MicrostockGroup

Have a read - Verry worrying. This 'digital economy' bill is expected to pass into law in 6 weeks.
http://www.copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public?

Edit: another article http://www.photoactive.co.uk/archives/7061

Not too sure what makes microstockers unique here? Wouldn't this effect all photographers poorly?

What's worrying about it? Make sure you understand it.

-------

The premise behind an “orphan works” addition to copyright law is that it would provide a means for anyone to make use of copyrighted material that no longer has an owner.

It works by limiting damages that can be claimed if the work truly falls under orphan works protection. If a person wants to use a work they must ask permission from the copyright holder just as they do now. Under the current law, if they can’t find the owner they are out of luck. With the orphan works bill in effect, they could use the work after conducting a diligent search and failing to find the copyright owner. Later, if the original owner shows up, he must be paid fair royalties for the use of the work. It does not limit or change Fair Use.

it's a scam.

and they're trying to do the same in the US.

i'm curious how will the EU deal with this as in the rest of europe there's nothing about orphan works so far.

"The Italian dictator Benito Mussolini  defined fascism as the merger of the State and the Corporation. It is that social system in which the interests of the State and the corporations merge together."

The State makes these laws at the insistence of the corporations that control it, in order to ensure that  corporations, such as the owners of Facebook etc, increase their profits at the expense of everyone else and their individual  rights. In this age of corporate kleptocracy, you surely didn't imagine that social networking via internet was free!

Have to wonder though; will the products produced in accordance with the new British law be legal in the rest of the EU and the US?

Yeah, very similar legislation was proposed in the US back in 2008 (The Orphan Works Act of 2008) that contained equally evasive language. The bill was opposed by the National Press Photographers Association and a petition against the bill was signed by Larry Lessig of all people (read his NYT op ed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20lessig.html?ex=1369022400&en=af6d685002b2942f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) .
The bill ultimately died before the House of Representatives ever voted on it.

The Labour Charter of 1927, promulgated by the Grand Council of Fascism, stated in article 7:
"The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation," then goes on to say in article 9 that: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."

I wondered what happened to that. I guess it got defeated.

Much of this is only a problem if the claims and shouting were actually truth instead of someones personal campaign and shouting "WOLF".

http://photodoto.com/orphan-works-bill/

Or maybe read this viewpoint?

http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html

For the record: The Senate orphan works bill passed the Senate on Friday September 26, 2008

House Version: H.R. 5889

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5889

I don't know if either of these bills does what people are claiming or not, but the original intention wasn't to steal rights from  all of us. The idea was that older "orphaned works" for historical purposes and works where an author could not be found after a diligent search, could be used. As it is now they are locked for all time, never to be seen or used again in the public eye.

I don't want to get into a long debate over what it will do and what it won't because we don't know. There are people that absolutely freak out and jump to conclusions calling it rights stealing, when that's not the intent. The uprising against the bills are often contrived and hypothetical fear mongering.

However, if the bill doesn't do what it's supposed to do, which is free up old works, for historical purposes and public access, without creating new issues and problems for current artists and new works, then it fails. In which case I would be against it.

As usual when politicians get involved, the cooking of a three minute egg it would take 50 pages of conditions and terms, legalese and confusion. Instead of simply getting to the point. "Boil it for three minutes."

Same goes for removing restrictions on true orphan works that don't deserve to languish in archives for eternity because the source can't be found or documented.

Let me put it another way. This should be additional to the current artist rights, not changing anything that exists at this time. If it doesn't then, it needs to be re-written to cover that aspect.

The second part (in the UK) about taking photos in public places is beyond comprehension and if that's what it really intends to enact, is absurd. Recording everyday life and preserving society and our lives is not something that should be regulated or prevented. The question remains, is that what it really says?