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

Have you ever uploaded a photo to Facebook, Instagram or Flickr? If so, you'll probably want to read this, because the rules on who can exploit your work have now changed radically, overnight. Amateur and professional illustrators and photographers alike will find themselves ensnared by the changes, the result of lobbying by …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Turtle

    Probabliy better understood as...

    "'It's corporate capitalism,' says Ellis. 'Ideally you want to empower individuals to trade, and keep the proceeds of their trade. The UK has just lost that.'"

    It's probably better understood as fascism, not corporate capitalism.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Probabliy better understood as...

      "It's probably better understood as fascism, not corporate capitalism."

      Not a lot of difference. Both boil down to "the strong take what they want; the weak take what they're given".

      1. Dave Bell

        Re: Probabliy better understood as...

        As I recall my 20th Century history, corporate capitalism is a component of fascism, but fascism needs a few other things. It does seem to be adding up. The ECHR was constructed partly as a barrier to Fascism, so the way the government seems to be talking it up as a threat to freedom is a bit worrying. There are other signs.

        We're on the road.

        We can still turn back.

        1. jason 7
          Unhappy

          Re: Probabliy better understood as...

          How exactly? The powers that be have reconstituted all the western political parties into 90% identical groups. There is a small amount of difference to make it look like there is choice but the basic underlying agenda is to allow their controlling status quo to carry on unhindered.

          There is no legal democratic way to change anything now. Whomever you vote for, the 1%'s government always always gets in.

          If you decide to fight for change then you are simply a 'terrorist'.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Probabliy better understood as...

      It always amazes me the difference between replies to photographic copyright and music/movie copyright

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Probabliy better understood as...

        The difference tends to be you're talking about an individuals work that directly impacts them in some way to financially benefit a corporation. As this isn't about photographic rights, but all copyright (writing, indie bands, indie producers, blogs, vlogs, tweets, these comments... etc)

        While in the other case an individual is downloading something they probably wouldn't buy anyway for personal enjoyment.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Probabliy better understood as...

          "While in the other case an individual is downloading something they probably wouldn't buy anyway for personal enjoyment."

          If they enjoy it why wouldn't they buy it? This "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument always comes up and it's always bollocks.

    3. LarsG

      Simple to

      Simple to strip out identifying features of a hoot, claim you searched for info , couldn't find any so used it anyway.

      A theft charter I think. Unless it impacts the luvvies brigade there will be no Leveson enquiry.

    4. Cameron Colley

      Re: Probabliy better understood as...

      "Corporate capitalism" is a contradiction in terms. What we have is not capitalism but corporatism -- sadly these thieves are branded as capi8utalissts when they are demonstrably not. Corporatism is tribal fascism and has nothing to do with capitalism.

  2. dave 158

    Ready ? No, surprisingly

    The one active register, PLUS, reckons they're still in development and asking for beta testers.

    Almost like it was planned.....

  3. Ketlan
    Thumb Down

    Theft

    Looks like theft to me.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Theft

      Same here, it appears that the UK is attempting to legalize actual copyright theft, i.e. claiming copyright for other peoples work.

      However, does making a law in one country make it legal in any way in other countries?

    2. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Theft

      Hmm, your TV doesn't have any meta data, saying it is yours, that'll be mine then...

      I can see this as the beginning of a slippery slope.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Theft

        I was thinking the same thing. Do you remember ASCII art? What about abstract ASCII art that is really just the contents of track 1 off of the 101 Dalmations Disney soundtrack?

      2. P. Lee

        Re: Theft

        Put your TV out on the kerb for all to see and yes, people might watch it and it would be difficult to charge for it. If they deprive you of it, then they would be in trouble.

        A brutal question would be whether we are a net importer or net exporter of such items.

        I'm getting some popcorn and waiting for someone to reskin Windows and strip the titles from a Hollywood film.

      3. JEDIDIAH
        Linux

        Re: Theft

        You can't copy a TV just by looking at it.

        On the other hand, my TV is limited in time and space. To get to it, you have to commit a common law crime of violence. In the process you will have to likely destroy more property and set off a nice alarm that will let the well armed neighbors know that some shenanigan is afoot.

        I can copy "your precious intellectual property" just by browsing the website where you posted it for the entire world to see.

        It's more like you dragged your most precious possessions to the local flea market and posted a sign saying "free stuff, take all you want". Then you get you kickers in a twist when stuff is actually taken.

    3. JeeBee
      WTF?

      Re: Theft

      Are there any tools being written that will update the metadata on images on your internet accounts?

      I.e., automatically download, add metadata (both alongside the image, and embedded in the image via steganography and similar techniques), reupload to overwrite.

      This metadata would contain ownership information, image licensing details, etc.

      And which sites disallow overwriting images that have been uploaded, as they need to be avoided. Facebook is a bit of code away from being a massive source of "orphaned" images (no metadata, despite the fact they'll be connected to an account on their system).

      Also, digital cameras need the capability to set owner information on all images at the point of capture.

      1. Stuart Halliday
        Thumb Up

        Re: Theft

        Jpegs and other modern filetypes have the ability to hold metadata within them. It's just few people bother putting their details in them. Of course it's just as easy to wipe it too...

        Any decent graphic file viewer will allow you to edit/read this data.

        Irfranview is one golden oldie freebie that's been available for years for example.

      2. J5m1th

        Re: Theft

        Metadata can already record ownership details etc, and Pro / Semi-pro models can embed this information on the photos they capture. I've set my EOS 5d mkII to record my name as the copyright holder.

        The problem is, that sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, etc strip all metadata. In theory you could download a photo from Flickr (for instance), and as it has no owner information attached use it with impunity, you just need to prove that you diligently searched for the owner, and how can that actually be proved?

        What needs to happen, is for all major photo sharing sites, such as those listed above, to not strip metadata from photos.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fine

    Fine by me. As far as I'm concerned, anything I put upload to a public website I am throwing out there for free and I fully expect it to be copied, used in crappy power point slides or maybe even sold (though who'd want my crappy holiday snaps I don't know).

    However, if I were a professional or even semi-professional photographer or a visual artist of any kind I would only upload low-res, watermarked images. It's not exactly like it's difficult to do a quick resize and paste a layer on top.

    1. Slumberingjournalist
      Facepalm

      Re: Fine

      Good article, Andrew!

      @AC - "FIne By Me"

      True to a point, my friend, but you and the two click-wits who upvoted your comment are missing the subtleties of the issue.

      Like most pros, I _do_ watermark my photography exactly as you suggested. However, when someone licences that work for use, say as part of the graphic design on a web site or in an online PDF or whatever, they clearly _don't_ use my picture with the watermark in place. End-use doesn't work like that.

      As you've probably started realising... if someone then extracts the un-watermarked picture from the client's product, and removes the metadata (easily done by accident or deliberately), then the photographer's traceability is seriously compromised. The work is as good as orphan.

      And in anticipation of any tards who might say 'you sold it once, so suck it up': in most cases, photographers need to sell a picture multiple times to earn a crust. Why? Because the big picture libraries have spent the last couple of decades driving the unit costs of photography down to chickenfeed.

      Wonder if they'll benefit from this new legislation?

      1. Badvok

        Re: Fine

        @Slumberingjournalist: " The work is as good as orphan."

        Since there are no actual regulations nor any actual regulator in place yet, just a bit of legislation allowing the process of putting them in place to start, I think it is a bit early to make that claim. All the furore about this legislation seems a bit premature. Nobody is losing any rights to be fully rewarded for their work, this legislation simply allows works that have no identifiable owner to be used if the, yet to be created, regulator/licensing authority agrees that adequate attempts have been made to identify the owner.

        The only real change is that countless existing works that have no identifiable owner can now be used, rather than wasting away in repositories where nobody will ever see them - isn't that a good thing?

        Even if your work is 'accidentally on purpose' considered 'orphan' you do actually still retain the copyright to the work and can pursue the user for compensation or issue a take-down notice - may I repeat myself - you don't lose any rights with this legislation.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Fine

          " this legislation simply allows works that have no identifiable owner to be used if the, yet to be created, regulator/licensing authority agrees that adequate attempts have been made to identify the owner."

          But given how trivial it is to remove metadata or simply avoid ever having it, how can anyone prove that you didn't make adequate attempts? I can't think of any method even slightly effective against, say, a technically competent 15-year-old with a computer.

          "Even if your work is 'accidentally on purpose' considered 'orphan' you do actually still retain the copyright to the work and can pursue the user for compensation or issue a take-down notice"

          Well, as I say, there's not much chance of getting compensation as you won't be able to prove malice and if they've sold 10,000 copies of the image by the time you find them then not only will you not get compensated but you'll have 10,000 other people who think they own a legitimate copy and no way to tell a court any different.

          It's a complete shambles of an idea and at the end of the day there was absolutely no need for it. I think one could make a reasonable case that this is a public-office corruption case waiting to happen.

          1. Stevie

            Re: Fine

            "Well, as I say, there's not much chance of getting compensation as you won't be able to prove malice and if they've sold 10,000 copies of the image by the time you find them then not only will you not get compensated but you'll have 10,000 other people who think they own a legitimate copy and no way to tell a court any different."

            But who would *buy* an image if it is as ridiculously easy to steal it as you seem to believe? This resaler -from-hell scenario would seem to be an unlikely development.

            I'm just a little confused as to what the photographers want done about the situation. As another commentator has said, putting stuff on the internet is handing it out free.

            It occurs to me that one might use the same technique as used by encyclopedias - that of adding artifacts to the image that act in place of a signature. Kind of like what Cuneo used to do with the mouse, only in a way that is completely transparent to someone viewing the picture for its own sake (rather than trying to find the signature).

            Metadata in a picture can be lost by the simple act of CTRL-PRINTSCREEN, and a determined thief would have far more sophisticated methods at his or her disposal, seems to me.

          2. hayseed

            Re: Fine

            "Adequate Attempts" for numpty users probably won't even include looking at metadata.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Fine

          Only if payment for use of a work must be made when/if that work is known to be owned, and the bill is retro-active to the first use.

          No one (with any sense) would use a work for which they might, retroactively, have to pay $0.10/copy for the 3 million copies they made.

        3. Mr Flibble

          Re: Fine

          It may be too early to make the claim that, with metadata removed, the work is as good as orphan – but it is definitely not too early to make people aware that that could happen.

          However, I suspect that this aspect of the legislation under discussion is ‘merely’ to make common practice legal…

        4. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Fine

          Now it's odd - you are quite correct and yet you have a lot of down votes....

          Lesson 1 in life - Nobody wants to learn the truth if it will spoil a good knee-jerk reaction...

      2. bluest.one

        Re: Fine

        >And in anticipation of any [free]tards who might say 'you sold it once, so suck it up' [...]

        Nice strawman you've got there, but it isn't the case.

        Most of those people who take issue with the bloated, tumour-like nature of modern copyright (referred to by yourself as "tards") are opposed to people making money from other's works. Believe it or not there's common ground here, provided you're prepared to look past divisive, ignorant labelling and unthinking sloganeering.

        This new legislation does the reverse of what those wanting a more leaner, fairer copyright regime - it allows the powerful and rich to hoover up other people's copyrighted works and exploit them for profit. Of course, being rich and powerful, all they had to do is spend some of that money to gain the complicity of our useless, ignorant, self-interest-peddling politicians, to make their actual piracy (claiming other's works as their own property) legal and blessed by the state.

      3. ender

        Re: Fine

        @Slumberingjournalist

        > As you've probably started realising... if someone then extracts the un-watermarked picture from the client's product, and removes the metadata (easily done by accident or deliberately), then the photographer's traceability is seriously compromised. The work is as good as orphan.

        Use a reverse image search tool, such as Tineye or Google Images (click the camera icon there) - both are surprisingly good at matching images, even when they have been cropped and recoloured.

  5. jake Silver badge

    "Have you ever uploaded a photo to Facebook, Instagram or Flickr?"

    No. Because I'm not an idiot. My stuff is on my systems.

    But thanks for asking.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: "No. Because I'm not an idiot."

      You are a bit up yourself though.

      1. jake Silver badge

        @sabroni (was: Re: "No. Because I'm not an idiot.")

        I prefer "to the point". I make a living at it. Your mileage may vary.

        Carry on.

    2. S4qFBxkFFg

      Re: "Have you ever uploaded a photo to Facebook, Instagram or Flickr?"

      "My stuff is on my systems."

      Out of interest, how much did that cost you?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Have you ever uploaded a photo to Facebook, Instagram or Flickr?"

        "Out of interest, how much did that cost you?"

        Well, you can buy a good quality 3TB hard drive for under £100. You can protect your 3TB of data with RAID for, say, under £500. Sounds a bargain to me.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Have you ever uploaded a photo to Facebook, Instagram or Flickr?"

          yes, I hear raid is fantastic against fire and theft.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Headmaster

            Re: "Have you ever uploaded a photo to Facebook, Instagram or Flickr?"

            Raid is not for backup. Backups are for backups. Raid can help with drive failure to some extent though.

            However, you think Flickr backup your photos? That other more copyright protected options are not available? Wait one second while I go find somewhere less conspicuous and laugh my socks off...

      2. jake Silver badge

        @S4qFBxkFFg (Re: "Have you ever uploaded a photo to Facebook, Instagram or Flickr?")

        It doesn't cost much. See this thread:

        http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1800678

        I forgot the 99 year lease on the Bryant Street colo ... I'm about a third of the way into it. At US$1.00/yr.

        Could I start from scratch, today, 35 years on? Probably. My daughter's version is quite functional ;-)

  6. aBloke FromEarth

    Excuse me

    ...while I spend the next few hours watermarking my entire flickr collection.

    Rotten swines.

    1. Ian Yates

      Re: Excuse me

      I should probably check, but I was under the impression that Flickr did provide ownership controls that updated the EXIF metadata?

      It'll be interesting to see how defensible the claim of orphaned work is.

      1. Turtle

        @Ian Yates: Re: Excuse me

        "It'll be interesting to see how defensible the claim of orphaned work is."

        Incorrectly formulated. Try "It'll be interesting to see how cumbersome and expensive it will be for a work's creator to contest a declaration that his work is an "orphan" (especially if he only finds out about it after it has appeared all over the web in an advertising campaign or if he doesn't find out at all) and if it will have any effect once that declaration is made in the first place, regardless of any legal remedies provided - which assumes, in its turn, that there will be any sort of effective remedy provided in the first place, and again assuming that that remedy will be meant to aid the creator as opposed to simply making life more difficult for him - as Sen Ron Wyden (Fascist-Oregon) attempted to do here is the US by introducing a bill that would transfer jurisdiction of copyright-infringement suits to the International Trade Court in Washington DC."

        Although somewhat involuted, that's better now, I think.

    2. The BigYin

      Re: Excuse me

      Bit late now. Those images will be sat in a cache now, ripe for the plucking.

    3. Andrew Moore
      Thumb Up

      Re: Excuse me

      No need- the way I can see to safeguard yourself against this is to create a gallery of all your online images and make sure they are tagged (by EXIF and captions) and accessible to image matching sites like TinEye. Then if someone uses your imagery without your permission claiming it was an 'orphan work', you can prove that they did not perform a "diligent search".

      1. Wize

        Re: Excuse me

        @Andrew Moore

        There are many images out there that, when fed into Google Image Search and the likes, will give hundreds of entries. Seeing the large quantity of results, will be an excuse to say they couldn't find that drop of water in the ocean.

        1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Excuse me

          ...There are many images out there that, when fed into Google Image Search and the likes, will give hundreds of entries. Seeing the large quantity of results, will be an excuse to say they couldn't find that drop of water in the ocean...

          Your view of the legislation is laughably incorrect!

          If you are responsible for carrying out a proper due diligence search on millions of images then you have to do it. Properly. You can't just say "I thought it looked difficult, so I didn't bother". Or rather, you can say that, but the Judge will reply "You admit you didn't do it properly - Guilty".

          If you do do a proper job, but still end up using someone else's work, then they don't lose the copyright. They can come after you, have it taken down, and be paid compensation from the fund that you HAD to set up when you started using orphan works.

          If they try to delete the metadata and claim that it's not your work - well, they could do that anyway now. This law doesn't make it any easier, or any harder....

      2. TomChaton
        Pirate

        Re: Excuse me

        The legislation specifically names registries that you have to use.

        It seems to me to be that diligence in this case means searching the registries.

        If that's prohibitively expensive, then the only recourse would be legal action which is beyond the means of most people / organisations.

        Pirates, because they're cool. And this amounts to legalised piracy by the big meedja boys.

        GR££DY

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        Re: Excuse me @Andrew Moore

        I've just done a reverse search on tineye of the cloud banner on flickr.com, result "0 Results - Searched over 2.6364 billion images."

        and the "flickr from YAHOO" logo, result "Your image is too small. Try uploading a larger image."

        Neither had identifying EXIF data, they are now mine. OK, I might have a problem claiming the logo but the clouds?

        If such images viewed millions of times can't get on tineye what chance does a less popular image have. You can submit your images to tineye but at the moment I'd argue that the process is not very user friendly especially for those more interested in photography than editing xml files and there is no guarantee they will accept your submission.

        Note: I also tried a few users images off flickr, none found.

        1. Marina
          Meh

          Re: Excuse me @Andrew Moore

          I tried a tineye search on one of my images which have been distributed by a photo agency, and which also has been widely distributed on the internet via less honest means.

          On the positive side, tineye indicated the agency as the source of the image, but listed multiple sites which are using it in violation of copyright law before Flickr, which is the original source of the image. I even found the image on the website of Los Angeles based celebutard-photo agency <a href="http://www.beimages.net/set/787249">BEImages</a>! Why they want a photo of a fat squirrel I don't know, but I guess it means he's a celebrity now!

    4. Dave Bell

      Re: Excuse me

      I'm puzzled here

      If somebody has posted images to a service such as flickr, don't they have to have an account, with a contact email address and all that?

      So how can $_CORPORATE_PIRATE claim due diligence if they don't get in contact with that account holder?

      I can see how a failure to answer can be too easily be taken as proof of an orphan work, but not even trying would be a clear step too far. This is going to depend rather a lot on how the courts decide such details, it still looks like a bad thing, but are people missing something? Is it data in the image file, or does the context matter? Is a notice on my web page sufficient?

      1. aBloke FromEarth
        Unhappy

        Re: Excuse me

        Do a screen grab. Crop it, or change the colours a bit so it's not easily searchable.

        Now it belongs to world+dog.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like