Changes to Creative Commons

[Lumberjack]

I am aware that the copyright laws have just changed (advised of this by the Authors Lending & Collecting Society). Looking it up, it is in the usual confusing language. Am I correct in thinking that from now on, large online organisations such as Facebook, Pixabay (Free image site) etc, with be legally responsible for images on their site, and not the person who unwittingly uses something that is, in fact, copyright, and has been uploaded without permisson?

[AndyJ]

Hi Lumberjack,

The law hasn't chaged yet. The new EU DIrective has been approved by the European Parliament and it seems likely that the European Council will rubberstamp the decision shortly. However the new provisions need to be transposed into the domestic laws of the 27 member states, and they have 24 months in which to do this. I say 27 member states, because it is not clear whether the UK will have to introduce the changes. Much will depend on when/if we leave the EU.

But going back to your question, the various internet companies which run sites which host user uploaded content, like Youtube, Facebook etc, will be required to obtain licences to cover the use of copyright works uploaded by contributors to their sites. However it is far from clear exactly which works will be covered by these licences. The pressure for this change has come from the music and film industry, but nothing has been mentioned about other sorts of copyright work, such as photographs or paintings, where generally speaking, the majority of authors of such works are not represented by the copyright collecting societies which will be responsible for issuing the licences. It is also not clear whether these licences will only absolve the internet companies from liability, or whether they will extend to cover the uploaders too, meaning that someone who uploads a Katy Perry song to Youtube without permission will no longer be liable for infringement.

Sorry I can't be more precise, but regretably the EU legislation has been very badly drafted, with compromises all over the place, so it remains to be seen whether the final domestic legislation will tidy up the details.

[Lumberjack]

Thanks, as long as it hasn't happened yet, nothing to worry about, but no doubt it will just be the normal chaos after they have finalised it!

[AndyJ]

Just a quick afternote. Of course all of the above has very little to do with Creative Commons, which appears in the title of this thread.

The Creative Commons organisation itself is opposed to the Article 17 provisions in the new EU directive because they believe that measures, such as upload filters which appear inevitable in order to maintain the liability-free status of the large internet service providers, will have a detrimental affect on users of CC licensed works.

[Lumberjack]

I was thinking of Creative Commons, as the new laws would seem to be extending the rule that if an identifiable person is shown, vene if it is CCO, permission must be sought from the person photogographed. So it looks like even inanimate objcets will be copyright, such as photographed of motor cars, aircraft, trains etc - Yet newspapers seem to be able to publish any photograph they want (flexirule).

[AndyJ]

Hi Lumberjack,

The issue of an identifiable person does not arise from copyright law, but from privacy law whereby a person is entitled under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to a private and family life. The requirement to get releases from identifiable individuals before using images of them in commercial publications is largely a convention in the advertising industry where they are risk averse, and don't want to get sued for defamation. The reason newspaper coverage of people going about their normal business is seemingly exempt from such conventions arises from the fact that under US personality rights law, editorial use of images of people does not give rise to a claim. However in the UK following various judgments, such as the Naomi Campbell case and to a lesser extent the Max Mosley case, the courts have declared that even when people (mainly celebrities) are in public, there are still occasions when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Taking your wider point, pictures of general scenes, such as a street scene, do not usually engage copyright law because, either the majority of items which might be captured in such an image are not subject to copyright protection (eg cars, bus shelters, lampposts, etc), or if they are subject to copyright (eg buildings of architectural merit or advertising posters etc) they tend to be covered by either section 62 (works of architecture/artistic craftsmanship permanently situated in a public space) or section 31 (incidental inclusion). The reason the incidental inclusion exception wouldn't apply in the instances you mention is that a person taking the photograph of a model ship is deliberately trying to photograph the object, so it isn't incidental to their intention.

I hope this helps to clarify things.

[Lumberjack]

Thanks,
It is rather too late for me now anyway, considering I have been doing it for over 50 years! Similarly when people take photographs of models they have purchased from me, I never considered that they were supposed to ask permission to use them. But I am now hearing that an awful lot of publishers will be required to take their books off the shelves because they contain photographs of models or even real ships without permission. Even Creative Commons is unsafe, because even though the images there have been released to public domain by the photographers, I have never heard (until last week) that extra permission was required to cover the item in the CCO images. For example, a public domain image of a model railway engine. I use railway engine as an example because I have never had anything to do with them, but there are thousands of supposed CCO images of model railway engines online on free image sites. I guess it is all too complicated for me, so I will be confining myself to my own images from now on, and and just hope that is the end of it. But at 75, I don't suppose it matters much either way!

[AndyJ]

Hi Lumberjack,

I think you are probably over analysing the issue of needing permission to photograph certain objects, such as models of ships or trains. There is a theoretical risk associated with anything which truly qualifies as a work of artistic craftsmanship, where copyright may apply, but in the vast majority of cases I'm quite sure that the makers of these models would not dream of invoking their theoretical rights. As for full-scale 'real' ships, I think you can be completely confident that copyright will not apply to these since in most instances they will have been made by teams of ship or boat builders who will not have been responsible for the design stage, meaning these will be classed as objects made by an industrial process.

But returning to your first posting in this thread, you raised this issue in the context of recent changes to the law. I assumed that that was a reference to the soon-to-be introduced EU Directive (the so-called Digital Single Market or DSM Directive). However that document does not make any changes to the law I have been talking about in relation to photographing models of ships etc. That has been established law since at least 1956 when the term 'artistic craftsmanship' was first used in connection with copyright protection. As its name suggests the DSM Directive is largely concerned with works in digital format and their interaction with the wider world via the internet. 'Old fashioned' analog books are not affected by any of its provisions.

[Lumberjack]

Thanks for further clarification. It is not worrying me unduly, but I do know that a lot of publishers and photographers are getting very concerned. I spent many years at sea, so this writing and photogrpahy thing was just a by-product of that, and keeps me busy in old age, but I will never get rich by it, so there would be little point in anyone taking action against me, as they would not be able to get "blood out of a stone" It is just the way of the world now. The older I get, the more I realise the following words by Charles Clark Munn are true!

"Life at best is but an enigma, and like children pursuing a "Will O' The Wisp,"so do we all pursue the illusive beacon light of a brighter and happier tomorrow - always hoping, never attaining, though striving ever until, wearied of the vain pursuit, at last we fall by the wayside and are forgotten."

Charles Clark Munn (1847 - 1917)