tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1588701599013956557..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Internet users definitely not sure about copyright, reports OfcomVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9693004584191400712012-12-05T15:13:25.794+00:002012-12-05T15:13:25.794+00:00One way the IPO could make a difference is not jus...One way the IPO could make a difference is not just through campaigns that attempt to teach internet users the complexity of national copyright laws but actually by encouraging Creators of works displayed on the web to incorporate 'identifiers' in the work that attribute it to the Creator and state whether there are Rights Reserved or its Free-Use.<br /><br />Here's an article on that very subject - Why do Creators who spend all day, every day creating IP take little or no responsibility for identifying their work?<br /><br />http://www.creativebarcode.com/pagehandler.php/newsitem?item=73<br /><br />Surely the Creators have got to start taking some responsibility for communicating their rights in works they display, otherwise they perpetuate the problem rather than become part of the solution<br /><br />The entire Ofcom Report or anything else I have seen published by IPO or anyone else, is absent of any criticism of the Creators themselves - why?<br /><br />Is it that, as was muted at one of the Hoopers events, identifying Creators and enabling a direct line to them for the permission to use or license of works directly, could potentially upset the apple cart for the 'licensing intermediaries' ?<br /><br />An interesting thought .......Maxine Hornhttp://www.creativebarcode.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54869647759217476952012-12-05T13:20:35.461+00:002012-12-05T13:20:35.461+00:00Does the absence of any mention of photographs hav...Does the absence of any mention of photographs have anything to do with the de facto exclusion of photographs from the fair dealing provisions of s.30(2) of the Patent, Desings and Copyright Act 1988? <br />(For a discussion see, e.g. - "Current Events and Fair Dealing with Photographs: Time for a Revised Approach"; Christohper Kelly, Intelletual Property Quarterly, Issue 4, 2012 p242ff.)Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3610378239089932312012-12-05T10:38:42.673+00:002012-12-05T10:38:42.673+00:00The lack of any mention of photography or graphic ...The lack of any mention of photography or graphic design in the survey interests me too. Taking a quick glance at what my facebook friends have posted, I can see dozens of pictures and links to (mostly parody based, would qualify as 'fair use' under the US system) content that are highly unlikely to be entirely legitimately licenced. <br /><br />I'm sure the IPO cannot have simply forgotten about image rights, so I wonder if the IPO have given up on photographers and designers rights, or made a strategic decision not to print statistics about the incredibly high infringement rate?<br /><br />The other thing that's missing from the report is an analysis of how accurate the self-reported statistics are. Of the 53% who say they can "confidently identify whether the online content they download, stream or share is legal or not", how many of them are *actually* able to do so? Is their confidence justified? To me, this is they key statistic, as it's an indicator of how comprehensible copyright law is to private individuals.<br /><br />Copyright law was largely (until the advent of file-sharing) a business-to-business law. It was reasonable to expect businesses who had invested in presses, copiers, etc. to also be in a position to take legal advice, employ staff to handle IP licencing, etc. Now that computers have removed the price barrier from potential infringement, we have to consider if is it really reasonable to require the same of my mum before she re-posts a funny picture on facebook?<br /><br />I think the only long term solution is indeed to allow non-commercial copying. In the same way I can give you a cup of tea, but not sell you one without having to comply with laws governing cafe and restaurant hygiene, or give you a lift in my car but not sell you one without a hackney carriage licence, surely I should be able to give you a file, but not sell you one?Andrew Robinsonhttp://www.pirateparty.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5354490371553951992012-12-05T08:03:31.502+00:002012-12-05T08:03:31.502+00:00It could be straight forward: any use for private,...It could be straight forward: any use for private, non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, any use for commercial purposes is subject to licensing fees. Simples!Ericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28445962510788901752012-12-04T20:27:08.957+00:002012-12-04T20:27:08.957+00:00Intriguing first para..
"As the festive seas...Intriguing first para..<br /><br />"As the festive season creeps rapidly upon us, many of us will embrace the spirit of sharing. But, while it is easy to share the mince pies in the office, sharing a picture of one online could land you in bother..."<br /><br />Unfortunately the survey did not cover infringement of image copyright or photography and there is not a single mention of photographs in the whole of the 994 page report. An over-sight or deliberate omission? Well one would seriously have to doubt the IPO's suitability to the purpose as guardians of Intellectual Property, if this was an oversight, especially when anyone (as you did) would consider that image rights theft would come number one or number two on the list of most infringed property on line. However, given the IPO's self confessed policy to redefine the UK market for image IP through the Economic Regulatory Reform Bill, it comes as little surprise that they would rather not fund the gathering of data that would in anyway compromise their agenda.Andre Reginihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280212002376958399noreply@blogger.com