Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Passes "Instagram Act"

Posted by samzenpus on from the all-your-pics-are-belong-to-us dept.

kodiaktau writes "The UK govt passed the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act which effectively makes so-called 'orphaned' content posted on social media sites public domain. Corporations now only need to have made a "diligent search" to find the owner of the content before use. From the article: 'The Act contains changes to UK copyright law which permit the commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the owner is missing, so-called "orphan works", by placing the work into what's known as "extended collective licensing" schemes. Since most digital images on the internet today are orphans - the metadata is missing or has been stripped by a large organization - millions of photographs and illustrations are swept into such schemes.'"

15 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. This could go both ways by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now does this mean that big corporations can scoop up these so-called "orphaned works" and then place their own copyright on them, or do they stay in public domain in perpetuity? If so that wouldn't be so bad, other than "diligent search" sounds like sending my teenage daughter into the other room to find something sitting behind something else.

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
    1. Re:This could go both ways by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I imagine they would get a copyright on the derivative work, but not the original image. This seems to me like a good idea, with two caveats: 1 - If, after a diligent search, the owner comes forward and is able to prove they own the copyright, they should be able to receive a fair, standard rate compulsory license fee. 2 - If, after a search designed to not find the real owner, the owner comes forward, the compulsory license should have a much higher punitive rate. Also, keep in mind that just because you can use a picture, doesn't mean you have the likeness rights to the people in that picture. That's bit a few companies with Creative Commons licensing.

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    2. Re:This could go both ways by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Almost true, but there is a narrow exception: Even non-creative reproductions can qualify as a new work, in the right circumstances. So, for example, if you have a a long-expired piece of artwork hanging up, you can take a photo of it and copyright that - then you have effective copyright to the work, so long as you can keep the original securely locked away so no-one else can get a photo too. Similar situation with classical music: The composer might have been dead for a few centuries, but any performance and recording is a new work.

  2. Re:Great an image laundering scheme for big busine by ericloewe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With some luck, Google's "search similar images" function may make that scheme much harder

  3. Re:Great an image laundering scheme for big busine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My first thought was that happening on accident. I've had text and code copied and posted with no attribution before, which would now make it public domain if in the UK? Doing that on purpose is easy though, and perhaps more of an issue.

    Does this only apply to works where the copy right holder (which must be unknown) is in the UK? If so, this law means nothing. If not, it violated the international copyright treaty requiring respecting the copyright in the country of origin. Seems broken either way.

    Anyway, someone please seed anonymized torrents in the UK. As long as its properly anonymized, we can all reseed it legally, since it a orphaned works from the UK, right? Just do a "diligent search", which finds no owner, and you're set!

  4. And yet... by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We can't get access to orphaned films that are not available for sale?

    I believe that should be part of ANY copyright law. In order for copyright to be maintained. A work of art must be available for sale within a 5 year period. Stop selling it, and you lose your copyright.

    1. Re:And yet... by sribe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe that should be part of ANY copyright law. In order for copyright to be maintained. A work of art must be available for sale within a 5 year period. Stop selling it, and you lose your copyright.

      Absolutely. Especially now that advances in technology have made small-run distribution much more affordable, from on-demand printing to e-books.

    2. Re:And yet... by c · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe that should be part of ANY copyright law. In order for copyright to be maintained. A work of art must be available for sale within a 5 year period. Stop selling it, and you lose your copyright.

      So, if I buy a one-of-a-kind painting and hold on to it for 5 years and one month, the original artist loses his/her copyright (since it's no longer being sold) and I can sell as many copies as I like?

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:And yet... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe that should be part of ANY copyright law. In order for copyright to be maintained. A work of art must be available for sale within a 5 year period. Stop selling it, and you lose your copyright.

      No you don't want that. If that's how the law worked, every open source project would lose their copyrights after 5 years, and the GPL, BSD license, etc. would become pretty useless. Likewise, if you and your wife videotaped yourselves having sex 6 years ago, and someone repairing your home found it and copied it, they'd be free to release it to the public with no repercussions because it was public domain.

      Copyright is for controlling distribution of a work you've created. Not necessarily making money off of it.

  5. That's great by guruevi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One can now post images of music, movies, software etc and have it be instant public-domain!

    No more copyright in UK which means ThePirateBay could legally operate there (if they jump through the hoops correctly)

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  6. Re:hint.... by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In fact, posting it yourself means it would be more likely to be traceable to the copyright owner.

    I just wonder what definitions of a "social media site" and "orphaned" they'll be using. Is your blog a social media site? Is a forum a social media site?
    For any site I'd consider social media (facebook, twitter, linkedin, google+, myspace, etc.), content is easily traceable to the copyright owner; it's the person posting it. It's only orphaned when somehow the profile is deleted yet the content remains.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  7. Re:lol wut? by Simply+Curious · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would love to see this used as a legal basis for abandonware.

  8. Re:hint.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anything I post is small and watermarked. It is a sad statement about our online society. This means I do not participate in sites like Flikr and many others - too many tales of stolen images, copyright nightmares, etc. A lot of the sites are one0sided in their terms - suddenly THEY own your pictures, forever.
    In October last year there was this article about this issue:
    http://petapixel.com/2012/10/10/what-famous-photos-would-look-like-if-their-photogs-used-ugly-watermarks/
    The UK has not made any friends by passing this law.

  9. Re:hint.... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I feel oddly compelled to point out that self-destructing documents were one of the proposed uses of DRM.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  10. Re:hint.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If it's not worth enough to go to the bother of registering it then it's not worth adding to the legal quagmire that is default copyright.

    In lots of countries where your rights are not fucked up, you get automatic copyright on things you produce without the need to register/pay the gov't.