Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by cstevens, Apr 29, 2013.
Apologies to those who actually felt the OP was of use, but others clear do not.
Hardly worldwide. Certainly doesn't affect me in Oz. But a poor move anyway.
"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",
UK law... not world wide unless I am missing something., I dont knowof any world wide governing body that has that type authority over all governments.
But according to the article (unless I misunderstood it) it affects preexisting international law (OK, I didn't read it closely). But I did do a google search on just the number that my OM-D put on one of my images and I was surprised to find so may cases of folks not changing the name (like me) of the Olympus image labeling scheme.
UK law has no problems and even has precendent with litigation of people in other countries. EG, UK Libel law. In treaties with other countries to get business done some countries will leverage acceptance of their laws. It's hard to tell how far reaching this is. Knowing the UK for being a country that has precedent with this leverage, we should be concerned. Simply saying that this does not affect me, maybe naive or premature to say, especially if you are in countries that have strong ties to the UK. That said, I didn't look into the specifics, and hopefully some of the sleuthes over at DPR will take care of the knowledge gathering. They seem to have the tenacity, and rigouous political nastiness to suss this out.
But, couldn't someone in the UK find your image without copyright mark, and use it legally under UK law. Maybe you could sue them in the US, but you'd have to get them to come to your jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, our current batch of "Political Leaders" see fit as usual to employ double standards.
Anything that allows access to them by way of Email / Internet oversight, is very much taboo yet they are happy to sanction the ownership of coyright being eroded and free to all who wish to exploit it and in turn makes money from those images add to this the daylight robbery of lawyers that makes it not financially viable to fight this plundering in court, especially against large multiples who may use an image for advertising purposes.
Another case of the blind leading the blind.
Is there a facility on the OMD to add coyright info to images at source as there was with my D700?
This may be the only way to add some level of security to work.
You are comparing apples and oranges....
International laws regarding business is completely different here.
I am a US citizen living under my own jurisdiction and do not need to abide by UK law. If I were a business entity doing business with entities residing in the UK, then that would be a different story.
So no... it does not effect me thus not world wide.
Stuff you post to Facebook are no longer your own anyways.
I don't think this bit of news calls for a freak out yet.
Well if they strip the exif, then they could strip watermarks and anything else. Nothing is foolproof to prevent. If I had a file with exif stating copyright, and a company stripped it, even this new law wouldn't apply. They are willfully disregarding knowledge of copyright.
The author of this article is an idiot, and The Register was never a serious or properly edited news outlet to begin with. It's more like technology's Daily Mail, and may as well be the rantings of a guy on the street. Let me know when somebody finds a credible source.
Stop making stuff up....
"There is no such thing as an “international copyright” that will automatically protect an author’s writings throughout the world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends on the national laws of that country. However, most countries offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions that have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions. There are two principal international copyright conventions, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) and the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC)."
U.S. Copyright Office - International Copyright
So until the US passes similar laws with agreements to work together with this new UK law, its not world wide... nor do I have anything to worry about. It goes both ways too... of course. Good luck enforcing US laws that supposedly protect my US rights in the UK.
Gear menu H (record/erase) - Copyright Settings. But as previous posters said, that works only under the assumption that the site you're uploading it to doesn't strip those tags.
Please show us where on the Facebook site that this is written.
Folks, if you are going to make such statements, please back it up with a link or facts.
I suggest you check FB for yourself. I live in the Bay Area and that change made the local news on all stations. I don't use FB but I would guess that the change would be listed in the TOU.
I have read the facebook TOS -- and you do not give up ownership to your images if you post them to facebook.
The amount of misinformation passed out on discussion forums by people who misinterpret facts is appalling. Seriously folks, if you post stuff like this, please check your facts first.
And if you're merely in the mood to argue, show me where it says that you don't own your images if you post them to facebook.
LOL. Plenty of US citizens can be sued by the UK. In the case of their lovely libel law as they could sue you a US citizen, and the burden of proof is on the defendant irregardless of nation. Only as recent as 2010 have we been protected by our laws against UK libel suits. Prior to that, well, your citizenship was not a defense. UK debtor courts can also go after foreign nationals, by foreign nationals in the UK courts. Mind you, we have a pretty good relation to the Jolly Old England. It's a new act, we have to see how it's enforced, because to assume it can not effect you, is naive. To assume it will effect us is presumptive. To be dilligent and monitor the situation is likely the best course.
Unless all of your albums are marked private. They can use anything you share on Facebook however they feel like.
Who has the Rights on your Facebook Photos? | DreamGrow Social Media
Just take this as a rule of thumb. If you post on the Internet, your stuff will be stolen. It's inevitable.
There has never been a Facebook ToS which relinquishes your copyrights to images when you post them on Facebook. Facebook would have no authority to do that through ToS in the first place. Facebook did on the other hand, receive a lot of backlash at one time from a change in ToS which allowed them to USE your images for their own marketing (ie, grants them a usage license to it).
The FB thing is funny in that, well, folks post a bunch of photos and want to share them and since FB actually reposts the photos (as opposed to links to the photos) then what kind of copyrights are needed to be in place between the creator and FB to allow this type of sharing? Pretty much what is in the TOS, right?
Post a link to another photo hosting site and FB gets no rights to those photos.