Better think twice with this new government act,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/ 
:curse:

---

There's an irony here in that the Facebook terms of use have always said they can use your photos for whatever the hell they like. This site has always categorically said that copyright rests with the photographer. And I'm sticking with that :devil: And sticking with watermarking the biggest versions of all uploaded photographs with the username to prevent IP theft.

---

What is the best thing for cheaply watermarking photos?

Take your pick.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=free+watermarking+software 

Make sure You fill in the exif information too.
Pictures do get stolen, and have since the bandwidth of the average internet user allowed reasonable down/upload speeds. This potential new law however, makes it very difficult indeed to get recourse. That said, it's not law just yet, but it's very unlikely not to be.

It is however, pure bollocks, and very likely the result of some heavy lobbying. I do expect there will be a lot of kickback, but maybe not enough to change anything.

---

Not trying to put anyone off uploading pics to here of course!:thumbsup: I was just gobsmacked when I saw this earlier and I felt the need to warn everyone in the hopes that if enough people complain there will be a turn around.

I'm sure its going to be more of a problem for non watermarked high resolution images, theres not really much explanation on whats happening with it yet so I guess time will tell.

---

I think its far too early for anyone to tell what will happen regarding that.

Whilst the writer makes some valid points, I think it perhaps jumps to a few conclusion about the end results.

'we've heard of several who are taking their photos away from the web'

Assuming they are talking about professional photographers, one wonders how those 'several' are now making a living if people have to go around to their house to view hard-copy ?

Let's see what happens before panicking.......

When I upload pictures or information to any web sites I do it to put that into the "public domain" with the intention that it SHOULD be used by anyone.

I can not understand people posting things but saying no one can use it.
Are they profesionals who intend to profit from their work? In which case are they using web pages as free advertising?
Are they only posting to say "look where I have been"
(Like most urbexers!)
I would be interested to see peoples comments here.
Rant :curse: if you want but no language, it's a public forum.

(I do of couse exclude sensitive sites from publicity)

Couldn't agree more Rufenig.

Completely agree. I'm not at all precious about my own photography, I upload it to share it. Not to sell it or show off.

However, as I ultimately run this show I have a duty to other peoples' shots, hence watermarking, copyright statements against photos, reassuring people that the IP remains with them etc.

---

Its hugely complicated and everyone will have a different take on it.

My photos have appeared in all sort of off-the-wall places.
A book about "Paradise Planned: The Garden Suburb and the Modern City".
A website just about statues of sportsmen.
A photo of a 'hand of glory' in a book on beliefs about the dead body.

In each case the author has approached me personally, asked permission and I've been happy for them to use it free of charge. You feel really pleased because you can see they love their subject just as much as I love mine.


As unlikely as it is, if I walked into a book shop, found a big coffee table book called "1000 best ever underground photos" selling for £25 with uncredited shots by me in it, then I think I would feel very different.

Can't wait for the new "Collapsing Muddy Shatholes of Cleveland & the Surrounding Areas" book to hit the shops then. 😮

Can't wait for the new "Collapsing Muddy Shatholes of Cleveland & the Surrounding Areas" book to hit the shops then. :o

Exactly.

When the actual books about the subject are only selling a few dozen copies then I think the chances of a company ripping off all my photos for an easy payday are pretty much non-existent.
😉

While I am happy to upload pictures to sites like this one, and have people look through them, I am NOT happy to let all and sundry rip them off and claim them as their own, or to profit from them. If I wanted that, I would post up the full size .jpg's.

The liklehood that this new legislation will make it very difficult to Persue someone doing either of the above. They can just plead innocence, and the knock-on effect of others doing the same to the image already pinched makes it very easy to claim it was an orphaned image.


Much as I like some aspects of Open source and Creative Commons, I do earn a few quid from selling prints, and I get cheesed off when somebody pinches a saleable picture without the decency to ask first.

---

f this law goes through what are the implications for the average Joe?

And can a mega corp. nick our photo's and legally claim it as their own and make money from it if unchallenged by ourselves?

How do we stand pre legislation?

Lozz.

Indeed. Photos are personal property. Like land. Some people treat other peoples' photos like caves/mines on CRoW land. :lol:

When I upload pictures or information to any web sites I do it to put that into the "public domain" with the intention that it SHOULD be used by anyone.

So you wouldn't mind if someone published a book using your photos and claimed all the credit and proceeds for themselves?

I can not understand people posting things but saying no one can use it.

Depends where it's posted. Using the analogy that a forum is just like a bunch of mates down the pub, then by showing each other our photos we don't expect someone at the next table to take copies and use them for their own purposes.

Are they profesionals who intend to profit from their work? In which case are they using web pages as free advertising?

You're drawing too distinct a line between professional and amateur photographers. As a professional I can still be an enthusiast willing to show my photos without a profit motive. But that doesn't mean I'm giving them away for anyone to use for free forever more.
You also appear to be overlooking any distinction between professional and amateur "users". It's one thing for a photo to be copied by an enthusiast with no intention of profiting from it, but quite another when scrupulous individuals market other people's work as their own; or when large corporations scoop up everything for their own dubious purposes.

---

I don't post many pictures mainly because I don't think they're good enough and because I don't take the camera out - can't be bothered with the faffage!

However I have been approached before and have gladly given permission to use images as long as I get a photo credit.

There was an occasion about 20 years ago (pre digital) where a motorcycle club in Australia used, without my permission, and after I had left the country, used one of my shots as a front cover for their race program. Had I not had family in the country I would have never heard about it. I contacted the club and told them they could use the photo as long as I was credited.

This new law will undoubtedly open up a whole can of worms, and, until the situation stabilizes I won't be posting anything. I don't like the idea of websites such as farcebook controlling the IP of your personal pictures - IMO the only people who will make money out of this will be large corporations and the newspapers where journos who are too lazy to do their own work will plagurise ours!

---

Whilst your points are all correct and there are some great photographers on this site I still can't see this having a huge impact on any of us personally when it comes to mine photos.

Unless as previously mentioned "Collapsing Muddy Shatholes of Cleveland & the Surrounding Areas" suddenly becomes the next '50 Shades of Brown'

Cheapo ripped off stock photography for lazy journalists seems the more likely outcome.

How do we stand pre legislation?

Lozz.

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 - some bedtime reading for you!

How do we stand pre legislation?

Lozz.

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 - some bedtime reading for you!

It will be to complicated for me but thanks anyway.

Lozz.