Orphan works....

[decosnapper]

I'm fed up with template Conservative letters. I know some of you have received the "we will protect the metadata and let orphans be used for the good of society" garbage. There is no way of protecting metadata..... technically impossible and currently illegal.... but the law is chocolate teapot in its wording and the practice is widespread.

This little letter has been sent to my MP so if you have a Conservative MP too, may I suggest dropping them a little correspondence along these lines. I also cc'd CAMEROND@parliament.uk to make sure his boss was aware of this viewpoint:-

"As you may be aware, Digital Economy Bill Clause 42 was not amended in the House of Lords on Monday. The Bill now passes to the House of Commons after a third reading in the House of Lords

The shadow minister for Culture, Media and Sport has outlined the Conservative position on Clause 42 and I therefore conclude that the Conservative party intends to support both the concept and principle of commercial exploitation of orphan works, and will not oppose Clause 42.

This is despite a strong presentation of reasoning against this decision, outlined in the EPUK briefing paper circulated to various Conservative Lords prior to the debate. As an example of the unworkable nature of the government's ideas, Lord Young suggested during the debate that creators could search the "orphan register" for any of their pictures.....however, searching for a specific image is technically impossible and unless the creator examines each orphan image one-by-one... Lord Young's reasoning is not based on real world evidence and is unworkable in practice. The Conservative position of "maintaining metadata" was explained away by Lord Young, citing existing legislation as a safeguard. This again is an example of disconnection with reality - one has to prove the intent to deceive by stripping identifying data from a digital image. The practice of stripping metadata is widespread within the media industry but as it is almost impossible to prove intent, this action remains unpunished. Creation of orphan works remains accepted practice.

The Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Clement-Jones presented a very strong case in the chamber against Clause 42, a case that defeated line by line Lord Young's reasoning to keep the clause. It is regrettable that there was an insufficient number of Lords present on opposition benches to ensure victory in a vote, so the amendment was withdrawn. Nevertheless, this stance by the Liberal Democrats was admirable and far beyond what your party has done. With this in mind I shall consider a donation of £100 to the Liberal Democrat challenging your seat a reasonable token of my thanks.

Normally I would simply place my X somewhere else on the ballot paper, but Clause 42 is such a fundamental change to copyright, a change that breaks the very core of creative protection, that I feel compelled to take direct action and in addition to the donation to your opposition, I intend to conduct a negative campaign against your reelection. The reasoning behind this action is simple; why should you continue to enjoy an income when you are choosing to support Clause 42, a clause that will damage my ability to control, license and monetise my creative endeavors?

But it is not too late. There is debate in the House of Commons and the Conservative Party could amend its position. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could:-

1. Forward me the list of Members, regardless of party, who are dealing with this Bill as it passes through the parliamentary process.

2. Forward my representations to those within your party who form the policy and ask them to satisfy the points raised in the attached briefing paper. Not just a template letter reply, but something that actually demonstrates that they have understood the argument, considered the implications and have developed a point-by-point reply to either accept or counter the reasoning. So far, I feel the detail has either been a) misunderstood or b) glossed over and poorly considered.

3. When it comes to the vote, be present in the chamber and vote against this Bill.

4. If you cannot vote against this Bill, grant me a 30 minute session in your next surgery, allowing you to explain your decision and reasoning as to why you think Clause 42 is worthy of continued support."

[decosnapper]

Welcome back Digigreen......

Update:-

Clause 42 - orphan works - has been renamed to clause 43. There are signs that cracks are appearing in HMG's stance and clause 43 could go. If you want to see a future with orphans, then how about this:-



Or this:-



But only if we sit back and do nothing. Now really is the time to keep the pressure on. There is now a campaign site running - visit Stop43.org

[decosnapper]

Part of Clause 43 is something called Extended Collective Licensing. The focus of the campaign to Stop43 has been the sustained attack on orphan works.

However, it's worth having a read on the damage extended collective licensing would do - more details here - The Extended Collective Licensing Scam

[decosnapper]

The name for images without a clearly identified author have been coined "Mandybrats".....in honour of the Bill's sponsor.

I'm off to see some MPs this week and early next..... wish me luck.

[Danygraig]

Hi Simon
Wrote to my MP earlier this year. He passed on my concerns to His Mightiness, the Lord Mandelson. My MP is standing down from parliament at the General Election - for health reasons, nothing to do with paying back £12000 in expenses, so hadn't heard anything for a few weeks. Received a letter today from David Lammy at BIS - one of Mandelson's lackeys I assume. Thought you might be intersted.

" I am aware of the concern held by some photographers that orphan works legislation will create a means for content users to appropriate content at an unfairly low cost or for free. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that this is absolutely not the case. If any orphan work schemes are created that cover photographic works, then any use of an orphan work under such a scheme can only take place after a properly diligent search has been carried out. The use will also require payment of a fair licence fee, and this fee will be held safely and kept available to be claimed by the rightful owner should they come forward."

How do you prove a properly diligent search has or hasn't been carried out?
As you have said, HMG keeps any fees paid (fee will be held safely ) unless owner is aware of the use of the photo.

Lammy continues

" The Government's intention is that there should be no financial advantage from mis-identifying a work as an orphan work and that deliberate or negligent mis-identification should carry an appropriate penalty." How do you prove deliberate or negligent mis-identification?

Finally he gives me a webpage which "addresses the issues raised" - not had chance to look at this yet as off to Ireland now for 10 days.
Here's the link -

http:Intellectual Property Office - The Digital Economy Bill: What it means for photographers

Good luck in your meetings - I wouldn't have the patience to talk to some of these politicians!

Cheers
Mark

[decosnapper]

Hi Simon
Wrote to my MP earlier this year. He passed on my concerns to His Mightiness, the Lord Mandelson. My MP is standing down from parliament at the General Election - for health reasons, nothing to do with paying back £12000 in expenses, so hadn't heard anything for a few weeks. Received a letter today from David Lammy at BIS - one of Mandelson's lackeys I assume. Thought you might be intersted.

" I am aware of the concern held by some photographers that orphan works legislation will create a means for content users to appropriate content at an unfairly low cost or for free. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that this is absolutely not the case. If any orphan work schemes are created that cover photographic works, then any use of an orphan work under such a scheme can only take place after a properly diligent search has been carried out. The use will also require payment of a fair licence fee, and this fee will be held safely and kept available to be claimed by the rightful owner should they come forward."

How do you prove a properly diligent search has or hasn't been carried out?
As you have said, HMG keeps any fees paid (fee will be held safely ) unless owner is aware of the use of the photo.

Lammy continues

" The Government's intention is that there should be no financial advantage from mis-identifying a work as an orphan work and that deliberate or negligent mis-identification should carry an appropriate penalty." How do you prove deliberate or negligent mis-identification?

Finally he gives me a webpage which "addresses the issues raised" - not had chance to look at this yet as off to Ireland now for 10 days.
Here's the link -

http:Intellectual Property Office - The Digital Economy Bill: What it means for photographers

Good luck in your meetings - I wouldn't have the patience to talk to some of these politicians!

Cheers
Mark

Hi Mark

Thanks for writing. And thanks for sharing. Already seen the somewhat distorted view this government holds. Lammy is indeed running the IPO. He's not a bad man, just very well mis-informed. He conducted a copyright review last year and I have it on good authority that he was surprised to find that this would include photographs..........

You are quite correct in the "what is diligent" and "who gets the money". Nothing said about the rights of the subject.....or misrepresentation.

Lammy's web link is about as worthless as the Albanian Lek and has been pulled apart for its noxious bile here - Why the IPO is wrong. Any connection with their reality and what actually happens to images/photographers is purely coincidental.

Had a good meeting with an MP today. I had been busy creating an orphan of my own. I will not divulge the nature or subject of "my" orphan - it is very obnoxious and broke my heart to put it together - but I think the MP in question now understands what the reality actually is when faced with commercial exploitation of Mandybrat images by third parties. In fairness, he had been well briefed and understood the detail of Clause 43 but now has a photographer view of some of the finer points about why Clause 43 is so bad.

Keep the faith. Don't let up. Keep the pressure on your MP. Now is not the time to loosen the thumbscrews.

[decosnapper]

Getty, the international stock library representing many fine photographers, has thrown its collective weight against Clause 43 and orphan works.

More here - Getty wades in.....

[Cussy]

I've just received a letter from David Lammy via my MP. Aparently we've got it all wrong and this will in fact be beneficial to us because now we'll have to search a database full of millions of images to find our images and then have to take action on infringers ourselves because the government has a get out clause.

I will reply.
Rob

[decosnapper]

I've just received a letter from David Lammy via my MP. Aparently we've got it all wrong and this will in fact be beneficial to us because now we'll have to search a database full of millions of images to find our images and then have to take action on infringers ourselves because the government has a get out clause.

I will reply.
Rob

Thanks Rob - The Lammy response is full of holes and bile.

If you need guidance as to why his reasoning is crap, just let me know. But I think you have a good handle on things......

There are now 400 "Shark image to shark fin soup" flyers circulating at the BSOUP stand at LIDS........if you are there tomorrow keep a lookout for them. The Shart Trust has some too.....they thought the idea pretty obnoxious.

[decosnapper]

Rob/Everyone

A page has just been posted, listing point-by-point the problems with Lammy's reasoning.

Please use it as you see fit - the link is here

Time is short. I have good reason to believe that the Committee Planning department are refusing written submissions for the Bill and HMG intend to try and steamroll this Bill through just before the general election. The Bill will end up in Washup - this is a very undemocratic process where uncontroversial Bills get nodded through. Tell your MP why he must refuse to back Clause 43, but do so this week, otherwise it might be too late....