Copyright law changes that could impact on comic creators

[Emperor]

Comic creators are raising concerns about changes afoot to copyright law in the UK, effectively stripping away long held rights and potentially handing the handling of your copyrighted creations to new 'colllecting agencies'.

http://downthetubescomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/comic-creators-voice-protest-to.html

Our very own Jim Campbell has blogged about it:

Foremost, it proposed to turn the legal entitlement to copyright protection from an automatic right to one that will require you to opt in; the default assumption under this proposal is that you are happy to have your work, if declared an 'orphan' work, exploited and licensed by a third party body -- a collecting society. Note that the proposal does not require you to be a member of a collecting society (which could very well be a private company) in order for that society to deal with your work.


There is clearly a massive logical flaw in this at its most fundamental level: if you make yourself (and, thus, your work) known to the collecting society, how can it be an orphaned work? By definition, the creator will have to be either unknown or uncontactable for the work to be declared an 'orphaned' one, but since when did the obscurity of work deny it legal protection?

...

Here's a hypothetical example: I put a piece of artwork up on my deviantArt site, which gets about 10 hits a day. It's a caricature of a celebrity I did for my own amusement, say. Someone working for a blog or site about celebrities right clicks that image, saves it down to their hard drive, and then re-uploads it to their blog, cropping it so that my signature is removed and failing to attribute it. I'm none the wiser -- there's no spike in traffic to my dA page, and I wouldn't see it on the blog, since it's not the sort of thing I read. The person who uploaded the image to the new location does a couple of dozen of these a day and doesn't keep a record of the sources.*

That image is now receiving thousands of times more views as an unattributed, 'orphaned' image than it will ever receive in its original location, with its proper attribution.

Enter the collecting society for cartoonists (remember that this could be a private company, and the proposal suggests that there could be more than one in each field; we're not talking about some cosy little creators' guild set-up, here) who declare it an orphaned work, license it to a clothing company for a fee and keep the money. My artwork is now on tens of thousands of t-shirts and, unless I actually see one, then I will be none the wiser.

And, let's say I do see one. There may be multiple collecting societies -- how do I find out which one has licensed my work? What if I am unhappy with the fee they have negotiated? Are they going to force the licensee to add my signature to all future printings of the t-shirt? What if I'm unhappy with the context in which my artwork is being used? Will the collecting society revoke the license? Compensate me for the inappropriate use of my work?

...

What this proposal appears to do is turn the entire internet into one massive stock library for larger companies, giving them an easy point of contact (the collecting societies) to negotiate licenses to use content they don't own. Better yet, the collecting societies get to do this without your knowledge and then keep the money.

http://clintflickerlettering.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/soapbox-proposed-uk-copyright-reform-of.html

He has started a petition if you feel moved by this:
www.change.org/petitions/uk-government-dept-of-business-innovation-skills-abandon-proposed-changes-to-orphaned-works-copyright-law

Contact your MP/MSP/MEP:

www.writetothem.com

And pass it on.

[TordelBack]

How this can originate from the same legislature that constantly pushes for a draconian response to copyright violation is beyond me... It's a legal platform for copyright theft.

[Bat King]

Yes it is a legal platform for copyright theft... but it supports those profit making companies who aew demanding protection who will then profit from theft of small-people's work.

Well written blog, Jim.

[Simud]

but it supports those profit making companies who aew demanding protection who will then profit from theft of small-people's work.

Exactly. It's not the defense of copyright what lies at the heart of this proposal, but the right to make profit. The view proposed is that the right to make profit should come before the right to own one's own creations. The philosophical and political worldview behind this is one that cannot conceive a world in which not everything is marketable.

[Professor Bear]

I assumed it was a chance for companies to grab all that unclaimed internet content that springs up every time some guy has a brain fart while fucking about with Photoshop - if they made videogames, albums and films from Crazy Frog, you can bet your ass some hack cunt in an ad firm somewhere is wanking himself into a frenzy thinking of all the money Can Haz Cheeseburger is going to make him once he owns it lock stock and barrel.

I also like how the government think tank that was commissioned to look into how viable it was as law said in no uncertain terms that it wasn't, and that what is proposed is straight-up illegal which is why it has to be pushed through immediately so legal challenges can't keep up with it - like escaping a speeding ticket by outrunning the copper who wants to write it, basically.  Amazingly, they will get away with it, too.  I mean, these people weren't even elected and they're running the place, it's like They Live here.
What the fuck happened?

[JOE SOAP]

Hello Feudalism.

[a chosen rider]

I assumed it was a chance for companies to grab all that unclaimed internet content that springs up every time some guy has a brain fart while fucking about with Photoshop

Oh, not just unclaimed content that's already on the internet - you know Google Books scanned millions of copyright books into their database without permission and then tried to set up a deal exactly like this?  I strongly suspect this is Google trying to get their operation legitimised after they already got slapped down for trying it once.

"While the digitization of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many, the ASA [Amended Settlement Agreement] would simply go too far. It would permit this class action — which was brought against defendant Google Inc. to challenge its scanning of books and display of 'snippets' for on-line searching — to implement a forward-looking business arrangement that would grant Google significant rights to exploit entire books, without permission of the copyright owners," U.S. District Judge Denny Chin of New York ruled. "Indeed, the ASA would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case"

[IAMTHESYSTEM]

They'll want payment for the air we breathe soon. I don't see how our elected Leaders will do anything about this. The Corporations own their assess bribing any Democratic accountability into oblivion and with the cut backs in Legal Aid you'll have to be rich to challenge them in Court in the first place.

The Corporations can simply hoover up anything on the Internet that takes their fancy. Wealth and Lawyers will ensure no one is going to Police them. The SFO is seen by some commentators to have lost the battle with big business anyway and I understand that HMRC has 'special arrangements' with Corporations so they can happily dodge Tax legally.

Such institutions cosy relationship with The Masters of the Universe are unlikely to lead me to believe they'll speak up on behalf of individual Artists or the general public.     

[opaque]

I think the first court cases against such groups would be interesting.
When you are talking about 'newer' things that could very easily be searched for online (Google Image search, Tineye for example) and easily provable of prior publishing there is very little excuse for just nicking something and calling it an orphan work.
Or at least I bet that's what they'd say to make it sound more palatable for the system ignoring the fact that you'd probably need to get a lawyer to bring the action against the group and most people wouldn't be able to afford it.