Many publishers and other users of intellectual property are quietly rubbing their hands at the prospect of the new Orphan Works Clauses being championed by various people in the UK right now. But there are several reasons why you should be concerned, whether you are a photographer, publisher, non profit organisation, or even just someone who puts their family photos on their local community website.
I won’t re-write what’s already been said, but instead strongly suggest you read about the situation here:
http://www.stop43.org.uk/
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for non-profit organisations using content. It’s a GOOD THING that museums, art galleries and other community organisations should be able to publish old photography and artworks without risk of a law suit if the creator really cannot be found. It gets work that would otherwise be unseen out there for people to see and helps them create income. BUT the new legislation also allows ANYONE to jump on the same band wagon and use this badly worded proposal for their own commercial benefit with payment of only a token fee to a central collection agency. It makes no consideration for the intended image use, the people depicted in the image or whether it’s a commercial use for a huge advertising campaign or editorial use. Justin Leighton provides an excellent example of how an image like the one below can earn totally different fees for different uses here.
Buring Europe Flag Paris - copyright Justin Leighton
Not only that, but the image can be used for all manner of commercial and advertising uses with no come-back. If you skipped past it, take a look at the image a the start of this. We all have images similar, or friends & family in similar poses.
So why are so many supposedly pro-creative organisations pushing for this? Because the BBC, the British Film Institute and others all have large archives of other people’s material that they could make a handsome income from, if only they didn’t have to worry about that pesky annoyance of having to pay the creator. NONE of the people and organisations that are arguing for this actually create anything. They make their money from leveraging other people’s material by publishing and broadcasting. Imagine if they could use this material, pay a nominal fee and simply plead ignorance with no legal redress from the author / creator?
Finally, the one single thing that no-one has bothered to tell these people is the consequences of using an image from an overseas source. We live in a very small world these days and images can easily be traced internationally. Only last year, Getty inflicted a hard blow to someone here in the UK, from across the Atlantic, for using an image without permission.
Many USA based photographers I know are simply saying, “Bring it on, we’ll see you in court”
That could well be a USA court, by the way…..
I love seeing my work being used well, both by people who commission me and also by others who may have blogs or other purely personal websites about cars, photography and other related subjects. I see no benefit in putting up barriers for genuine clients and enthusiasts, but this bill is bad for everyone. Indeed, such is the nature of this legislation that several UK based creators I know are actively considering moving their business base outside of the UK for their own protection. And that can’t be good for anyone.