Jump to content

The Digital Economy Bill

Steve Randles

By Steve Randles
in Photography

 Share

Recommended Posts

Snatcher Member

Snatcher

Posted
Posted

Steve read through it once and find it heavy going. Would appreciate a summary from you boss and also your take on it :rolleyes:

 

John

 

 

Fishing digs on the Mull of Galloway - recommend

HERE

 

babyforavatar.jpg

 

Me when I had hair

 

 

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RobStubbs Member

RobStubbs

Posted
Posted (edited)

My reading of that suggests to me it's over exaggerating and selective reporting of various incidents to support it's arguments. Photographing in public places is a typical example (see the bottom of the article). Now yes people have been stopped in the past under anti terrorism laws but the police have stated that's wrong and it won't be applied.

 

If everything that article states is correct then TV, newspapers etc will cease to exist - you can't film an audience without their permission or photograph footballers, never mind the crowd...

 

Rob.

Edited by RobStubbs
My photo collection
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Randles Member

Steve Randles

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Now yes people have been stopped in the past under anti terrorism laws but the police have stated that's wrong and it won't be applied.

 

Rob.

But they WILL apply something...watch this...http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest-photographer

 

Steve...:)

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - Ansel Adams

 

Focal Planet

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Randles Member

Steve Randles

Posted
  • Author
Posted

John, what they are saying is that if a photo does not have any traceable info with it, then it can be used by anyone..for any purpose which includes commercial use. If you find out one of your photos has been used for advertising you will be able to contact an agency and then providing you can prove the photo is yours then they will chase the photo user for recompense, of course the agency will get their cut of that..as will the government so you would be left with a pittance...providing you know your photo was used in the first place!

 

Now, we can digitally mark photographs in many programmes from irfanview through to Photoshop using IPTC...which is similar to the exif info our camera mark our photos with, we can easily add our name address, phone numbers email and web addresses to help protect our photos from this use. But just as easily as we can add, so it can be removed. I can see in the future that some bad people will harvest photos from the net, use a programme to quickly remove this info...then sell them on..then its down to us to find if our photos have been used to start the reclaim process for the pittance the goverment and agency will leave us.

 

So imagine this scenario John, your going to Australia this year...lets say you take a jaw dropping photo of the Sydney Harbour bridge and you show your friends the shot when your back in Britain. Some bad sort types in Sydney harbour bridge into an image search engine and they find your photo. Its taken, your copyright info and digital signing is removed and its sold to a company in Autralia, on the back of which it doubles a magazines circulation...making that company hundreds of thousands of AU$. You wont know, and you get nothing yet half of Oz have seen your photo...maybe even paid the magazine for a blown up version of it and its hanging on their wall now!!

 

Steve...:)

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - Ansel Adams

 

Focal Planet

Link to comment
Share on other sites
poledark Member

poledark

Posted
Posted

Or even pinch a pic of you with a big fish and use it to illustrate an article...............................and then someone else uses the same pic to illustrate yet another article......................and that is the only ones I know about.

 

Didn't even ask! despite one of them actually knowing me!!

 

 

Den

"When through the woods and forest glades I wanderAnd hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees;When I look down from lofty mountain grandeur,And hear the brook, and feel the breeze;and see the waves crash on the shore,Then sings my soul..................

for all you Spodders. https://youtu.be/XYxsY-FbSic

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snatcher Member

Snatcher

Posted
Posted

Thanks for that very informative reply Steve :) Yes it does look like a very bad move for photographers in general. For the likes of us amateurs/hobbyists it will not be finantially ruining but I can see why you professionals have good cause to be worried and angry about it :angry:

 

John

 

 

Fishing digs on the Mull of Galloway - recommend

HERE

 

babyforavatar.jpg

 

Me when I had hair

 

 

Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Randles Member

Steve Randles

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm not a Pro John and I dont earn money from my photos, its more the erosion of Photographers rights that the issue. And your work being allowed under goverment law to be used by anyone...for any purpose including financial gain. So in essence they could use your work to earn money you will not see at all unless you find out and chase it.....This will of course lead to other or further restrictions...no doubt.

 

Den, under present law you could approach where the photo was published and ask for a fee or have it removed.

 

Steve...:)

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - Ansel Adams

 

Focal Planet

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RobStubbs Member

RobStubbs

Posted
Posted (edited)
But they WILL apply something...watch this...http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest-photographer

 

Steve...:)

 

Steve,

That has absolutely nothing to do with this bill or the anti terrorism laws mentioned in the article and I quote "He shows how the police claims he was engaging in anti-social behaviour led to his arrest"

 

Since the crime and disorder act of 1998 there has been an act in place, which in this instance the police have used, for whatever reason.

 

In general terms, photographing in public places is not prohibited and you will not get prosecuted for doing so, this article states the opposite.

 

Rob.

Edited by RobStubbs
My photo collection
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Randles Member

Steve Randles

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Your probably right Rob, my answer was to your quoted words..... In that respect my reply is most definately on topic and valid. Photographing in Public places is most definately a right we have now, and should be kept...and probably will be for the reasons mentioned. The part that I am more concerned with (and everyone else should be) is the "orphaned" photos part. This is where I can see problems arising of photo use and theft thats supported by the government and where unscrupulous sorts will make money of the back of others work..without the original 'togs knowledge....and if if the 'tog does find out and makes a claim..an agency and the goverment will get to line their pockets and the 'tog will get a pittance.

 

Steve...:)

Edited by Steve Randles

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - Ansel Adams

 

Focal Planet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.

  I accept