BBC, big business leer creepily at orphan works
Hang on. Are you a library?
Mandybill Big publishers and the BBC have come out to lobby for the controversial Clause 43, that part of the Mandybill that strips photographers of their historical rights.
Is that surprising? It should be, because Clause 43 is the section that deals with 'orphan works' - and according to the Business department BIS, the only people who are supposed to benefit from the unique powers it confers are special parties: copyright libraries, such as the British Library. These are non-commercial operations. Clause 43 was never intended act as a leg-up for tight-fisted publishers.
But here they are.
As we noted recently, Clause 43 gives new powers to use an image for which the owner can't be found. And the prospective user doesn't really have to try too hard. Effectively the state "nationalises" orphans and gives a free collective licence to anyone who asks.
The Copyright Alliance has noted that the BBC has been lobbying hard along with two publishers groups (The Publishers Association and The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers), two collective licensing agencies (The Copyright Licensing Agency and the Educational Recording Agency) and the BFI are involved.
Photographers' website Copyright Action, which revealed the lobbying, notes:
"Government has wandered a long way from assisting the British Library et al, to use orphaned and abandoned work for the public interest - a project we have never opposed."
"We are instead facing wholesale changes to our copyright that Government has been persuaded will assist these 'creative industries; to make more profit, not from creating more or creating better, but by enabling yet more brute power over the individuals and small companies who actually create the work they all depend upon."
It shows how the anti-copyright lobby - which trades under the misleading banner of "digital rights" and insists that it's fighting copyright middlemen - ends up strengthening those entrenched interests at the expense of the creator. Creators are collateral damage in the war against The Man.
Photographers have an excellent resource to rally against the clause: Stop 43. The deadline to take action against this landgrab is April 6.®
Availablity does not mean OK to reuse
Lots of people take photos of family events, their kids, holiday views etc and post them on the internet. Occasionally, they take an image as good as any professional, but just because they haven't digitally watermarked it or aren't actively hawking it about for money, doesn't give anyone the right to use that image in some advert, book, poster, website selling hotel rooms, or for any other commercial exploitation.
Re: AC true but...
They wouldn't be orphaned, but...
There is this great picture on such and such a page which we'd like to use. We know who's page it is so we guess they own it.... Damn we'll have to pay them.
No hang on, if I go down to the internet cafe down the road and copy it to another page then you can ask me if I know who's it is and I can say sorry can't remember saw it, liked it used it on my page.
Ah! so you mean it's orphaned then.
Yeah, guess it must be.
I wonder how long before freetards are using this as a get out of jail free card.
You have been accused of ripping off a copy of the new XYZ album,
Nah M'lord, I erd it on some website and they couldn't remember where it came from 'onest so I just copied it I did - It's orphan it is. Oo's XYZ, never eard of them, only ever listen to orphan works me, never heard of no groups no not none.
Bet it works for big business stealing from the little guy. Bet the little guys still getr screwed by big business.
AC I don't see your arguement. He'd work for the Tories (if the price was right) but the digital economy bill has essentially proved the man to be very dangerous.
"it wouldn’t be serving the government, it would be serving the country" - the words of a self serving snake.