MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: xst on July 02, 2012, 12:52
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/02/govt_copyright_white_paper/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/02/govt_copyright_white_paper/)
-
I'm not sure how imminent and serious a threat this proposal is - sometimes governments talk a lot, and commission blue ribbon panels to debate for years, write reports and do nothing. There are a couple of other blog posts about this issue that I read after reading your link - see here (http://andreworlowski.com/2011/12/16/the-bureaucratic-elite-and-the-google-review-the-story-continues/) and here (http://blog.authorsrights.org.uk/2011/06/08/hargreaves-review-extended-collective-licensing-and-orphan-works/).
But if I understand this proposal correctly, it seems that I might have virtually all rights to decide where, to whom, for what price and under what licensing terms my copyrighted work is sold taken away - unless I know enough to opt out, in another country, under whatever laws that country cares to pass? And if they do license my works for a pittance, I'm to know who to contact to collect my share of that pittance?
Any requirement for a user of copyrighted material to do a diligent search for me, the rights holder is removed and this extended collective licensing (ECL) takes its place? This is just mind boggling. Poor publisher/Google/other buyer who has to do work to find out who owns the thing they want to use. Boo hoo - let them get off their lazy backsides and find out who to pay for what they use.
Am I missing something here, or is this very bad news for producers of copyrighted works?
-
This is why I hate that agencies strip all copyright material off files - just leaving them to be orphaned once used and 'out there'. Just like, apparently, Flickr :-(
-
I bet 99% won't know about all this and won't opt-out
I'm not sure how imminent and serious a threat this proposal is - sometimes governments talk a lot, and commission blue ribbon panels to debate for years, write reports and do nothing. There are a couple of other blog posts about this issue that I read after reading your link - see here ([url]http://andreworlowski.com/2011/12/16/the-bureaucratic-elite-and-the-google-review-the-story-continues/[/url]) and here ([url]http://blog.authorsrights.org.uk/2011/06/08/hargreaves-review-extended-collective-licensing-and-orphan-works/[/url]).
But if I understand this proposal correctly, it seems that I might have virtually all rights to decide where, to whom, for what price and under what licensing terms my copyrighted work is sold taken away - unless I know enough to opt out, in another country, under whatever laws that country cares to pass? And if they do license my works for a pittance, I'm to know who to contact to collect my share of that pittance?
Any requirement for a user of copyrighted material to do a diligent search for me, the rights holder is removed and this extended collective licensing (ECL) takes its place? This is just mind boggling. Poor publisher/Google/other buyer who has to do work to find out who owns the thing they want to use. Boo hoo - let them get off their lazy backsides and find out who to pay for what they use.
Am I missing something here, or is this very bad news for producers of copyrighted works?
-
I'll bet 99% of this so called White Paper is misrepresenting and twisting the facts to gain readers or clicks or because someone is into conspiracy theories and plots.
Just had a good friend on Facebook claim that everything can be cured with minerals and the FDA is hiding the truth. Fluoridated water is bad for your teeth and dentists klnow it. OK, she just lost all credibility. Here I thought she had been taken up by the rapture ten years ago? (after she sold everything in preparation) ???
Some very intelligent people will be taken in by even new scheme, diet, food fear, that comes along. History is a nice way to see that none of this is new, including forced copyright protection claims and fears.
-
I'll bet 99% of this so called White Paper is misrepresenting and twisting the facts to gain readers or clicks or because someone is into conspiracy theories and plots.
Just had a good friend on Facebook claim that everything can be cured with minerals and the FDA is hiding the truth. Fluoridated water is bad for your teeth and dentists klnow it. OK, she just lost all credibility. Here I thought she had been taken up by the rapture ten years ago? (after she sold everything in preparation) ???
Some very intelligent people will be taken in by even new scheme, diet, food fear, that comes along. History is a nice way to see that none of this is new, including forced copyright protection claims and fears.
There are lots of conspiracies out there that are real.
Now why no DUCK? Exciting new project by Racephoto coming soon!
-
I'll bet 99% of this so called White Paper is misrepresenting and twisting the facts to gain readers or clicks or because someone is into conspiracy theories and plots.
Just had a good friend on Facebook claim that everything can be cured with minerals and the FDA is hiding the truth. Fluoridated water is bad for your teeth and dentists klnow it. OK, she just lost all credibility. Here I thought she had been taken up by the rapture ten years ago? (after she sold everything in preparation) ???
Some very intelligent people will be taken in by even new scheme, diet, food fear, that comes along. History is a nice way to see that none of this is new, including forced copyright protection claims and fears.
There are lots of conspiracies out there that are real.
Now why no DUCK? Exciting new project by Racephoto coming soon!
Yes, but the ones that we see about the Internet are often masking personal agendas and misinformation. Makes me a skeptic about their motivations in "spreading the truth". More like stirring the pot and inciting the masses about something that's not real. Although, maybe the sky is falling? I'm not positive...
Viaduct? (http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg706/scaled.php?server=706&filename=duckwebsmoke.jpg&res=landing)
Yes, the duck test is a fair example of a way to examine a claim. I'd agree.
And another one is "where there's smoke, there's a smoke machine."