Just reread this blog post and saw at the very bottom of the comments that DT has changed its policy and will embed copyright info into all its purchased and thumb images!

http://blog.picniche.com/microstock/do-microstock-agencies-violate-photographers-dmca-copyright/

This is a great change and hopefully others in the industry will follow.  Thanks to bobbigmac for grabbing the attention of the agencies.

(I recall somebody had started a thread about bobbigmac's blog post, but I could not find it, so started a new thread)

What does this mean for us, what good will it bring us, can you just sum it up?

Quote from: Sadstock on October 20, 2011, 14:17

Just reread this blog post and saw at the very bottom of the comments that DT has changed its policy and will embed copyright info into all its purchased and thumb images!

http://blog.picniche.com/microstock/do-microstock-agencies-violate-photographers-dmca-copyright/

This is a great change and hopefully others in the industry will follow.  Thanks to bobbigmac for grabbing the attention of the agencies.

(I recall somebody had started a thread about bobbigmac's blog post, but I could not find it, so started a new thread)

What does this mean for us, what good will it bring us, can you just sum it up?

----------------------------------
Not eager to sum it up since somebody might object to how I do so.  If there are any complaints I'll forward to you.   

Many/most micro's strip some to all copyright data from images on upload by contributor.  They then license the image to the buyer, who may post it on the web.  But since the metadata is gone, if somebody else likes it and might want to buy it, they can't because there is no metadata, they can't find out who created it. 

Some countries have or are considering "orphan works" laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works which basically say if you can't find the creator of the work to license the image, you can use it without paying anyone.  If the agency has stripped out your copyright info, the likelihood that your images will be used without you receiving compensation goes up significantly. 

Quote from: Slovenian on October 20, 2011, 14:23

Quote from: Sadstock on October 20, 2011, 14:17

Just reread this blog post and saw at the very bottom of the comments that DT has changed its policy and will embed copyright info into all its purchased and thumb images!

http://blog.picniche.com/microstock/do-microstock-agencies-violate-photographers-dmca-copyright/

This is a great change and hopefully others in the industry will follow.  Thanks to bobbigmac for grabbing the attention of the agencies.

(I recall somebody had started a thread about bobbigmac's blog post, but I could not find it, so started a new thread)

What does this mean for us, what good will it bring us, can you just sum it up?

----------------------------------
Not eager to sum it up since somebody might object to how I do so.  If there are any complaints I'll forward to you.   

Many/most micro's strip some to all copyright data from images on upload by contributor.  They then license the image to the buyer, who may post it on the web.  But since the metadata is gone, if somebody else likes it and might want to buy it, they can't because there is no metadata, they can't find out who created it. 

Some countries have or are considering "orphan works" laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works which basically say if you can't find the creator of the work to license the image, you can use it without paying anyone.  If the agency has stripped out your copyright info, the likelihood that your images will be used without you receiving compensation goes up significantly. 

Tnx for the explanation.

...that most files they receive don't even contain copyright data? All of mine (except perhaps some of the very early ones) do...

How do you enter it, AFAIK you can only do it with series 1 Canons and D3 Nikons (you can also name the files JOHN1234 instead of IMG_1234). Or it isn't possible to enter it directly in the camera and you have to do it every single time in PS along with keywords? I have a 5D2.

Nice move, although this does not impede the buyer from stripping the metadata.

Very good News.

Not eager to sum it up since somebody might object to how I do so.

Thanks for posting. I also wished they would leave description intact in Editorial since when you buy it, you have to copypaste that info from the sales page on DT back into the image.

Excellent.

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on October 20, 2011, 20:08

Quote from: Sadstock on October 20, 2011, 14:45

Quote from: Slovenian on October 20, 2011, 14:23

What does this mean for us, what good will it bring us, can you just sum it up?

----------------------------------
Not eager to sum it up since somebody might object to how I do so.  If there are any complaints I'll forward to you.  

Many/most micro's strip some to all copyright data from images on upload by contributor.  They then license the image to the buyer, who may post it on the web.  But since the metadata is gone, if somebody else likes it and might want to buy it, they can't because there is no metadata, they can't find out who created it.  

Some countries have or are considering "orphan works" laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works which basically say if you can't find the creator of the work to license the image, you can use it without paying anyone.  If the agency has stripped out your copyright info, the likelihood that your images will be used without you receiving compensation goes up significantly.  

Don't let the truth interfere with your misrepresentation of how orphan works operates or what it means. Lack of identifying information on a work would not be an excuse to use a work. http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow/myths-and-facts

-------------------------------------------

Slovenian - I think YadaYadaYada is looking for you.   

He can try and catch me if he can

Well DT, together with SS,  are proper professional agencies and tend to act accordingly. It makes a change in this soup.

Good news!  This will help protect our copyrights and also make it less likely our pictures will turn up as "orphaned works".  

DT has always been aggressive in protecting copyrights.  This is a good precedent for the industry

I'll ask you  since you usually have a logical answer.

How does this have anything to do with orphaned works? If someone steals the image from a website, they should have the copyright so they won't think it's an orphan?  

There's a whole due diligence and search connected with orphaned works, plus the fact if someone pretends or fakes the search they are subject to paying the artist damages. Same as if they used it without copyright. The orphaned works bills are for OLD pictures and video and music that has no identification. The purpose is historical and so these works can be released for the public to see. Otherwise as it is now, they are locked in some archive for eternity.

It's not about someone stealing modern works and pretending they are orphans by removing the copyright. Which if you think about it, can be stripped out by software intentionally or accidentally and offers no protection against anything.

So how does a micro site adding or retaining (better put since we send it to them in the first place!) Copyright data in the metadata, help us? I don't seem to see anything changing if the buyer wipes it?

Or are we supposed to see the agencies enforcing the rule of attributing all images to the artist and agency in the future. That I'd like. Photo Credits so people know where to find more of the same! I'll skip the possibility of buyers contacting us through the back door and skipping the agencies. Potential problem but proper credit means more to all of us.

I'm confused with how this changes anything?

This I do understand:

1. Member States shall provide for adequate legal protection against any person knowingly performing without authority any of the following acts:
(a) the removal or alteration of any electronic rights-management information;

It's against the law for them to remove it!  

Oh wait, only one condition is met, it appears the agencies can remove it. Nevermind.

Anyone who wants to understand and read the facts around Orphan Works, please follow this link from the Copyright Office. If you would rather follow the conspiracy, false rumors and shouting, please avoid clicking this because the facts may cause a conflict between the claims and the truth.

http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=36962

Some interesting related info.

Maybe, but 2006 thread about misuse of an image, which was done without Orphan Works involved, so what's the change? What I'm saying is someone infringing, can still do it, with or without the bill and the artists remedy is still the same, with our without it. We would still have to go to court and protect our rights, either way.

Under the Orphan Works Act, however, the infringer could have asserted a �good faith� orphan works defense and said, in effect: �Go ahead and sue me!�

So what's the difference between Go ahead and sue me, and the quoted above, go ahead and sue me. I' missing something?

The whole start of this thread however wasn't about Orphan Works, which somehow slipped in. It was about leaving Metadata in images, and I'm in favor of it. Data shouldn't be stripped out. The Copyright should stay on the image. But as to making a big deal about DT deciding to stop removing this data, because it's potentially illegal for them to remove it, I don't find any Bravo, nice work in that.

If the point is, someone can claim an image is PD and call it orphan work and lie about it, which leaves us taking it to court. Someone who has possession of an image can strip the data and do the same. It Changes Nothing! But Orphaned Works bill does remove the restrictions from archives and museums to use works, which are truly orphaned and, with due diligence can be exposed to the public.

AND if the artist comes forward, they are to be paid! Not ignored. Please read the link posted in another message by someone else.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow/myths-and-facts

Both bills would require a user to pay a reasonable compensation to an emerging owner. This compensation is defined as the amount the parties would have agreed upon had they negotiated a license before the use began. If a user refuses to negotiate with the emerging owner in good faith or pay the compensation within a reasonable time, both bills currently provide that the user would be liable for all the remedies currently available under copyright law including statutory damages, which could be as high as $150,000 per work. Statutory damages of this sort are really punitive damages, and since owners will be reasonably compensated to be "made whole," user communities have proposed limiting damages to at most paying the owner's attorneys fees. A user's desire to avoid having to go to court and pay double attorneys fees (his own and the owner's) would provide a good incentive to any user to negotiate an appropriate license. Thus, the bills would provide a fail-safe means of ensuring that owners get compensated.

I can't think of why any agency wouldn't want to embed their metadata (with your name), just for the off chance that someone finds the image and wants to buy it, or needs to go back and purchase an extended license...  Seems like a win for both sides.

Excellent Point!

Here's something interesting following the same line of logic. If someone removes the Copyright notice, that's a separate infringement under DMCA. I think that's where the first one is going with the claim that an agency can't remove � metadata?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110616/03443314715/is-using-photo-without-credit-separate-violation-dmca.shtml

June 2011

One of the worst parts of the DMCA is the anti-circumvention clause, which makes it a separate violation just to circumvent various "protection" measures -- usually DRM. There is a separate clause related to this, which focuses on altering "copyright management information" which most people have always believed to mean the digital information about the copyright holder associated with the DRM.

Go back and read the http://blog.picniche.com/microstock/do-microstock-agencies-violate-photographers-dmca-copyright/ PicNiche blog and pay attention to the legal opinion way down the page, that the agency isn't breaking any law by stripping the copyright data. (as much as I'd like them to leave it there!)

Nice that DT has protected this information and that others do include it, but lets not get lost in some emotional viewpoint which diverges from the legal limits. Also I still contend that including the data does nearly nothing because the end user or any common thief can strip the data. So we are protecting ourselves again misuse by honest people, who wouldn't do that anyway?

The June case will bring a court decision to add to the opinions. I hope it doesn't get lost. Or maybe it's already decided and I can't find the results? Anyone see that?