tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4762131750700432699..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Orphan Works in the FrameVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47597586318784175982012-08-10T07:58:42.096+01:002012-08-10T07:58:42.096+01:00Thank you for posting the reply, Andre R. Unlike ...Thank you for posting the reply, Andre R. Unlike the IPKat, the Stop43 post doesn't allow comments, so I shall respond to their post here.<br /><br />"Nicola Searle is a paid consultant to the IPO. Not to have disclosed this in her article is poor journalistic practice."<br /><br />Stop43 rightly points out that I should have disclosed my previous association with IPO as I have done in earlier posts focusing on the IPO (e.g. http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/role-of-ipo.html) I was an ESRC/AHRC/IPO funded fellow at the IPO from 2010-2011 but would<br />not describe myself as a current "paid consultant." <br /><br />The rest of Stop43's response is all part of the healthy debate surrounding orphan works and similar legislation. I do not intend to reveal my source as it would not enhance this debate.Nicola Searlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05582267523535551739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22247774670573759342012-08-09T10:08:52.905+01:002012-08-09T10:08:52.905+01:00It seems Stop43 have answered this piece here
http...It seems Stop43 have answered this piece here<br />http://www.stop43.org.uk/pages/news_and_resources_files/IPO_Propaganda_Part_3.php<br />although it has not been posted here.Andre Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53525766680928500172012-08-08T08:58:47.676+01:002012-08-08T08:58:47.676+01:00The source 'close to the debate' is almost...The source 'close to the debate' is almost certainly Ed Quilty. Those are almost the exact words he used to me when I asked him a question at last year's AOP event.<br /><br />His stance seems to be one of naive assumption that someone who may have otherwise 'stolen' an image may be inclined to go and get an Orphan Works licence. All my work leaves my studio with a full set of metadata embedded. As we know this is very easily stripped. If the stripping of metadata was treated with the gravity it deserves, then ECL an OW legislation would become totally unnecessary for contemporary work.<br /><br />Orphan Works and ECL legislation breaches human rights law and runs the risk of tearing up contract law as we know it. It is all very well saying that in the digital era digital businesses need easily to be able to get the licences that they need. It is quite easy to get a licence from me. Pick up the phone or email, and we'll sort out a price:<br /><br />(a) if the image is available for licensing, and not under another exclusive licence to a client, or covered by a restrictive model release<br />(b) if I want to sell a licence to the organisation / individual that wants to buy it<br />(c) the price and contract terms are acceptable to both parties<br /><br />On point (a), there is no way an OW licencing body or collecting society will know what my contractual obligations to my clients, models appearing in the image or other suppliers are. The possible commercial use of work which has been orphaned destroys my right to sell it exclusively at a high price, and destroys the confidence of my clients that I will honour my contract and protect their investment.<br />I have chosen not to licence certain images on the basis of point (b); for example, I would be very upset if the BNP were to use one of my images whatever price they were prepared to pay. But it is point (c) that becomes the sticking point in many cases, and on numerous occasions I have chosen NOT to licence a use because the client was not prepared to pay the price the image was worth. From the way I understand these things operate, collecting societies will not be so discerning.<br /><br />With regard to point (c), another recent example has been that Coldplay and Adele have chosen not to allow their recent music to be played on Spotify. Spotify may say that it 'needs' these licences in a digital world, but the truth is that they are not prepared to pay the proper licence fee expected by these artists. Coldplay and Adele are exercising their human right to refuse as they have the right to control their property; a right most creators feel is crucial to the running of a civilised society.Jonathan Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03932280847138378984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81101009493372855762012-08-07T17:37:37.865+01:002012-08-07T17:37:37.865+01:00The Government is being disingenuous in stressing ...The Government is being disingenuous in stressing the archiving and library uses of orphan works when the proposals from the IPO explicitly create a commercial collection for exploitation by a quango. The assertion that an orphan rate is somehow 'good news' for photographers, who lose the ability either to negotiate or to offer exclusives or windows, is insulting and laughable.<br /><br />Our Katonomist does not serve us well in framing this as a choice of tyrannies. The Minority Tyrants have done an excellent job in providing the world with large numbers of excellent photographs on very competitive terms. There's no problem to solve here for commercial exploitation, and the cultural access and archiving can be taken care of by a simple exception or two.Paul Sandershttp://ratpie.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84180082708246875652012-08-07T17:18:46.536+01:002012-08-07T17:18:46.536+01:00Much could be done to improve the definition of an...Much could be done to improve the definition of an orphan work. Throughout the lobbying of both Gowers and Hargreaves by the likes of the BBC and the British Library, the emphasis was on the enormous stock of old analogue content held in their archives, some of which was quite possibly in the publc domain due to its age, but because the authors were unknown, this could not be assumed. That material is a million miles away from digital images of today which are the concern of Stop43. Simply by restricting the scope of orphan works to just those which are held within reputable archives such as the British Library or the BBC - something the EU initiative on orphan works has considered - any large-scale grabbing of modern photography by the likes of Getty or Corbis through the spurious definition that the rights owner can't be easily identified, would effectively be prevented, or at least not made more prevalent than it currently is.<br />Am I the only one who sees the great irony that at a time when the (identifiable) rights owners of movies and music gain greater protection through legislation such as the DEA, and via the courts with Newzbin2, and the EU copyright term extension, the rights of small businesses such as freelance photographers, and of amateurs, which should equal those of the big beasts of the jungle (who let's face usually only own neighbouring rights), just get weaker.Andy Jnoreply@blogger.com