# Controversial copyright reforms



## joharrison (May 1, 2013)

The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill received Royal Assent on 26th April, bringing it one step closer to the introduction of regulations that will allow anyone to exploit an image without the permission of the owner. It's going to have a massive impact on the photographic industry. You can read more here:

Blog | Matt Wain


----------



## KmH (May 1, 2013)

Similar legislation is pending in the US.

Frankly, it seems that here in the US only a tiny fraction of professional photographers bother to concern themselves with copyright until they discover an image of their's has been infringed.
The 'lock the barn after the horses have escaped' approach to copyright management.
Most US professional photographers do not register their copyrights with the US Copyright office and seem to have little clue why they should.

The Internet and the digital camera explosion have flooded the world with amateur photographs, no doubt making the tracking down of an amateur made image copyright owner a difficult task.
A key will be just what orphaned copyrighted works laws constitute as a reasonable attempt to locate the copyright owner.

Publishers generally have more $$$$$$$$$$$ with which they can buy political clout than do photographers or professional photographer associations.


----------



## Greiver (May 1, 2013)

This is why I'm probably just gonna stop trying to protect my images, especially since I'm no professional. Doesn't seem worth the effort these days. -_- I agree with the whole explosion of photographer-wannabees statement though.


----------



## KmH (May 1, 2013)

Here in the US it doesn't take very much effort to register copyrights which prevents them from being 'orphaned' by making the copyright a federal public record, making it essentially impossible for publishers to claim they did an effective search for copyright ownership.
Don't forget that the Berne Convention still applies in the 160+ countries that have signed the agreement.

Canada recently made major revisions to their copyright laws. It was my understanding the revisions gave Canadian photographers more copyright control than they had before the revisions.

I would be nice to be wrong, but I predict this thread will receive little attention or discussion from those the implementation of such legislation will have the greatest effect on.


----------



## Greiver (May 1, 2013)

KmH said:


> Here in the US it doesn't take very much effort to register copyrights which prevents them from being 'orphaned' by making the copyright a federal public record, making it essentially impossible for publishers to claim they did an effective search for copyright ownership.
> Don't forget that the Berne Convention still applies in the 160+ countries that have signed the agreement.
> 
> Canada recently made major revisions to their copyright laws. It was my understanding the revisions gave Canadian photographers more copyright control than they had before the revisions.


Interesting, I never read or heard about any changes Canada made. All I've heard are of teh US and UK changes. I'll have to look that up, but that's good to know.


----------



## Ilovemycam (May 1, 2013)

Greiver said:


> This is why I'm probably just gonna stop trying to protect my images, especially since I'm no professional. Doesn't seem worth the effort these days. -_- I agree with the whole explosion of photographer-wannabees statement though.



Well, something has to give. The world is polluted with photos. It is hard to give them away for free. Billions a month just to Facebook and Tumblr. 

There are a few books out there with pix from unkown photogs. Maybe one of yours will be in one someday? I put my name on the image file and the back of prints. We can only do so much.

I am working to make my images iconic. So no confusion who shot them. But it is hard getting names for the images that will show up in an image search. But I am having a small amount of success by having (a few) images come up by their title. Tumblr has not been very good with tags that show up. Artslant is excellent, I will have to put more things there...just started with them this week.


----------



## Ilovemycam (May 1, 2013)

If you have a great shot, you should be renaming the image with your branding info...

'Title of Image' Copyright 2013 John Doe


----------



## rexbobcat (May 1, 2013)

The only thing about copyright that I would like changed is the whole "work is copyrighted until 1 trillion years after the creator dies" clause.

*Puts on conspiracy theory mask*

I blame Disney.


----------



## KmH (May 1, 2013)

US copyright last for 70 years after the author dies so the copyrights can be passed on to the authors heirs.
It's like passing on stocks or bonds.

Which is how people like Elvis Presley and Ansel Adams can make money for their families even though they are dead.


----------



## Greiver (May 2, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> Greiver said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I'm probably just gonna stop trying to protect my images, especially since I'm no professional. Doesn't seem worth the effort these days. -_- I agree with the whole explosion of photographer-wannabees statement though.
> ...


I don't see any of my images becoming that popular. haha


----------



## Josh66 (May 2, 2013)

KmH said:


> A key will be just what orphaned copyrighted works laws constitute as a reasonable attempt to locate the copyright owner.



And with everyone's paranoia about displaying their 'real name' on the internet, I can seriously see how it could be very difficult to track down who owns what.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 2, 2013)

KmH said:


> US copyright last for 70 years after the author dies so the copyrights can be passed on to the authors heirs.
> It's like passing on stocks or bonds.
> 
> Which is how people like Elvis Presley and Ansel Adams can make money for their families even though they are dead.



Yes but doesn't the copyright expire after that time is up? Otherwise no media would ever get into the public domain.

I still think it's stupid.  15 years...understandable...but 3/4 of a century?  Seems a little ridiculous. 

America is land of the free unless you want to paint Mickey Mouse on the walls of a Kindergarten classroom.


----------



## Josh66 (May 2, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> America is land of the free ...



Who told you that?


----------



## KmH (May 2, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> I put my name on the image file and the back of prints.


Your name on the image file and on the back of prints does nothing to put legal traction on your US copyright. Your copyright has to be registered.

See USC Title 17 §411 - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.pdf



> _In most jurisdictions you need to have received your registration certificate to file a complaint._


Help! I?ve Been Infringed! | Photo Attorney_



			Unless you have a breach of contract or some other state claim, you must file your infringement claim in a
		
Click to expand...

_


> federal district court_. To file suit, it is best to hire an attorney to help you because the legal procedures are complicated. Note that you have three years from the date of infringement to sue for copyright infringement.__When a photo is not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to the infringement (or within three months of the first publication of the photo), a copyright owner may recover only &#8220;actual damages&#8221; for the infringement (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504 (b)), instead of statutory damages. Courts usually calculate actual damages based on your normal license fees and/or industry standard licensing fees. One source for standard license fees is a software program called Fotoquote. You also may recover the profits the infringer made from the infringement if they aren&#8217;t too speculative._


----------



## Josh66 (May 2, 2013)

KmH said:


> Your name on the image file and on the back of prints does nothing to put legal traction on your US copyright. Your copyright has to be registered.



Of course.

I'm just saying that most people are scared to take such a simple step as letting their real name be known.  If I'm looking at a photo, and I don't even know the name of the photographer, where do I start in my search to track the owner down?


----------



## KmH (May 2, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> If you have a great shot, you should be renaming the image with your branding info...
> 
> 'Title of Image' Copyright 2013 John Doe


If you mean the file name, that is easily changed, and with zero trace


----------



## Ilovemycam (May 2, 2013)

KmH said:


> Ilovemycam said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a great shot, you should be renaming the image with your branding info...
> ...



I know that. It is only a small effort to identify the image that floats around. I'd rather have my name on it.


----------



## KmH (May 2, 2013)

How is anyone to know that the file name you use wasn't changed by you on someone else's image?


----------



## KmH (May 2, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > US copyright last for 70 years after the author dies so the copyrights can be passed on to the authors heirs.
> ...


Yes, 70 years after the authors death, the copyright expires and joins the public domain.

Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States


----------

