In the U.S., Google Book Settlement is the headline at water cooler
discussions on copyright, and the Orphan Works Act has stalled
temporarily, in part because the Senate Judiciary Committee is
preoccupied with things like trying terrorists. Meanwhile in Europe,
they have been burning the midnight oil to change their copyright
laws to reflect Orphan Works, the Google Book Settlement, content
theft on the Internet, and public opinion. The outcome could
dramatically affect rights holders.

On November 18th, Her Majesty The Queen of England called for
passage of the Digital Economy Bill in her traditional speech to the
House of Lords and House of Commons. Britain’s Digital Economy Bill
is based largely on a report by its Intellectual Property Office
(IPO) entitled "© the way ahead". The British Journal of Photography
(BJP) summarizes the report, saying it "asks rights holders to
broaden the terms of their licences, allowing the public to use
photographs for non-commercial uses without payment or
authorisation. It also proposes the establishment of a new
collective licensing agency, orphan works legislation and less
‘muscular’ enforcement of image theft."

BJP has reported on this legislative initiative from the rights
holder’s perspective in two articles that are quoted in this blog
post: "Copyright changes to be announced in Queen's Speech?" and
"Government goes ahead with changes to UK licensing rules"

BJP says the Digital Economy Bill proposes "changes to the copyright
licensing scheme [that] could impact photographers the most, as
non-commercial consumers could use images without having to ask for
permission or providing payment to the photographer."

According to BJP, IPO finds the current copyright system to be too
complex for users. Although fair compensation for rights holders
would be required, BJP quotes IPO as saying that, "making
non-commercial use less onerous for consumers, for example by
removing the need to seek permission and make payment for personal
use of individual copyright works, would help."

IPO believes that one big problem is not being able to find rights
holders. BJP quotes IPO as saying "… systems for licensing are
complex, time-consuming to access and incomplete. Copyright is
automatic and many works (such as photographs) do not incorporate
details of their creator or rights holder. As a result, it is hard
to get permission to use works. A user may find it impossible to
identify the owner of a work."

IPO seems to conclude if there is no method to easily find
photographers from their images, then it’s more expedient to change
copyright law to no longer make it a copyright violation to use
images for non-commercial use without authorization of the rights
holder. IPO says, "Making licensing easier benefits all who are
currently involved …"

AmateurPhotographer.co.uk quotes Stewart Gibson, head of Members'
Services at the Bureau of Freelance Photographers, as saying that
although use of a wedding photographer's pictures, for example,
without consent would deprive the photographer of a re-print fee,
the use of images on someone's personal blog page, say, is "probably
not going to be a big deal". Gibson added: "It's not an ideal
situation but there is nothing you can do about it in the internet
age."

A 2009 survey concluded that over half of people feel it should not
be illegal to use someone else’s photos for your personal use. When
asked "Should it be illegal to copy an image from a Website for your
personal use?" 74% said 'no' in the street interviews and 46% said
'no' in the online survey. Support of legalizing such use goes up
even further if proper credit is provided to the creator (an
"attribution right"). Subsequent surveys support these numbers.
(The full copyright survey in Creator’s Circle Magazine
can be read on pages 20 and 21)

This may all seem confusing, as law-making often is. Although
previously inconceivable, the logical direction of this movement is
clear … and unsettling. If rights holders choose not to enable all
means possible to associate their ownership with their creative
works, and if there is no easy way for the masses to license that
work for personal uses, such as blogging, it could become
politically expedient to just change copyright laws to make it
acceptable to use the creative works of others without paying. BJP’s
reporting would seem to indicate this is the heart of the proposal
by the Queen of England.

The two easiest ways to associate a rights holder’s contact information
with their images are by 1) embedding IPTC or other data in each image,
and 2) using image registries.

Randy Taylor
www.RandyTaylor.com
The Copyright Registry at C-Registry.us