UK.Gov passes Instagram Act: All your pics belong to everyone now

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Give it a try, you can download plug ins for most browsers...

I'm wondering how easy it would be to fool TinEye. Without looking at the code, I can't be sure but it seems to me that some minor changes like re-sizing, altering the colour balance and contrast, then re-saving at a different compression rate, would make it quite difficult to match up the two versions.

On the other hand, I'm happy to believe that the coders are cleverer than me...

😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Despite setbacks, the definition of currency itself is being challenged. Open source P2P digital currency may seem an amusing diversion, but sloppy government issued political currency is not the future.[/QUOTE]
Dangerous for anyone who understands that it's impossible for everything to be free, and that costs are not merely financial.

With most of the free stuff you get on the internet, you're still getting poor value for money, i.e. it's worth less than nothing. With the stuff your parents buy, sooner or later they die, or kick you out.

As for the currency argument: well, I'd say that "sloppy government issued political currency" is much like democracy: the least worst of the unattractive options on offer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well of course the Euro seems a mess, but at least it was an attempt at rising above politics. 😱

It does? Look at its history against the dollar. From roughly parity at launch in 2000 to $0.85 in 2002 (as people were getting used to it) to above parity ever since, hitting $1.58 at one point. I know which I'd back. And indeed which I did back (successfully).

Cheers,

R.

 

[dct]

We are running down the thread hill to the goods and valuables valley of a Last Days discussion. (To my mind I would stash just food, medication, fossil fuels and weapons, forgetting any currency)
Back on topic: I never had faith in online media regarding copyright protection. If you won't be stolen, don't publish high resolution images online. This works for 100 %.

 

[Michael Markey]

I've been visiting photo watering holes on the web, both last night and again this morning. Few seem at all interested or concerned over this topic/law. The PJs and other pros are of course outraged, but the general mood seems "so what". I was thinking there would be a bit more interest on this forum?

I think it speaks to the value we place on our creative works. Many see little or no value in them - as in: it just took part of a second to make, just make another one..

I think KM-25 is correct in thinking that digital photography and the web have devalued what once was a valued item. If it costs nothing to make (what many see the digital image cost) what possible value can it have?

Thats the reality and I don`t see it changing any time soon.
It reflects the prevailing view of the public if not the professional.

It would seem the same justification is being applied to web images as is applied to taking shots on the street.
You are in a public place.

 

[dct]

Don't get the terms "orphan work" and "owner cannot be contacted". I believe most, if not all, of the content in flickr, facebook, instagram etc. is connected to a user id. And thus the user (at least nickname) is known and can be contacted through the service, if not via email or home page.

 

[dct]

All that's needed is to copy a photo and move it to another forum or site sands metadata. This is common. If the photo is altered and used it's unlikely that the original owner would be able to do much. This kind of use is common today. [...]

Agreed. But this wasn't the point of the initial discussion here: IMO the Instragram Act would deny on the instagram site itself (not a copy elsewhere) the ownership and copyright of the original uploading user. Is this the case?

 

[MikeDimit]

Don't get the terms "orphan work" and "owner cannot be contacted"

As I read it..next time I go to a shop selling gold and the seller is out of the room heading to W.C. or to a client , I could take a ring or two claiming it orphan. Gold does not have metadata 🙂).

 

[Lightshow]

If "orphan work" and "owner cannot be contacted" is such a problem, sounds like hosters like FB should be forced by law to keep copyright info intact, and to even pay fines for striping that info for profit such that if they sell or permit a download of an image with copyright that they removed they are responsible for all future sales and the fine should be based on that, and they should require the uploader to state if they are the copyright holder if that info is missing.

IMO preventing that info from being removed is a better solution then just calling it public domain because they can't find the owner, what's next? Our kids? I'm sorry kid we tried finding your parents, but couldn't, so we are going to put you to work... An extreme example yes, but very related if you ask me.

 

[mugent]

If "orphan work" and "owner cannot be contacted" is such a problem, sounds like hosters like FB should be forced by law to keep copyright info intact, and to even pay fines for striping that info for profit such that if they sell or permit a download of an image with copyright that they removed they are responsible for all future sales and the fine should be based on that, and they should require the uploader to state if they are the copyright holder if that info is missing.

IMO preventing that info from being removed is a better solution then just calling it public domain because they can't find the owner, what's next? Our kids? I'm sorry kid we tried finding your parents, but couldn't, so we are going to put you to work... An extreme example yes, but very related if you ask me.

Stripping away the crappy reporting by The Register, I see the new law as this...

You can use any image you want if you don't know who owns it, and you have done a 'diligent' search to attempt to find the owner.

Of course, who defines 'diligent' is a problem here, never mind the ignorance of basic property law.

If I park my car somewhere, I don't expect to hang a sign on it stating that I own it, and where I can be contacted...

 

[sig]

How does the canadians do it? Seems like they have had this law since 1990.

 

[henri klein]

I think at this point in my life and career in photography, I have actually come to fully *HATE* what digital and the Internet has done to what was once something that was a noble pursuit, a well respected profession and an often life shaping medium that took hard work, dedication and talent to rise above the norm.

Amazingly, I am still doing well and even have a bright outlook in fully ridding my self of digital and shooting film only for my work....but my god has photography turned into a bunch of garbage that is overrun with photoshop fantasy and a is an outright free for all.

I think this new development is a sign that everyone's beloved Internet is about to reveal just how damaging it will eventually show itself to be. We have bought into a technological promise land that is actually a corporate monster and it is going to consume much, much more than photography...

Agree. Didn't imagine it turning like this.

 

[Chris101]

Hey, are there any real examples of someone losing control - and income - of a commercial image via a grab from a facebook website?

 

[David Hughes]

Good Grief...

Good Grief...

Hi,

As Charlie Brown would say, Good Grief!

Please, please don't believe everything you read on the net. Try here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/part/6/enacted

which tells you what the UK have decided might be done.

It worries me that people believe almost anything these days; even blatant lies about M5's being ugly. I'll have to start a rumour about it being illegal for people under 70 to own Leicas...

Remember, as Kafka said "Einer muss wach bleiben" which is roughly speaking translated as one of us must be awake.

Regards, David

 

[Sparrow]

... big and ugly, I think you'll find

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I think this new development is a sign that everyone's beloved Internet is about to reveal just how damaging it will eventually show itself to be. We have bought into a technological promise land that is actually a corporate monster and it is going to consume much, much more than photography...

Whenever change occurs on a large scale, there are both winners and losers. My opinion is that there are already many more winners than losers from the existence and expansion of the internet.

I really am amazed at what is now available for us to experience and learn from, in so very many fields of endeavour, thus I regard myself as a winner.

 

[noisycheese]

I think at this point in my life and career in photography, I have actually come to fully *HATE* what digital and the Internet has done to what was once something that was a noble pursuit, a well respected profession and an often life shaping medium that took hard work, dedication and talent to rise above the norm.

Amazingly, I am still doing well and even have a bright outlook in fully ridding my self of digital and shooting film only for my work....but my god has photography turned into a bunch of garbage that is overrun with photoshop fantasy and a is an outright free for all.

I think this new development is a sign that everyone's beloved Internet is about to reveal just how damaging it will eventually show itself to be. We have bought into a technological promise land that is actually a corporate monster and it is going to consume much, much more than photography...

Add me to the list of digital/internet/photoshop/technology loathers.

It's all a two-edged sword that has pretty much enriched bloated, greedy corporations at the cost of the working photographer - and sacrificed insightful photographic vision for run-of-the-mill photoshop shallowness:

“Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes. As technology increases our possibilities, we use them less resourcefully. The one thing we’ve gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception.”

David Vestal saw this coming over a decade ago - and he hit the bullseye with his commentary.

Working photographers used to actually be able to make a living in areas such as stock photography, not to mention photojournalism (remember the recent Chicago Sun-Times bloodletting), fine art, wedding photography and other avenues of image making. Revenue has nose dived (or worse) for many photographers while the profits of the corporate giants has increased.

What a great trade-off in exchange for the speed and convenience of digital, yes? 🙄

I am not one of the leftist so-called 99 percenters, either. I am simply stating the facts of the current situation as I have seen them after having watched many of my photographic peers suffer financially and career-wise thanks to the supposed "miracle" of digital technology.