Microstock Photography Forum - General > Selling Stock Direct

Google images licensable tag

<< < (5/6) > >>

eZeePics:
When I opened the topic of IPTC-related metadata first in the Shutterstock Contributors Italy group on Facebook, then in the Stock Coalition group, about three weeks ago, not many people knew. Many were surprised. I have done a lot of research before and yes, it turns out that all agencies remove copyright information from metadata, which is not legal. There is a fine of around 2500 euros for each copy sold with ripped metadata. So if they sell 1000 copies of an image, they have to pay around 2,500,000 mil. only for that image. And I'm not joking. We are right to open an endless lawsuit against agencies that do not respect copyright.

FIRSTLY, THE INFOSOC DIRECTIVE (EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE 2001/29 / EC):

It has long been known that this law prohibits the removal of any copyright metadata (including both watermark and IPTC / Exif / Xmp / other embedded metadata) from any digital media. This has however it has been largely ignored because in Europe, member countries are required to pass their own national laws to support and sanction the violation of European directives. The EC is pursuing some nations for not implementing this directive, but the dust has not subsided yet.
Despite this lack of sanctions in many Member States, the directive stands as European law. The relevant clause (Article 7) reads:

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;
(b) the distribution, importation for distribution, broadcasting, communication or making available to the public of works or other subject-matter protected under this Directive or under Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC from which electronic rights-management information has been removed or altered without authority,
if such person knows, or has reasonable grounds to know, that by so doing he is inducing, enabling, facilitating or concealing an infringement of any copyright or any rights related to copyright as provided by law, or of the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC.
2. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression “rights-management information” means any information provided by rightholders which identifies the work or other subject-matter referred to in this Directive or covered by the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, the author or any other rightholder, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work or other subject-matter, and any numbers or codes that represent such information.

SECONDLY, THE DMCA (DIGITAL MILLENIUM COPYRIGHT ACT):

From wikipedia: [the DMCA] criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.
The DMCA is almost universally recognised online, and many agencies are familiar with DMCA takedown requests (it was the addition of an automated platform for handling them released by Dreamstime).
The relevant clause in the DMCA (Section 1202(b)) reads:
REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION No
person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law –
(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,
(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or
(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies under section 1203, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title.

Then, read here http://www.metnews.com/articles/2018/dmca062118.htm
what says The Ninth Circuit about DMCA’s restriction against metadata removal.
IS VIOLATION of 17 U.S.C. Section 1202(b) the removal or alteration of copyright management information (CMI) from a work. Is likely to encourage future infringement of the work.

The very serious agencies about this are Depositphotos which is not ripping metadata (all the photos downloaded by them show all the metadata I entered in the IPTC fields) and Dreamstime, which in the copyright field specifies your Dreamstime username and their agency. Getty image and AdobeStock partially removes it, from 10 images 3 or 4 keep the metadata.

SO, IT'S TIME THAT ALL CONTRIBUTORS KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO FIGHT AGAINST THIS AND WE HAVE TO OBTAIN FROM ALL AGENCIES THE OUR RIGHT: THEY DON'T HAVE TO TOUCH THE METADATA IN OUR FILES!

Jo Ann Snover:
With respect to the DMCA in the US (I have no understanding of European case law); several cases in the US have covered the issue of CMI removal and made it clear that the removal has to be with the intent of facilitating copyright infringement. Without that intent, the DMCA doesn't help.

It's a shame that's how the law was written, but the solution is legislative (change the law) not a lawsuit. Right now the US congress is utterly dysfunctional, so this is a longer-term goal

Tenebroso:
The law of the USA is very valid in the USA. Therefore, agencies must take responsibility to abide by the law where they market their products, for example, they are responsible for avoiding storing copyrighted images without permission.

The adaptation period is soon over, the large internet companies have been working for years on this famous article 13, which soon each European country will impose its fines. In other words, agencies operating in Europe must adapt their storage, ensuring that they have the appropriate permits. YouTube, twitter, etc. They have been working on this issue for a long time.

Translated, before the user was punished, now the companies. The term runs out, allegedly stolen images, in the microstock window, entails a fine, and a ban on working in a market of 500 million potential users.

It no longer works, the user deceived me claiming that he was the author, the companies are responsible for ensuring legitimate copyright and providing the necessary means for this purpose. Scandal fines, for this, he left two years of adaptation. I suppose that the agencies have been working on this issue for years, because the fines lift from the ground any company that does not respect it.

Either they take care of the theft of files or it is a communiqué and obligatory action ex officio and free of charge against the company that violates the law before any user who identifies himself and alleges violation of rights. Administrative action ex officio with a response within 6 months, once the complaint has been made. Free. It is not part of the accusation, the Data Protection Agency acts ex officio and penalizes the offender, you do not earn money with it, but our rights are monitored.

Regarding the issue of data, we authorize a lot when signing the collaboration, it would be necessary to read carefully everything related to this issue of permits, authorizations, when working with agencies.

drd:
Much more useful if they would add a "No license found" tag.

Lola Ginabrigeta:

--- Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 07, 2020, 13:45 ---With respect to the DMCA in the US (I have no understanding of European case law); several cases in the US have covered the issue of CMI removal and made it clear that the removal has to be with the intent of facilitating copyright infringement. Without that intent, the DMCA doesn't help.

It's a shame that's how the law was written, but the solution is legislative (change the law) not a lawsuit. Right now the US congress is utterly dysfunctional, so this is a longer-term goal

--- End quote ---

Maybe with JRB Jr. and Kamala Harris, the first woman, African American, Asian American to serve as vice president, we could get some laws changed. Biden won, now lets see him do something with his promises. Protect our work

“We’ll build back better with ... newly empowered labor unions. With equal pay for women. With rising wages you can raise a family on. Yes, we’re going to do more than praise our essential workers. We’re finally going to pay them.”

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page