FA+
Shop
Concerns over UK 'orphaned works' law: Government response
12 years ago
A short while ago, a lot of concern was (rightly, I think) making the rounds over the language in a new UK law. The notion is that 'orphaned works,' being images and other media found on the internet without a watermark or otherwise showing very clear ownership and copyright, could be freely used by other people and companies, and that it would therefore be incredibly easy for art thieves to rip off original owners.
In the digital age we live in, the balance between allowing a free and open communication network and protecting ownership continues to be difficult issue to navigate, and like many artists and other internet users I've been concerned about this law. Enough that I did a little research and added my name to a petition to the UK government expressing these concerns, since I'm a UK resident. Today in my inbox I discovered that the government had penned a response, and I thought it was worth sharing.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422
The original petition is at the top, the response is below it. In summary, the response downplays the concerns and stresses that anyone using orphaned works would have to conduct a diligent search to confirm that the original owner could not be found, and would have to prove that it had conducted this search to the satisfaction of an authorising body. Failure to do this properly would prevent the finder from being allowed to use the work, and actively stripping metadata from somebody else's work remains a violation of the Fraud Act 2006.
I'm not certain exactly where my opinion falls now to be honest; issues like this are always going to be exaggerated at least a little by the media and concerned members of the general public, while the government is always going to downplay the fears and try to calm people down. It's difficult to figure out what the actual truth is, somewhere in the middle. The government response doesn't completely abate my concerns but it does raise some good points, and if they're to be believed then maybe the situation isn't quite as bad as we feared. But I do not know. Are there still problems where many hosting websites officially take ownership of your work from you as soon as you upload them? If so, maybe that's the real concern here, if all the works in question legally already belong to Facebook, Flickr, deviantArt, etc. instead of the actual artist/photographer/etc. anyway. Again, I do not know.
What I do know is that it's important to see both sides of any story, so if this law regarding orphaned works has been a concern of yours then the government's perspective on the matter is worth a read too. I'm curious what people think!
In the digital age we live in, the balance between allowing a free and open communication network and protecting ownership continues to be difficult issue to navigate, and like many artists and other internet users I've been concerned about this law. Enough that I did a little research and added my name to a petition to the UK government expressing these concerns, since I'm a UK resident. Today in my inbox I discovered that the government had penned a response, and I thought it was worth sharing.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422
The original petition is at the top, the response is below it. In summary, the response downplays the concerns and stresses that anyone using orphaned works would have to conduct a diligent search to confirm that the original owner could not be found, and would have to prove that it had conducted this search to the satisfaction of an authorising body. Failure to do this properly would prevent the finder from being allowed to use the work, and actively stripping metadata from somebody else's work remains a violation of the Fraud Act 2006.
I'm not certain exactly where my opinion falls now to be honest; issues like this are always going to be exaggerated at least a little by the media and concerned members of the general public, while the government is always going to downplay the fears and try to calm people down. It's difficult to figure out what the actual truth is, somewhere in the middle. The government response doesn't completely abate my concerns but it does raise some good points, and if they're to be believed then maybe the situation isn't quite as bad as we feared. But I do not know. Are there still problems where many hosting websites officially take ownership of your work from you as soon as you upload them? If so, maybe that's the real concern here, if all the works in question legally already belong to Facebook, Flickr, deviantArt, etc. instead of the actual artist/photographer/etc. anyway. Again, I do not know.
What I do know is that it's important to see both sides of any story, so if this law regarding orphaned works has been a concern of yours then the government's perspective on the matter is worth a read too. I'm curious what people think!
You do bring up an interesting point in the second last paragraph though - image ownership as per other hosting sites. Most people are rather blissfully unaware when it comes to understanding image ownership and rights (that or they just don't seem to care). Most sites on the Net that allow you to host an image gain some sort of ownership rights of that content. Facebook, perhaps being the most popular example, gains full rights to the image, meaning THEY own it now and can do whatever they want with it. I'm not sure how it works with Deviant Art, but I do know that Flickr does NOT claim any ownership rights to the image and allows full control of those rights to remain in your hands - that's actually the primary reason I chose them to host my personal pictures. If that ever changes (and there is always the potential for a company to change their minds) I'll promptly remove my images.
Laws like this one, to me, just seem like a move to further incorporate the Internet, making it a safe and happy place for businesses, and less so for private folks.
Like this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/0....._logo_scandal/. It's a minor point, trivial almost, but it's important nonetheless.
And... this. Some of the most true and important words ever captured on a recording. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tb-gvdDfXY
*offers snug*
*flips a table*
long answer when I get offa work XD and really, what are those guys in government thinking @.@
I call negligence, a lack of care on these... whoever it is that makes these decisions.
Also, *points* that e-petition that says HM Government? 'Bout time that somebody corrected them--it's not Her Majesty's Government. Dat government serves da people. *flips a full teacup* *inflamatory remarks that may or may not piss you or other UKers off*
And gosh fffffuuuuuu, the response of the government-- knowingly and without authority removing metadata? OF COURSE people are either going to remove it or not even care -.- argh.