Linxpix1 1:46pm, 30 April 2013
I know this group frowns on copyright logos on the image, but as I understand it, now the UK government has changed the copyright rules, if the picture has no watermark/copyright logo (orphaned image) it is now free for any corporation/ company to use. Therefore if I stay on the 26 X 26 group I would want to put a logos on my images, so that I would have some redress if, in the future the images were used without my permission or without payment. How do the moderators of this group feel about this ?
admin
Julia M Cameron PRO Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Julia M Cameron (admin) 5 years ago
admin
Mark W Russell 5 years ago
If I have not been keeping up with the changes in the law; then my apologies.
As far as I was aware this was a proposal, detail of which are complex and multi-contextual. The details I know of are from the Intellectual Property Office, as follows:-
www.ipo.gov.uk/press-release-20121220

If you are able to point to an actual change in the law and a source of good detail, so we can assess the situation all the better.
admin
Julia M Cameron PRO 5 years ago
Mark Russell123:

This might be useful...
www.newstatesman.com/technology/2013/04/instagram-act-und...
B Michael 5 years ago
The law has changed this week for copyright holders in the UK - it is now getting royal assent too SO - Photographers / image makers / artists sign the e-petition and share it with your colleagues. submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422

www.stop43.org.uk/pages/news_and_resources_files/photogra...
admin
Mark W Russell Posted 5 years ago. Edited by Mark W Russell (admin) 5 years ago
My understanding is this is only enabling legislation and does not actually mean anything at present.
The government, once the act is passed, can then implement any suitable regulations within the Act that they choose.
Therefore I suggest you start writing to your MP with your concerns.

Also this was discussed tonight at the PhotoForun in Derby. Watermarks and metadata can be altered and stripped out respectively. The best suggestion I heard was to only load up low res pictures to the web, making them a quality others would not want to use. Also to be careful if and where you post and who you allow to reproduce your work.
Sarah*H 5 years ago
Seen elsewhere :

Hi all,

Some changes to copyright law that may have some unwelcome repercussions. Having done a very small amount of investigation, Flickr apparently strips out metadata from "small"; pictures, so something to think about.

www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/22...

www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

And a petition if you feel so inclined :

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49422

Have seen comments that this is the UK government bowing to pressure from Google and Instagram but will be interesting to see how this plays out and whether it is a real concern or not.
@markglomas PRO 5 years ago
Does the governing copyright stem from the point of origin, i.e. where you took the photo, or would it be governed by where the image is made public, i.e. the internet, or wherever yahoo / Flickr's servers are housed?
johnpaddler PRO 5 years ago
Perhaps there is more metadata available on your Flickr photos if you elect to show Exif data - just a thought. Less likely to get 'orphaned'.

But then I'm not so worried about someone pinching my photos. Life is short. Though I would be concerned about misuse affecting third parties (the subjects in my photos).
Linxpix1 5 years ago
Thanks for the responses, I have always watermarked my images on the internet and kept them small. Except on this group, as requested.

The thread has made me download images from my sight to check the meta data and pleased to say copyright with my name and email address appears as written in camera meta data. Needless to say image downloaded from here has all the meta data stripped.

As I only use small images on here I will be putting a watermark on them in future.
admin
26 by 26 5 years ago
Hi Linxpix1:
Thanks for raising the issue. Our outlook on adding logos/watermarks to photos...

"Whilst watermarking of images is allowable within the rules of the project we feel that they can have a detrimental effect upon the interpretation of the image and so they are actively discouraged."

Whilst the (potential) new regulation is a worrying development it doesn't alter the group's position on the matter. Watermarks, logos and Meta data can be easily removed, typically within minutes and so offers little or no protection.

It's possible to limit the maximum size that people can view your image to 1024px within Setting > Privacy & Permissions > Largest shared image size.

There's a risk/reward balance when uploading any image to the internet, if you're concerned about posting a particular photo to the group because it could be misused it might be worth considering whether it's right to make it available on Flickr at all.

We've no desire to make adding watermarks or logos strictly against the rules, apart from anything else it creates more work for us mods! But if there's an increasing number of watermarks/logos being added then we might need to revisit this decision.
ā€“ Dave
Groups Beta