UK.Gov passes Instagram Act

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Re:...

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away,...

shi zhao

2 May 2013 2 May '13

3:06 a.m.

see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/ The Act contains changes to UK copyright law which permit the commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the owner is missing, so-called "orphan works", by placing the work into what's known as "extended collective licensing" schemes. Since most digital images on the internet today are orphans - the metadata is missing or has been stripped by a large organisation - millions of photographs and illustrations are swept into such schemes. For the first time anywhere in the world, the Act will permit the widespread commercial exploitation of unidentified work - the user only needs to perform a "diligent search". But since this is likely to come up with a blank, they can proceed with impunity. The Act states that a user of a work can act as if they are the owner of the work (which should be you) if they're given permission to do so by the Secretary of State. The Act also fails to prohibit sub-licensing, meaning that once somebody has your work, they can wholesale it. This gives the green light to a new content-scraping industry, an industry that doesn't have to pay the originator a penny. Such is the consequence of "rebalancing copyright", in reality.

Show replies by date

David Gerard

2 May 2 May

6:35 a.m.

On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <shizhao(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text: http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regula… - d.

Federico Leva (Nemo)

6:54 a.m.

David Gerard, 02/05/2013 08:35:

...

As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text: http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regula…

If that's it, the law is completely useless, it just parrots general EU regulations. The big question in Europe is what qualifies as a "diligent search": I don't know if as usual UK wants to decide on its own, in any case it would be useful for WMUK to ask a committee or whatever to assist the Secretary of State in the decision and to be appointed/heard in such committee. Usually they only listen to publishers and sometimes librarians. Nemo

Fae

7:20 a.m.

On 2 May 2013 07:54, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: ...

...

Nemo, don't underestimate the power of us. :-) If a GLAM or a magazine with a long term digital archive (just two of some pressing cases in my mind) would like help with logging an official record of a "diligent search", then they could do much worse than contacting us regulars on Wikimedia Commons and/or the UK Chapter for assistance in generating and validating its content. For any serious collection of orphan works of high public value, I would be happy to spend several hours of my volunteer time contributing to a wiki-based public search report and gaining opinions and additional searches by our volunteers, many having highly developed understanding of copyright, the nature of orphan works and where to check for copyright claims and registration. A couple of such example public reports would be highly likely to be adopted by government as an reference case studies of implementation. Shall we just do it? Cheers, Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae

Federico Leva (Nemo)

8:07 a.m.

Fae, 02/05/2013 09:20:

...

On 2 May 2013 07:54, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: ...

Nemo, don't underestimate the power of us. :-) [...] A couple of such example public reports would be highly likely to be adopted by government as an reference case studies of implementation. Shall we just do it?

A document describing best practices for diligent search in Wikimedia projects can be interesting, but for what Mathias says there is little use in it as part of this initiative, unless UK government wants to act in EU to find a common ground making the directive useful [hahahahah]. However, "diligent search" translates to "the state considers me a good guy and if the 25th grade cousin of the author suddenly pops up asking me money I can laugh at him". We only try to prove PD status, so we have little experience with this sort of risk balancing. Nemo

Tim Starling

3 May 3 May

6:57 a.m.

On 02/05/13 18:07, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

...

Orlowski is outraged at the idea of being able to use orphan works by paying a fee into a pool, because he thinks the fee will be too low. He is afraid of a world where the low fees paid to the pool will incentise users to be less diligent in their search for an owner. So imagine what he (and his supporters) would think of the idea of giving orphan works away for free, irrevocably, as would be required for Wikimedia use. -- Tim Starling

geni

2 May 2 May

7:37 a.m.

On 2 May 2013 07:54, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

The reality is that the law is of no real interest to us since such works can't end up under a free license. -- geni

David Gerard

9:54 a.m.

On 2 May 2013 08:37, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 2 May 2013 07:54, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

> If that's it, the law is completely useless, it just parrots general EU > regulations. The big question in Europe is what qualifies as a "diligent > search": I don't know if as usual UK wants to decide on its own, in any > case it would be useful for WMUK to ask a committee or whatever to assist > the Secretary of State in the decision and to be appointed/heard in such > committee. Usually they only listen to publishers and sometimes librarians.

...

The reality is that the law is of no real interest to us since such works can't end up under a free license.

This is, of course, false. Ridiculous copyright lengths and permission culture in general are very much a problem for us, and something it's strongly in our interest to push back on in general. - d.

geni

10:24 a.m.

On 2 May 2013 10:54, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

On 2 May 2013 08:37, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2 May 2013 07:54, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

assist

> the Secretary of State in the decision and to be appointed/heard in such > committee. Usually they only listen to publishers and sometimes

librarians.

The reality is that the law is of no real interest to us since such works can't end up under a free license.

This is, of course, false. Ridiculous copyright lengths and permission culture in general are very much a problem for us, and something it's strongly in our interest to push back on in general.

However orphan works legislation is a hack designed to allow long copyright terms to keep working without upsetting even more people. Its of no use to us. -- geni

David Gerard

10:25 a.m.

On 2 May 2013 11:24, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

However orphan works legislation is a hack designed to allow long copyright terms to keep working without upsetting even more people. Its of no use to us.

I think you're wrong there. But it's an arguable point, not one that goes either way. - d.

Andrew Gray

3 May 3 May

7:35 a.m.

On 2 May 2013 11:25, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:

...

On 2 May 2013 11:24, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: > However orphan works legislation is a hack designed to allow long

...

> terms to keep working without upsetting even more people. Its of no use

...

us.

I think you're wrong there. But it's an arguable point, not one that goes either way.

I would agree it's a hack, but there are two major advantages to having it: a) it's a hack that *works*, and will produce results. It may not work for us, not directly, but it will enable content to be made available where it previously could not be. Free licensing is exactly the same thing - a hack to allow us to do what we want within the framework of the existing law, rather than a fundamental change to the underlying system. b) it's a start. We will have it, the sky won't fall, and in ten years time we can say - look, the sky didn't fall, the principle is now accepted, how about we refine the process? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk <javascript:;> -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Tomasz Ganicz

2 May 2 May

8:03 a.m.

2013/5/2 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <shizhao(a)gmail.com> wrote:

see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text: http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regula…

And The Economist POV: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/orphan-works -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

Luis Villa

4 May 4 May

3:32 p.m.

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

2013/5/2 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <shizhao(a)gmail.com> wrote:

see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text: http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regula…

And The Economist POV: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/orphan-works

Another, more considered, piece, from Andres Guadamuz: http://www.technollama.co.uk/has-the-uk-abolished-copyright-analysis-of-new… -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.

Tom Morris

7 May 7 May

11:36 a.m.

There's also this: http://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2013/05/06/orphans-much-ado-about-what/ -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> On Saturday, 4 May 2013 at 16:32, Luis Villa wrote:

...

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com (mailto:polimerek@gmail.com)> wrote:

2013/5/2 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com (mailto:dgerard@gmail.com)>:

On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <shizhao(a)gmail.com (mailto:shizhao@gmail.com)> wrote:

see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text: http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regula…

And The Economist POV: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/orphan-works

Nikolas Becker

13 May 13 May

1:41 a.m.

Hi everyone! I am sorry for replying to this week-old thread, but I just read it and wanted to take the chance adding a short hint: There is a (relatively new) Wikimedia working group on EU policy [1] with an explicit "task force" for the orphan works issue: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Orphan_Works It seems like some of you are interested in this topic, so maybe you would like to join them. The working group also set up a "letterbox" where you can drop any news/link/whatever that you consider relevant: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Letterbox Best Nikolas [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy 2013/5/7 Tom Morris <tom(a)tommorris.org>

...

There's also this: http://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2013/05/06/orphans-much-ado-about-what/ -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> On Saturday, 4 May 2013 at 16:32, Luis Villa wrote:

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com(mailtolto:

polimerek(a)gmail.com)> wrote:

> > 2013/5/2 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com (mailto:dgerard@gmail.com)>: > > On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <shizhao(a)gmail.com (mailto:

shizhao(a)gmail.com)> wrote:

> > > > > see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/ > > > > > > As usual, Orlowski is trolling for clicks. Here's the actual text: > > > >

http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/orphan-works-enterprise-and-regula…

And The Economist POV: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/05/orphan-works

Another, more considered, piece, from Andres Guadamuz:

http://www.technollama.co.uk/has-the-uk-abolished-copyright-analysis-of-new…

-- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org (mailto:Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org) Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

-- Nikolas Becker Supervisory Board Wikimedia Deutschland Tel.: +49 (0)151 122 500 63 ------------------------------------- Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. Obentrautstr. 72 10963 Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30-219 158 26-0 www.wikimedia.de

Craig Franklin

2 May 2 May

6:41 a.m.

If the Register hates it, that usually indicates to me that it is a fantastic idea. On 02/05/2013 1:07 PM, "shi zhao" <shizhao(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Mathias Schindler

6:46 a.m.

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net> wrote:

...

If the Register hates it, that usually indicates to me that it is a fantastic idea.

The main issues with the EU orphan works directive is that projects like Wikipedia are not among the priviledged entities and the set of rights that can be obtained for using such orpahn works is far too limited. Countries implementing this directive have little choice to fix both issues. Mathias

geni

7:40 a.m.

On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <shizhao(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

Dude this is Wikimedia-l. Home to rather a lot of copyright nerds. If there was actually a significant problem with the law don't you think we would have raised the issue back when it was first proposed? Seriously I've seen this topic floating around on various photography sites. Any idea who is behind the campaign and why? -- geni

Tomasz Ganicz

8:12 a.m.

2013/5/2 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

On 2 May 2013 04:06, shi zhao <shizhao(a)gmail.com> wrote:

see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

Actually in Poland there is a public discussion about adoption of EU directive about orphan works in which we are active together with several other NGO's workong together under umbrela of Coalition for Open Education: http://koed.org.pl/blog/2013/04/30/dziela-osierocone-i-dziela-niedostepne-w… Although EU directive is not very good for us - the EU countries still have some freedom how to adopt it to its local law. Therefore as part of our involvement in public discussion we wrote a detailed opinion how it could be adpoted in Poland to make orphan works as freely as possible available... http://koed.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/stanowisko_KOED_dziela_osiero… Probably substantial part of it could be used in other EU countries as well... -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

David Gerard

9:55 a.m.

On 2 May 2013 08:40, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Seriously I've seen this topic floating around on various photography sites. Any idea who is behind the campaign and why?

The same photography groups who think people shouldn't be allowed to release pictures under CC by-sa as it undermines the income of professional photographers. (This is another example of why this sort of thing is very much in our direct interest.) - d.

4011

days inactive

4022

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

19 comments

13 participants

tags (0)

participants (13)

Andrew Gray
Craig Franklin
David Gerard
Fae
Federico Leva (Nemo)
geni
Luis Villa
Mathias Schindler
Nikolas Becker
shi zhao
Tim Starling
Tom Morris
Tomasz Ganicz