Slashdot Mirror
UK Citizens May Soon Need License To Photograph Stuff They Already Own (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes with this story from Ars Technica UK: Changes to UK copyright law will soon mean that you may need to take out a licence to photograph classic designer objects, even if you own them. That's the result of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which extends the copyright of artistic objects like designer chairs from 25 years after they were first marketed to 70 years after the creator's death. In most cases, that will be well over a hundred years after the object was designed. During that period, taking a photo of the item will often require a licence from the copyright owner regardless of who owns the particular object in question. This sounds like a great kernel for a short story, and a terrible idea for a law.
...but without any of the freedom that came with lack of surveillance technology. Conservative policy since Thatcher has been solidly about contracting out as much of the apparatus of State, including the laws themselves, for the benefit of business-friends.
The best thing to do is laugh at the 1/6 or so of the population stupid enough to have voted in this government, and encourage the rest of the population to vote them out again.
The UK is becoming chaotic. Leave and ignore. When that sh|t shows up here, or elsewhere, hopefully people will laugh it off, or stomp them.
That is the dream of any manufacturer that they sell you something you never own. You can use it but heaven forbid you talk about it. I'm sure they will want to charge for chairs by the sitting next. Hey! you can't sit in that chair. I'm only allowed fifty sittings a month in that chair. Sounds crazy, just like this article.
The point is that there was an exception to the usual rules for copyright that meant the duration was shorter for works created via an industrial process. That exception and the associated rules are being repealed.
The argument for this seems rather hypocritical in light of the recent changes regarding private copying. In the latter case, basically the government was in favour of introducing the private copying exception and did so, but then failed to get it upheld in court based on some weasel words about compensating rightsholders that apparently primary legislation can't overrule. (If you're thinking "WTF?!" at that point, you're not the only one.) And yet in this case, it seems anyone who for example already publishes a book about these works that was perfectly legal until the changes under discussion is considered collateral damage and there is no talk anywhere of compensating them for potentially having to pulp all of their creative works, i.e., the books about the other works that happened to contain relevant photographs.
And of course there is the usual logical argument about how copyright is supposed to incentivise the creation and sharing of new works, so retrospectively extending it to works several decades old so the rights will last longer than an entire human lifetime is surely going to be an effective incentive for the long-dead creators of many of those works to create more.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Just one more example of how giant, multi-national corporations are increasing their stranglehold on governance of western countries. Can you image taking a family picture in your own home that happened to include some stupid designer chair or couch, then posting to FaceBook to share with your relatives, only to get a DMCA takedown notice to remove it or else? What if that was the last pic of dear old Aunt Granny that you ever took??
From what I understand, you can't post a vacation picture of the Eiffel Tower at night because there's a copyright on the evening light show. Ditto a number of other designer buildings in Europe, day or night.
It is enough to put one off of capitalism in general and the modern implementation of it in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. in particular. What has happened to the public good or the commonwealth?
It's not a joke, manufacturers are really pushing us towards this idea that you don't truly own the stuff you buy. That said, I doubt you will need a license to photograph stuff you own. You may a license to publish such a photograph, which is bad enough.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
That country is working hard on becoming a toliet. The movie 'V' for Vendetta. Start thinking about Brits.
Think about it.. the more photos of your "designer object" are out there, the more people will find out it exists and decide to buy one from you.
This is not like taking a photo of a painting where the image itself is what's valuable.
No, you won't need a license to "photograph stuff you already own". You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property.
It's still stupid, but you don't need to try to make the headline scarier than the truth. It doesn't help and it only upsets the children (see other comments).
You are welcome on my lawn.
> You may a license to publish such a photograph
Clothes may have a copyright on their design. Putting on facebook may be publishing. Do not put up photos of anyone wearing clothes, only of people without clothes.
You better not have any tattoos.
+0 Meh
Ok so we all know the drill about how totally fucking ludicrous copyright is getting. So instead of continually bitching and moaning, who are the candidates pushing for reform that we can all go out and support them?
Democracy works by action, not all sitting around moaning. I need a hero....
The law doesn't apply to the ruling class, you should know better slave.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
At least one of those is bullshit "photography featuring the iconic âoeWelcome to Fabulous Las Vegasâ sign are not restricted by copyright⦠photos of all of the famous Las Vegas Hotels on the strip are."
Photos of architecture taken from public property are not subject to copyright in the United States. 17 USC 120(a).
Also, the Hollywood sign is not copyrighted, though the owners of the trademark do try to push their rights as if it's a copyright and trademark.
How can I "show it to friends" if posting on the internet is considered a publishing act already?
I believe there should be two types of intellectual property protections: private and commercial. Private is for things like personal photos and trade secrets; things that are not intended for public consumption. If something IS intended for public consumption, like a book or a film, then it must be registered. Registration lasts for one year, and is not automatically renewed. The cost of registration starts off at 1 cent for the first year of protection; and for each subsequent year, the cost is double the previous year. The owner of the intellectual property is free to renew registration for as long as they can afford to do so. Once the registration expires, the work becomes public domain.
The first 20 years of protection would be fairly easy for a corporation to pay for: a little over $5000 for a year's protection. At 30 years, you'd better have a lucrative item, because it would cost $5million to protect. At 40 years, it would cost nearly 5.5 billion dollars.
The system has three advantages:
1 - It is easy to tell if something is still under copyright. Simply look up the registration number and see if it has been paid for.
2 - It is self cleaning. No corporation on the planet has deep enough pockets to keep something registered forever. I doubt even Disney could afford the 5 trillion dollar price tag for keeping a movie until the 50th anniversary of their release.
3 - It is a revenue stream for the government. Someone has to collect those license fees.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!