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.
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 That exception and the associated rules are being repealed.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.
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
Too damn right! It's a shithole that is only getting worse. Lived in lovely france for 9 years and came back to the UK to find a hostile, unfriendly, big brother watching you, tax the shit out of the them, country. All the good things of the past are gone and the future is looking more and more bleek. Back to France soon me thinks. This is one rat that is going to swim for it!