A new bill being voted on .......beware of your copyright!!!!
Discussion
10 replies
Posted by Tony Beazley on April 26, 2008 at 11:55 PM
I had to post this on this forum cause I frequent it so much and I know you guys take alot of pride in your work as much as I do .....
but you really need to take a look at this new bill trying to get passed about copyrighted photos and such....it is totally insane....
there is a short audio part at the bottom of that page...it gives enough detail to let you know what it is about....there is also an 80 minute version I listened to and it gives out even more indepth detail and names of who is responsible for such an atrocity .
If your photos are on the net then this includes you!
Tony B
.usa
Posted by Andy Astbury on April 27, 2008 at 3:31 AM
I've been aware of this for a few weeks now - after listening to the original phone interview with Brad Holland.
Does this mean that daft American legislation renders international copyright laws defunct?
At least at the moment if someone uses one of your images without your permission they know in their own minds that they are doing something illegal.
If the work is not actively registered you do have little recourse - BUT the thief doesn't know that.
If this new legislation is correct the thief would know he'd got away with it if his 'due diligence' did not lead back to one of these non-existent new copyright registration companies.
How much the registration fees would be is pretty immaterial, it would have to 100's of images per £1 to make it a viable method of protection for most people - and I can't see it being that in a month of Sundays.
Damn good business opportunity here for someone.
I'd be very interested to hear the Mods take on this at their very earliest convenience.
At face value £29 for a DVD full of 720x480 jpegs doesn't seem quite so bad, but is it just scamming
Posted by Nigel Blake on April 27, 2008 at 4:53 AM
What with this legislation and the amount of hopefuls foolhardy enough to think they can make it as a full time pro by offering their images for free publication maybe its time to set up in another business........ so why not send your DVDs of 750x500 jpegs to me and i'll register the copyright and send you a certificate for £19-99 each, 20 or 30 a day of them and I can start posting from a villa in Spain in no time! and as an afterthought maybe I could even start doing wildlife photography holidays there too!
Posted by Matt Doggett on April 27, 2008 at 5:01 AM
This is outrageous. There must be a link to a petition somewhere. Anybody know of one?
Matt
Posted by Paul Inglis on April 27, 2008 at 6:43 AM
The way of the world I suppose! Eventually piracy won’t be illegal and there’ll be no music or film industry!
If you need to make money from your images then it's probably best not to put them on the web. Only put a few on the web for advertising purposes - such as those iconic ones that never really sell anymore! but are still beautiful to look at!
Posted by Tony Beazley on April 27, 2008 at 1:30 PM
At face value £29 for a DVD full of 720x480 jpegs doesn't seem quite so bad, but is it just scamming: ]end quote...
Yes google is one of the primary ones to start this thievery ....they've already said they will take all images that have been put on google and yahoo and gmail!!!
---------------------
Nigel ,
I was thinking if each photographer became their own registry then we would only have to pay for a server and domain name,and hopefully cover our as*es.....it is a thought but I heard that these so called registries are going to be private....whenever they decide to be known.
-----------------
Matt,
There is a petition on line website that you can start a petition.......go for it, I'll sign it!!
http://www.petitiononline.com/
the music industry is next!!!!!!
---------------
Paul I agree put up only a few photos that show what you can do and if they get ripped off ...then so be it but keep the good stuff on a disk in a safe dark place .....
Tony B.
in the US for right now
Posted by Nigel Blake on April 27, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Hi Tony,
I am sure you realized that my post was with "tongue firmly in cheek" that does not however mean that I am not very much at odds with this proposed legislation.
Obviously no one on here is foolish enough to put full resolution images on the web, so I really do not understand how this legislation will have the teeth that it would at first glance appear to have, I personally never post anything larger than 800 pixels widest side and rarely are they above about 225 Kb, so while they may get ripped off for web use, they almost certainly are not of a file quality that could be used for other publishing............
However as I have seen my other/previous work totally depleted by CGI animation over a very short while; who knows how quickly our rights to our images could be eroded if we do not stand up to this.
All of this along with the current attitude that we are either terrorists or paedophiles because we own cameras is both scary and ludicrous, but the S44 rules and the poster campaign with the cameras on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/magazine_enl_1208436377/html/1.stm (personally I think this is insulting and offensive) will erode our freedom if we don't take it as seriously as we need to!
In the meantime, as far as I know the US is a signatory to the Berne Convention... should you have an infringment, then you can bring action (if it's worth doing so) - even if your creative works aren't registered with the US Copyright office - there is no requirement for foreign artists to register their work to gain 'enhanced' protection/damages.
Eventually piracy won’t be legal
errrmmm Paul, i think it's already not legal
Nigel - from personal experience of an image taken from my website by one of my customers who couldn't wait for the hi=res image (they never got it!), in the hands of a decent retoucher, 600px longest side can be printed up to 5ft tall and still look good .
Posted by Tony Beazley on April 27, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Yes Nigel I see that.....I kinda hit panic mode for a day .....very good to see you getting work on some movies.
-----------
Why this came up so quick is that it has been sitting on a shelf so to speak since it got stopped once and now those companies are screaming to get this back out and pass it.....
I think we can head them off at the pass.....
Tony B.
Posted by Andy Astbury on April 28, 2008 at 3:31 AM
Thanks for that Nick - that's what I thought.
There's a couple of ways you can protect images on your website.
Firstly, you can lay your page out in something like Fireworks and then slice it up into small pieces then export the slices and html code to an editor like Dreamweaver - the page will look just how you laid it out but if someone tries to 'right-click' an image all they get is the slice their cursor was on at the time - and awful lot of pay-to-view top shelf sites use this method.
The second, which I used to use on my website before it changed to its present incarnation, was to set my images as BG images in table cells, then cover each image with a transparent GIF the same size as the image - if they right-click that baby all they get is a white rectangle.
Having said all that, it won't stop the ability to use the print screen facility.
Maybe we should all stop using the Save for Web feature in CS - 'save as' allows you to attach the XMP data - that's if you've filled the data in under file info.
Thanks Nick
Posted by Paul Inglis on April 28, 2008 at 5:13 AM
Sorry Nick typo - meant illegal! Thanks for pointing that out - duly changed!
Discussion
10 repliesbut you really need to take a look at this new bill trying to get passed about copyrighted photos and such....it is totally insane....
http://copyrightaction.com/forum/orphan-works-bills-introduced-in-usa
there is a short audio part at the bottom of that page...it gives enough detail to let you know what it is about....there is also an 80 minute version I listened to and it gives out even more indepth detail and names of who is responsible for such an atrocity .
If your photos are on the net then this includes you!
Tony B
.usa
Does this mean that daft American legislation renders international copyright laws defunct?
At least at the moment if someone uses one of your images without your permission they know in their own minds that they are doing something illegal.
If the work is not actively registered you do have little recourse - BUT the thief doesn't know that.
If this new legislation is correct the thief would know he'd got away with it if his 'due diligence' did not lead back to one of these non-existent new copyright registration companies.
How much the registration fees would be is pretty immaterial, it would have to 100's of images per £1 to make it a viable method of protection for most people - and I can't see it being that in a month of Sundays.
Damn good business opportunity here for someone.
I'd be very interested to hear the Mods take on this at their very earliest convenience.
EDIT
Just come across this url
http://www.iplab.co.uk/copyright.html?refer=google&gclid=CKiOocTd-pICFQGX1Aod4V5iGA
At face value £29 for a DVD full of 720x480 jpegs doesn't seem quite so bad, but is it just scamming
Matt
If you need to make money from your images then it's probably best not to put them on the web. Only put a few on the web for advertising purposes - such as those iconic ones that never really sell anymore! but are still beautiful to look at!
Andy wrote:
[Just come across this url
http://www.iplab.co.uk/copyright.html?refer=google&gclid=CKiOocTd-pICFQGX1Aod4V5iGA
At face value £29 for a DVD full of 720x480 jpegs doesn't seem quite so bad, but is it just scamming: ]end quote...
Yes google is one of the primary ones to start this thievery ....they've already said they will take all images that have been put on google and yahoo and gmail!!!
---------------------
Nigel ,
I was thinking if each photographer became their own registry then we would only have to pay for a server and domain name,and hopefully cover our as*es.....it is a thought but I heard that these so called registries are going to be private....whenever they decide to be known.
-----------------
Matt,
There is a petition on line website that you can start a petition.......go for it, I'll sign it!!
http://www.petitiononline.com/
the music industry is next!!!!!!
---------------
Paul I agree put up only a few photos that show what you can do and if they get ripped off ...then so be it but keep the good stuff on a disk in a safe dark place .....
Tony B.
in the US for right now
I am sure you realized that my post was with "tongue firmly in cheek" that does not however mean that I am not very much at odds with this proposed legislation.
Obviously no one on here is foolish enough to put full resolution images on the web, so I really do not understand how this legislation will have the teeth that it would at first glance appear to have, I personally never post anything larger than 800 pixels widest side and rarely are they above about 225 Kb, so while they may get ripped off for web use, they almost certainly are not of a file quality that could be used for other publishing............
However as I have seen my other/previous work totally depleted by CGI animation over a very short while; who knows how quickly our rights to our images could be eroded if we do not stand up to this.
All of this along with the current attitude that we are either terrorists or paedophiles because we own cameras is both scary and ludicrous, but the S44 rules and the poster campaign with the cameras on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/08/magazine_enl_1208436377/html/1.stm (personally I think this is insulting and offensive) will erode our freedom if we don't take it as seriously as we need to!
In the meantime, as far as I know the US is a signatory to the Berne Convention... should you have an infringment, then you can bring action (if it's worth doing so) - even if your creative works aren't registered with the US Copyright office - there is no requirement for foreign artists to register their work to gain 'enhanced' protection/damages.
errrmmm Paul, i think it's already not legal
Nigel - from personal experience of an image taken from my website by one of my customers who couldn't wait for the hi=res image (they never got it!), in the hands of a decent retoucher, 600px longest side can be printed up to 5ft tall and still look good
-----------
Why this came up so quick is that it has been sitting on a shelf so to speak since it got stopped once and now those companies are screaming to get this back out and pass it.....
I think we can head them off at the pass.....
Tony B.
There's a couple of ways you can protect images on your website.
Firstly, you can lay your page out in something like Fireworks and then slice it up into small pieces then export the slices and html code to an editor like Dreamweaver - the page will look just how you laid it out but if someone tries to 'right-click' an image all they get is the slice their cursor was on at the time - and awful lot of pay-to-view top shelf sites use this method.
The second, which I used to use on my website before it changed to its present incarnation, was to set my images as BG images in table cells, then cover each image with a transparent GIF the same size as the image - if they right-click that baby all they get is a white rectangle.
Having said all that, it won't stop the ability to use the print screen facility.
Maybe we should all stop using the Save for Web feature in CS - 'save as' allows you to attach the XMP data - that's if you've filled the data in under file info.
Thanks Nick