# Copyright Issues



## crickleymal (Apr 30, 2013)

Don't know if anyone else has read this
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/


----------



## night crawler (Apr 30, 2013)

I did see that on another site, seems to revolve around Orphaned work and if you post your photos on Flickr , Twitter and facebook they are stripped of metadata and become orphaned If I read right leaving it open for use. Some one else might know better.


----------



## RichardH (May 1, 2013)

El Reg is, as usual, frothing at the mouth with the effort to spew out hyperbole as fast as it can, but the report is fundamentally accurate, which is depressing.


----------



## Mickelmas (May 1, 2013)

Surely a nice big watermark thru the image is sufficient to make ur image not an orphaned image??


----------



## krela (May 1, 2013)

What this basically means is that if you want to make money out of an image then you cannot post it on the internet in any form, because even if you post it with exif data and a copyright watermark, someone else can remove those things and repost it.

Yes a big fat watermark across the image might prevent this, but it also destroys the image.


----------



## ricasso (May 1, 2013)

I think maybe it may be a bit naive to think that any photo's posted anywhere on the internet wont be potentially used by someone somewhere to make money, after all, think how many images any one of us has posted over time,on here and other sites, how can you possibly police them? how can you know if your photos haven't appeared on a website or in a book halfway round the world? you'll never know, unfortunately decency and fair play dont go hand in hand with the internet


----------



## Sshhhh... (May 3, 2013)

Its bloody ridiculous! It is a shame to have to use a big fat watermark but if it keeps what is yours then so be it. i think we will be seeing a lot of them in the future. Its daylight robbery, the world has gone mad(der)


----------



## krela (May 3, 2013)

I think it's more likely that picture hosts will change their resize/compression routines so they don't strip out exif data, then everything will be fine.

If you think about it it's an obvious selling point from now on...


----------



## Judderman62 (May 4, 2013)

Sshhhh... said:


> Its bloody ridiculous! It is a shame to have to use a big fat watermark but if it keeps what is yours then so be it. i think we will be seeing a lot of them in the future. Its daylight robbery, the world has gone mad(der)



hmmm I suspect not... I scroll past images with watermarks - I detest them with a passion


----------



## Derelict-UK (May 5, 2013)

I always put watermarks on my 'arty' images, it's the ones I sell to the media that will be interesting! Must publications/pic agencies won't touch watermarked images with a barge pole, but if photographers are forced to do so, then our newspapers and magazines might be changing in the very near future. 

Either that or they will get pissed off and possibly try and get it thrown out by the European Human Rights Court. I think appeals are already being made as we speak.


----------



## Judderman62 (May 5, 2013)

Derelict-UK said:


> Either that or they will get pissed off and possibly try and get it thrown out by the European Human Rights Court. I think appeals are already being made as we speak.



Aye I read somewhere about appeals going in from all sorts of quarters


----------



## night crawler (May 9, 2013)

More on the suject if you are interested.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/0...nding-uk-enterprice-and-regulatory-reform-act


----------



## TeeJF (May 9, 2013)

And then you have the scum bags who request permission with the promise of a payment which never arrives. A Mexican publication did that to me with some of our diving pix.


----------

