Author Topic: Getty Joins Opposition to Copyright Changes (Read 5150 times)

rubyroo · « **on:** January 21, 2013, 12:13 »

I'm desperately trying to join the dots between what Getty say they believe and what they have done... but I can't form a picture that makes any sense at all. What do you make of this?

From the BJP:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2235856/photography-industry-shows-mass-opposition-to-government-copyright-changes

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:18 »

Quote from: rubyroo on January 21, 2013, 12:13

I'm desperately trying to join the dots between what Getty say they believe and what they have done... but I can't form a picture that makes any sense at all. What do you make of this?

From the BJP:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2235856/photography-industry-shows-mass-opposition-to-government-copyright-changes

It's the UK equivalent of the USA's 'orphan works' bill. It's nothing directly to do with the Google Drive issue __ apart from the fact that Getty will effectively be creating more attributed works.

rubyroo · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:24 »

But when they support statements like this:

"It may not be apparent to the ordinary parliamentarian that this means reducing the scope of copyright protection itself so that the value of copyright to those who earn a living from it will also be reduced [...]"

...don't you feel that the connections have all gone a bit haywire?

mattdixon · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:31 »

Intersting quote from the UK Government spokesperson.

It is illegal under UK law to “knowingly or without authority” strip metadata from “a copy of a copyright work”, and this will continue to be the case when the Orphan Works scheme comes into force.

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:31 »

Quote from: rubyroo on January 21, 2013, 12:24

But when they support statements like this:

"It may not be apparent to the ordinary parliamentarian that this means reducing the scope of copyright protection itself so that the value of copyright to those who earn a living from it will also be reduced [...]"

...don't you feel that the connections have all gone a bit haywire?

To be honest Getty themselves appear to have gone 'haywire' recently. I still don't understand how they benefit from Google Drive any more than we do ... unless of course there's a lot we don't know about it ... and that's the bit that Getty doesn't want us to know.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:35 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 12:31

I still don't understand how they benefit from Google Drive any more than we do

They get three quarters of a million dollars quick cash at $60 a time for 12,000 images.

Short term thinking at its worst.

gostwyck · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:44 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on January 21, 2013, 12:35

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 12:31
I still don't understand how they benefit from Google Drive any more than we do

They get three quarters of a million dollars quick cash at $60 a time for 12,000 images.

Short term thinking at its worst.

But that's nothing to a business with annual sales of close to $1B.

It would be like you smashing up all your photography gear because someone offered you £500 to do so.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:45 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 12:18

Quote from: rubyroo on January 21, 2013, 12:13
I'm desperately trying to join the dots between what Getty say they believe and what they have done... but I can't form a picture that makes any sense at all. What do you make of this?

From the BJP:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2235856/photography-industry-shows-mass-opposition-to-government-copyright-changes

It's the UK equivalent of the USA's 'orphan works' bill. It's nothing directly to do with the Google Drive issue __ apart from the fact that Getty will effectively be creating more attributed works.

I thought Getty/Google are creating more non-attributed works?

gostwyck · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2013, 12:48 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 21, 2013, 12:45

Quote from: gostwyck on January 21, 2013, 12:18
Quote from: rubyroo on January 21, 2013, 12:13
I'm desperately trying to join the dots between what Getty say they believe and what they have done... but I can't form a picture that makes any sense at all. What do you make of this?

From the BJP:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2235856/photography-industry-shows-mass-opposition-to-government-copyright-changes

It's the UK equivalent of the USA's 'orphan works' bill. It's nothing directly to do with the Google Drive issue __ apart from the fact that Getty will effectively be creating more attributed works.

I thought Getty/Google are creating more non-attributed works?

Sorry, typo __ I meant un-attributed works.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2013, 13:03 »

Well, it's not necessarily irrational. Say GI/Google strip the data, someone "steals" the image and then the secret GI tracking device finds it and lands them with a big bill for illegal use .... someone in the media industry can afford his yacht on the proceeds.
If, however, the government changes the law and the "infringer" turns round and tells GI's legal department to get knotted because it was an orphan work, then the supply of bolly and cigars for yacht owners could be severely curtailed.
Stripping metadata and using special pic-scout software to bring in the bucks could become unsustainable if this legislation goes through, couldn't it?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Joins Opposition to Copyright Changes (Read 5150 times)

rubyroo

gostwyck

rubyroo

mattdixon

gostwyck

fotoVoyager

gostwyck

ShadySue

gostwyck

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors