PKR
Veteran
EU Approves Controversial Copyright Directive and ‘Upload Filter’
petapixel.com
By Michael Zhang
The European Parliament yesterday voted in favor of the highly controversial EU Copyright Directive, which is intended to bring EU copyright laws into the Internet age. Critics have called the directive “disastrous” and warned that it could fundamentally destroy the open Web.
One of the most debated sections of the directive has been Article 13, which contains what critics have called an “upload filter.” According to the article, online content sharing websites would be liable for copyright infringement occurring on their platforms unless they implement “effective and proportionate measures” to “prevent the availability of specific [unlicensed] works identified by rightsholders” and act “expeditiously” to remove copyright infringements while showing they’ve made “best efforts” to “prevent their future availability.”
Critics argue that Article 13 would force Internet companies such as Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Instagram, and 500px to implement a scanning system that analyzes every single piece of piece of content being uploaded for copyright violations. While that may sound like a helpful copyright protection measure for content creators such as photographers, notable companies, groups, and individuals have been warning that it could have disastrous consequences.
Those that have spoken out against the EU Copyright Directive include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Creative Commons, Reddit, Wikimedia, and YouTube.
A group of 70 top tech leaders also sent a signed letter to European Parliament President Antonio Tajani back in June, expressing their opposition to the directive.
“By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users,” the letter states. “The damage that this may do to the free and open Internet as we know it is hard to predict, but in our opinions could be substantial.”
Other critics argue that the directive would effectively kill the world of online “memes,” the viral pieces of media that often included copyright content.
More
https://petapixel.com/2018/09/13/eu-approves-controversial-copyright-directive-and-upload-filter/
petapixel.com
By Michael Zhang
The European Parliament yesterday voted in favor of the highly controversial EU Copyright Directive, which is intended to bring EU copyright laws into the Internet age. Critics have called the directive “disastrous” and warned that it could fundamentally destroy the open Web.
One of the most debated sections of the directive has been Article 13, which contains what critics have called an “upload filter.” According to the article, online content sharing websites would be liable for copyright infringement occurring on their platforms unless they implement “effective and proportionate measures” to “prevent the availability of specific [unlicensed] works identified by rightsholders” and act “expeditiously” to remove copyright infringements while showing they’ve made “best efforts” to “prevent their future availability.”
Critics argue that Article 13 would force Internet companies such as Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Instagram, and 500px to implement a scanning system that analyzes every single piece of piece of content being uploaded for copyright violations. While that may sound like a helpful copyright protection measure for content creators such as photographers, notable companies, groups, and individuals have been warning that it could have disastrous consequences.
Those that have spoken out against the EU Copyright Directive include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Creative Commons, Reddit, Wikimedia, and YouTube.
A group of 70 top tech leaders also sent a signed letter to European Parliament President Antonio Tajani back in June, expressing their opposition to the directive.
“By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users,” the letter states. “The damage that this may do to the free and open Internet as we know it is hard to predict, but in our opinions could be substantial.”
Other critics argue that the directive would effectively kill the world of online “memes,” the viral pieces of media that often included copyright content.
More
https://petapixel.com/2018/09/13/eu-approves-controversial-copyright-directive-and-upload-filter/
joe bosak
Well-known
EU Approves Controversial Copyright Directive
So article 13 itself is really just about enforcement. The real issues are copyright holders fundamental rights, whether they are sensible, whether the enforcement is proportional, and whether or not intenet companies are capable of sensibly implementing the enforcement specified.
So article 13 itself is really just about enforcement. The real issues are copyright holders fundamental rights, whether they are sensible, whether the enforcement is proportional, and whether or not intenet companies are capable of sensibly implementing the enforcement specified.
Paul T.
Veteran
There has been a lot of lobbying against this by Google, who take billions of ad revenue from videos to which they don't own the copyright.
Whatever happen ultimately with this directive, Youtube, Google and other sites have represented a huge shift of money, away from creatives and towards digital distributors.
Whatever happen ultimately with this directive, Youtube, Google and other sites have represented a huge shift of money, away from creatives and towards digital distributors.
FujiLove
Well-known
The problem is, with literally hundreds of millions of videos being uploaded daily, how are YouTube supposed to police that? If the RFF servers were located in the EU and I uploaded a copyrighted image, RFF would be hit with a big fine. How would they police that? The answer is: they wouldn't; they would ban all image sharing, which is to everyone's detriment.
If all the Internet distribution channels such as YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook, Instagram, Flickr etc. died tomorrow, where would amateur creatives share their art with millions of eyeballs and eardrums? We would be returning to a world where only the pros are able to publish work through traditional channels: printed magazines, TV broadcasts, billboards etc. The rest of us would have to be content with a home slide show and winning ninth prize at the local photography club.
No thanks!
lukx
Well-known
The funny thing is: copying a journalistic text as you did for this post would be prohibited by article 11 of this new copyright law if I'm not mistaken. It is going to be very interesting to see how this will affect everyday internet use.
FujiLove
Well-known
The jurisdiction of laws regarding Internet copyright used to only cover the locations where the servers are hosted. Does anyone know if that's still the case?
If so, on 29th March, Google etc. could just close down all their European servers in Ireland, Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands and move them to the UK.
It's taken me over two years, but I've finally found an up-side to Brexit.
If so, on 29th March, Google etc. could just close down all their European servers in Ireland, Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands and move them to the UK.
It's taken me over two years, but I've finally found an up-side to Brexit.
FujiLove
Well-known
Actually, it looks like individual users are exempt when it comes to sharing news items. See Article 11, section 1a:
"1a. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users"
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides...//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2018-0337+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
Paul T.
Veteran
Exactly, but the story that individuals would be affected has been widely spread and is widely believed.
Arianna Huffington made $315m by selling her news site which simply shared news from other sources who actually spent money on journalists (and photographers). No one has quite explained where such sites will get their news when all the organisations spending money on such have gone bust.
FujiLove
Well-known
This isn't the 'fault' of the internet or Huffington Post though. Those news organisations deliberately placed what they see as valuable content on the open Internet where anyone can reused it...that's the nature of the Internet.
The problem is that people and businesses want it both ways: they want to protect their copyright and make money from everything they create and display online, but at the same time they want to use that content on the Internet to widely promote their businesses, drive traffic to their websites, and ultimately sell people things. You can't do both. You have to choose what to freely distribute on the Internet and what to sell. If businesses and individuals actually thought about this and were more careful with the content they placed online, we wouldn't need these ridiculous draconian copyright laws.
What happens today:
Photographer creates a website and posts her best three hundred high quality photos. One of them is used without permission on another website. All hell breaks loose with lawyers earning a fortune, bad feeling on all sides, calls for tighter copyright laws etc.
What should happen:
Photographer creates a website and posts a small selection of thumbnail images. She accepts that by posting them online they may be used elsewhere without permission. She's fine with that because they are very small and therefore of limited use, and besides, wide distribution of those images may promote her work.
She provides a login for anyone interested in viewing higher quality images. Finished artwork files are locked away behind a paywall where they can only be accessed via a credit card.
------
The lesson with all this is: if you have something of value that you don't want other people to share for free, then by all means put it online, but do it behind a paywall. If it has real value, people will pay for it. If it hasn't, they won't. Either way, your work won't be stolen.
End of story.
PKR
Veteran
"Photographer creates a website and posts a small selection of thumbnail images. She accepts that by posting them online they may be used elsewhere without permission. She's fine with that because they are very small and therefore of limited use, and besides, wide distribution of those images may promote her work."
"and besides, wide distribution of those images may promote her work."
I don't do wedding photography but, I've had my thumbnails lifted and used by others.. who take credit for their creation.
Here is an example of what's done with small thumbnail images that are lifted from a website. Often the thief's web page is copyrighted, so your lost images have been copyrighted by the thief.
This kind of photo theft is common. I've heard of thiefs bragging about lifting a photographer's entire website. One local thief told the site owner that he ripped his entire site, and there was nothing he could do about it.
Wedding photographers see a lot of theft. But, thumbnail theft isn't isolated to them.
Have a look at this site:
http://stopstealingphotos.com/
"and besides, wide distribution of those images may promote her work."
I don't do wedding photography but, I've had my thumbnails lifted and used by others.. who take credit for their creation.
Here is an example of what's done with small thumbnail images that are lifted from a website. Often the thief's web page is copyrighted, so your lost images have been copyrighted by the thief.
This kind of photo theft is common. I've heard of thiefs bragging about lifting a photographer's entire website. One local thief told the site owner that he ripped his entire site, and there was nothing he could do about it.
Wedding photographers see a lot of theft. But, thumbnail theft isn't isolated to them.
Have a look at this site:
http://stopstealingphotos.com/
ptpdprinter
Veteran
PKR
Veteran
You continue to find reasons to excuse photo theft. Keeping your images offline doesn't prevent all photo theft. But, I'm sure you know this.
The only thing that I've seen stop a photo thief is legal action. And, legal action isn't possible in all countries.
PKR
Veteran
I don't know the wedding photo business model. But, it seems the thief is simply taking credit for photos they didn't create to generate business and, represent their ability to create imagery that's beyond their talent.
Why do students, scholars and politicians plagiarize? I think the answer is the same.
Paul T.
Veteran
Some small crooks might have made a few hundred dollars from stealing wedding photos.
Google is making billions by hosting stolen videos. Which they say they're not really responsible for, even as they trouser the dosh. That's the big crime.
Google is making billions by hosting stolen videos. Which they say they're not really responsible for, even as they trouser the dosh. That's the big crime.
Steve M.
Veteran
Sounds like an unenforceable law. Just don't post anything online that you don't want anyone stealing.
I have the same philosophy with cars. People pay lots of money for elaborate and expensive auto alarms. I just don't leave anything of value in the car, and roll the windows down so they don't break them to see what is inside.
I have the same philosophy with cars. People pay lots of money for elaborate and expensive auto alarms. I just don't leave anything of value in the car, and roll the windows down so they don't break them to see what is inside.
RichC
Well-known
One word: promotion.
I’ve a friend who’s a wedding photographer. She’s very good at it with a glamour-meets-urban-candid style, being selected by Rangefinder Magazine as one of its 30 worldwide rising stars of wedding photography: http://eclection-photography.com/rangefinders-30-rising-stars-wedding-photography-2016/
To keep her business in the public eye and looking fresh means new photos constantly being put online to promote it and to reach couples about to be wed. So, photos on her website, social media, blogs, print magazines, online magazines ... you get the picture! And she gets pictures ripped off. People stealing her photos for general use doesn’t harm her: that’s just irritating - she’d at least like to be credited. But what really hacks her off is people nicking her photos and saying they took them - this has included other wedding photographers (presumably crap ones)!
It’s all well and good saying don’t put images online that you don’t want ripped off but that’s not always possible. In my friend’s case, doing that would seriously harm her business, so image theft is something she has to live with.
So, I’m in favour of this EU Directive, if carefully thought through and applied sensibly.
FujiLove
Well-known
A wannabe wedding photographer (potentially living in a different country to your friend), is so inexperienced or unskilled that they don’t have the ability to even gather together a handful of their own good shots to promote themselves. They wouldn’t be able to deliver a professional service or good quality images, and would probably be out of business in a few weeks.
How could that person seriously harm your friend’s business?
FujiLove
Well-known
RichC
Well-known
Bad press on one occasion when accused of scamming a couple. Turned out someone had stolen her photos and used a false name, so out of the blue she was accused of fraud. That was the worst example (I’m sure there are other instances where her name or business was badmouthed wrongly that didn’t get back to her).
In short, use of photographs in this way affects businesses by misrepresentation, dilution of brand image and reputational harm. It’s no different to shoddy fakes of a brand product that fall apart - sure, many will realise (sadly some after buying them), but some will be put off the brand (rightly or wrongly).
And as the web spans the world and is democratic, some unknown “wannabe” wedding photographer ripping off photographs has global reach.
DanskDynamit
Well-known
I live in Europe, I'm a EU citizen and I agree with this directive which is only controversial for companies making money by letting their users to upload zillions of videos and photos they don't own.
Michael Zhang is lobbying for google and facebook here while just a few months ago he was writing:
"A Virginia federal court has made a decision that photographers won’t be happy to hear: the court ruled that finding a photo on the Internet and then using it without permission on a commercial website can be considered fair use."
I'm on the photographers side, and you Mr. Zhang?
Michael Zhang is lobbying for google and facebook here while just a few months ago he was writing:
"A Virginia federal court has made a decision that photographers won’t be happy to hear: the court ruled that finding a photo on the Internet and then using it without permission on a commercial website can be considered fair use."
I'm on the photographers side, and you Mr. Zhang?