are willing to pursue it in a court of law.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Copyright in the US is a federal issue, not state. Protection originates from the creation of the piece. And according to the (*ahem*) "wisdom" of congress you must register your copyright before attempting to recover damages through the courts. Nothing to do with California specifically.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The larger issue that nobody has mentioned here, IMO, is that people no longer buy photography, because there are so many people out there who provide their photography for free.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>People don't pay for photography, they pay for skill. And an MWAC isn't a photographer just because they have a camera. Yes, it's tragic that the quality bar keeps getting lowered, but my job is to educate my customers on what I bring to the table that they do not.<br>

I <strong>so</strong> badly want to start being honest every time someone shows me a blurry cellphone photo.</p>

<p>Regarding the OP, one wonders if it wouldn't have been prodent to get a solicitor (British for "lawyer") involved with the employer. Sounds like the employer was out of line with the 1 year reprimand, unless it became a morals issue. Not familiar with the laws in England with respect to that, but here in the US the employer would have no grounds whatsoever.</p>

<p>Re: new stupid law in England. OP: There's lots of discussion going on, and it's not as clear cut as you want to seem to make it.</p>

<p>Re: Watermarks. No, they're not insurmountable. They're just intended to be <em>annoying</em>. Yes, someone with skill and time can overcome them. But anyone interested in bypassing IP rights isn't your customer. If you aren't willing to lose control of the image, don't put it on the interwebs.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I'm terribly sorry that you had to tolerate someone attacking your reputation in such a petty way. The attack says a lot more about them than it does you. That said, those in certain professions, such as those dealing with children, must exercise prudence in the sharing of certain types of information. I don't know why your employer saw fit to reprimand you for a photography pursuit that, if done off site and after hours, is none of their business.</p>

<p>If I were you, I might consider first adopting an alias for your photography, and second, finding a new place to work that isn't plagued with spiteful colleagues. Finally, you might consider pursuing your country's equivalent of a defamation of character suit against the bitter person who threw you under the bus.</p>

[lightworks]

<p>Gary wrote: "<em>If you aren't willing to lose control of the image, don't put it on the interwebs</em>".<br /> Hence my raising the concern in the first place - it's the loss of control which is about to become, I suspect, a much bigger issue for us all.<br /> Bob wrote: "<em>If you shot images in a place you did not have permission to shoot in, then that's a risk you took</em>".<br /> That is no doubt true, Bob, but I did have permission to shoot at the location, not from my company (which had provided services to another business that was located at the site for around 14 months), but from the on-site security team who, at the time of the shoot, were the only "business" still in residence. The use of my images against me happened almost a year later.<br /> Dan wrote: "<em>I don't know why your employer saw fit to reprimand you for a photography pursuit that, if done off site and after hours, is none of their business</em>". They had an obligation to do so under the rules that govern the business - an official complaint regarding my conduct as an employee had been made, and the nature and circumstances of this had to be examined. It was when management of the company we were contracted to verified my declaration on the status of the location in question (no longer in use) that the enquiry ended and I was allowed to return to work. At no time was the nature of my photos on this shoot - figure images - made the key issue.<br /> Dan also wrote: "<em>If I were you, I might consider first adopting an alias for your photography, and second, finding a new place to work that isn't plagued with spiteful colleagues</em>".<br /> Most of my venues on the net are housed under a variety of names - Photo Net was one of the first I set-up, hence the use of my own name. It's only the one person at work, and I'm not the only one who has had issues. It's sad and troubling, to say the least, but each day I have the vindication that I'm the one who came through (the matter had no actual bearing on me or my integrity in the job), which is why I'm still there. A new job may certainly be a step to take in the future.</p>

[danmarchant]

<p>Sorry Howard but the new UK legislation has no baring on what your colleague did to you and your statement that corporations will be able to orphan works as a result of the legislation is untrue. Companies (or individuals) seeking to use a work will not just have to say they did a search. They will have to prove to a licensing agency that they did and that will then have to be verified by the licensing agency. No license to use the work will be granted unless they can show the copyright holder can't be traced. As previous posters have pointed out, having your images in a gallery that is associated with your user account will allow people to find you and thus prevent them being ruled as orphan works.<br>

In addition, taking a copy of an image and removing a watermark wont render it an orphan work because the original watermarked version will still exist.<br>

<br /> Here is a document from the UK IPO office that debunks the myths surrounding this legislation. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-orphanmyth.pdf<br>

<br /> P.S. Canada has been licensing orphan works since the 1990s and strangely the sky hasn't fallen and the seas haven't boiled.</p>

[lightworks]

<p>My understanding, Dan, is that the Canadian ruling is pretty stringent, and only around 22 licenses are issued in a year. In the UK, Section 77 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 introduces a new section 116A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 concerned with orphan works. As was recently noted, the currently vague material of section 116a - the part which has generated so much discussion - does not specify the circumstances in which licenses will be issued, or properly define what will count as a 'diligent search' with regards to images. Until these regulations are defined, concern is most certainly warranted, especially with regards to licensing terms. We may end up with something like the Canadian approach, especially if genuine concern becomes widespread and sends the message that this is desired, but there are no guarantees of this at present. <br>

The context of this is a moral rights environ which is very weak, and an almost routine stripping of meta-data from images, making their orphaning much easier. As I noted in my own life experience example, policy in such cases usually fails to assist the victim, and any form of compensation is, therefore, not forthcoming.<br>

As David Bailey noted in his letter to the Government, it is these very issues which should be of great concern and addressed in any new legislation.</p>

 

[andylynn]

<p>Would all the lawyers in the room please raise their hands? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Okay then.</p>

<p>Keep calm an carry on, guys, and read the document Dan linked. I know, any time the phrase "orphaned works" is used in the presence of photographers it's considered good form to freak out about something to do with a conspiracy of companies who will copy all your photos off whatever web site they're on and say "Ha! These are orphaned now and you'll never get paid again!" but it doesn't work that way. The statute requires a "diligent search" and contains provisions for the rights owner to assert rights when coming forward after the license was granted, and the regulations provide for payments (which are withheld by the government and go to the owner if identified). I know, I know, "diligent search" isn't defined in the statute - which is because phrases are almost never defined in statutes. That's left to the regulatory body and the courts, which are competent to do this sort of thing.</p>

<p>The UK law is the best one I've seen so far in terms of balancing the owners' rights against coming up with a solution to the orphaned works problem. </p>