Jump to content

Digital century need a new copyright Law


Recommended Posts

Digital century need a new copyright Law.

Majority  photographers and videorgaphers know this problem, and no one to  complain.

Sound very strange.

 For example, your creative works ( image or video) on Google ( social web site)  . If they post Advertisement on the same web page Google must to pay royalty. Right now Google decide pay or not. It is crime... copyright infringement.

In Court you can win a case against Google misuse personal and confidential data.

But cases related to digital copyright infringement very  complicated.

Next aspect.... Commercial use for RF license must be prohibited by Law or we go direct to digital slavery.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, google isn't liable for how you exhibit your images on the web. When your image shows up on google search, google hasn't "taken" your images. It is you who have chosen to have your pictures show up on search. If you put up your pictures on microstock platforms and other social media/image sharing websites, you have anyway given away the right to those platforms regarding how they optimize the google search engine to advertise your images on search. That advertising comes at the cost of your images showing up with ads on the google page. Nothing comes for free.

If you don't want your images to show up on google search, you can always build your own website and make it unsearchable. In either case, the choice is yours and all you'll do if you go to court is waste money on an unwinnable lawsuit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a website with text and photos.
If my text or photos are used, I want permission to be requested.
But I do want search engines to pass on my photos and text, otherwise my site will be completely untraceable and it makes no sense to publish a website.
If Shutterstock would prohibit search engines from passing on our photos, Shutterstock would remain unknown and you would not sell much.

If you advertise in a newspaper and you place a photo with it, you pay the newspaper. The newspaper does not pay you for that photo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 hours ago, Thijs de Graaf said:

If Shutterstock would prohibit search engines from passing on our photos, Shutterstock would remain unknown and you would not sell much.

The search engines in itself are not the problem and I assume that you specifically refer to Google Images. having said that, of course, they would sell a lot without that feature, as a matter of fact, they would sell more. Shutterstock was around, and growing fast, way before Google Images became an issue or was even a Google feature.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two problems .......

First, the law is always chasing technology. By the time the law catches up, the technology has moved on.

Second, law is national but SS and our sales are international. In the 10 months I have been tracking geography, I have sold to 61 countries. Trying to get international consensus on copyright law is probably impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Charles Lewis said:

Trying to get international consensus on copyright law is probably impossible.

No, it is not. There is an International copyright treaty managed and monitored by the  "World Intellectual Property Organization" (WIPO). The US DMCA act is a direct result of that. (like a local chapter so to speak)

What is impossible is  enforcing it and filing international claims. The things is, there are no such things as International Laws. They don't exist. What we do have are treaties like the WIPO one, but there is no real international enforcement for those.

In our case, we have (or should have rather unfortunately) SS to look after our world wide affairs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

No, it is not. There is an International copyright treaty managed and monitored by the  "World Intellectual Property Organization" (WIPO). The US DMCA act is a direct result of that. (like a local chapter so to speak)

What is impossible is  enforcing it and filing international claims. The things is, there are no such things as International Laws. They don't exist. What we do have are treaties like the WIPO one, but there is no real international enforcement for those.

In our case, we have (or should have rather unfortunately) SS to look after our world wide affairs. 

I know WIPO; they were my client when I worked in Geneva. The impossibility of enforcement is a function of the lack of consensus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Charles Lewis said:

I know WIPO; they were my client when I worked in Geneva. The impossibility of enforcement is a function of the lack of consensus.

No it is not. There is consensus for the most part.  There is no enforcement, because enforcement can have consequences in big cases and no impact is small cases. Nobody is going to mess with an international relationship for a few dollar or a few million dollars.

Also, International law is mainly determining what law of what country will prevail. In case of a potential trial, what country do you go? Do you go to them or do they come to you? That's the question nobody wants to bother with unless it is a huge case that could impact everybody. And even then.......

I was involved with UNIDO for a few years and learned a lot. (I had an agreement with them)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

No it is not. There is consensus for the most part.  There is no enforcement, because enforcement can have consequences in big cases and no impact is small cases. Nobody is going to mess with an international relationship for a few dollar or a few million dollars.

Also, International law is mainly determining what law of what country will prevail. In case of a potential trial, what country do you go? Do you go to them or do they come to you? That's the question nobody wants to bother with unless it is a huge case that could impact everybody. And even then.......

I was involved with UNIDO for a few years and learned a lot. (I had an agreement with them)

So what you are saying is that there is consensus but nobody is willing to enforce it because it isn't worth it to them or because it might ruffle inter-governmental relationships. So, essentially, it comes down to the impossibility of enforcing copyright law.

Interestingly, when I was working with WIPO, the USA was trying to take them over. That was in the 1990s. My involvement was essentially on the IT side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Charles Lewis said:

So what you are saying is that there is consensus but nobody is willing to enforce it because it isn't worth it to them or because it might ruffle inter-governmental relationships. So, essentially, it comes down to the impossibility of enforcing copyright law.

Interestingly, when I was working with WIPO, the USA was trying to take them over. That was in the 1990s. My involvement was essentially on the IT side.

That pretty much sums it up as far as treaties goes (unless that case is huge as said or in case of National or international security or something like that)

SS is in a position to do something in a foreign country if they want and they have an office there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Alexander Moskovskiy said:

 For example, your creative works ( image or video) on Google ( social web site)  . If they post Advertisement on the same web page Google must to pay royalty. Right now Google decide pay or not. It is crime... copyright infringement.

 

Google is huge!  When you say google, which specific aspect of google are you saying?  Which site?  Their search (which isn't social media)?  Or blogger?  or...???

If you choose to publish your image on a social media platform like Face Book, then you have agreed to the rules of that digital publication (explicitly by clicking "I agree" when you created an account and implicitly by posting the photo).  Since it's their platform, it's their rules.  Their publication includes advertising and it's obvious (does anyone ever read the terms and conditions?!?) before you publish the image.

Now, if someone steels that photo and uses it on their own site, without your permission, that breaks copyright (except sometimes it doesn't, and I only bothered to learn the law where I live, it's different in different countries) and you can peruse legal paths for compensation - if you want the expense.  

...

Copyright update for the digital age: I would like to see a universal global copyright for digital content that is easier to understand than the current global agreements and an easier way to resolve disputes between creators and content users.  

Long ago (when html was young), I had random people find images from my blog and reach out to me to use these images online.  It was obvious and easy to see who created the image and their contact detail back then.  Now, it's more difficult.  Maybe there could be some unscrubable EXIF data that identifies the creator, licence holder, or copyright holder of the image for easy tracing?  Or maybe it's too late for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 10:04 AM, Crowing Hen said:

and an easier way to resolve disputes between creators and content users.  

There is now.  I posted this earlier

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/22/20927545/copyright-bill-house-congress-hakeem-jeffries-case-act-dmca

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2426

To my knowledge this bill passed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

There is now.  I posted this in another thread this morning that has been deleted (don't know why)

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/22/20927545/copyright-bill-house-congress-hakeem-jeffries-case-act-dmca

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2426

To my knowledge this bill passed

It has a lot of government words I don't know.  I'm guessing that is a USA law?  

Internationally we would need some sort of treaty and a supra-governmental organization to provide a place for dispute resolution otherwise each countries court system would interpret the law differently and it would end up being basically what we have already.  But it's unlikely to happen.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2020 at 4:00 PM, Crowing Hen said:

It has a lot of government words I don't know.  I'm guessing that is a USA law?  

Internationally we would need some sort of treaty and a supra-governmental organization to provide a place for dispute resolution otherwise each countries court system would interpret the law differently and it would end up being basically what we have already.  But it's unlikely to happen.  

Google embedded my 54 images of 360 panorama. I do not give permission, and I send Google e-mail.  Pay + sign additional agreement with me or remove my content. Criminals from Google remove images from Google Earth site only.  But continued to embedded on other 3 web Google sites including school.google.com  As you know Google charge for educational program.

 It is copyright infringement

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Alexander Moskovskiy said:

It is copyright infringement

In EVERY Country in the world?  probably not.  The internet is global, and what is the law in one place, may not be in another.

Depending on the country(ies) involved, there's an argument for fair use or fair dealings for the examples you describe, especially the educational one!  Fair use/dealings/whatever is a legally valid way to get around copyright holdings.  Get rid of this law, we risk loosing the laws that protect stock photographers.

A news show on TV uses an image of a person on the street.  That person got ZERO remuneration for their part in that image.  They didn't sign a release.  They may not even be aware that they are involved or on TV.  That TV show has commercial advertisement.  That TV show is making money off the image of the person.  This is currently legal in many parts of the world.  It's not exactly the same laws that let google do what they are doing, but a case can be made from this example in google's favour.

I'm NOT saying it's right, I'm just saying that google probably has a greater understanding of the written and case law and afford to hire more lawyers than all of us put together.  

This is why we need international digital copyright law with teeth to enforce it.  The EU is doing some good work in this area, like requiring big companies like google and FB to remove images not used with permission, but this doesn't apply outside to most of the world outside of the EU.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Alexander Moskovskiy said:

Google embedded my 54 images of 360 panorama. I do not give permission, and I send Google e-mail.  Pay + sign additional agreement with me or remove my content. Criminals from Google remove images from Google Earth site only.  But continued to embedded on other 3 web Google sites including school.google.com  As you know Google charge for educational program.

 It is copyright infringement

 

Not necessarily

For educational uses (and some other uses) there is this doctrine in the US Copyright law that is called "Fair use"

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Emily Veinglory said:

So OP is talking about Google Earth?  How are photos even part of Google Earth? If anything this is getting less clear,

I think that's an example of what someone else did.  In some parts of the world, privacy laws require that google earth blur your house if you put in a request.  Some news stories suggest that criminals are using this to their advantage.  If memory serves, google is only required to do this in a handful of countries and has nothing to do with copyright law - it's pure privacy law.

There's lots of misinformation about copyright online but knowing what is actually protected where you live and how that applies to digital files is a whole different kettle of fish than reading a few forums.

Since, the OP profile says they are in Russia, I think the OP would be better off asking a lawyer in their location than asking on a US-based forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crowing Hen said:

There's lots of misinformation about copyright online but knowing what is actually protected where you live and how that applies to digital files is a whole different kettle of fish than reading a few forums.

 

Yes, too many experts. Especially when international law is concerned.

(There is no such thing as International law. There are no International or global law books and no global organization that could or would police that. It is not yet possible in today's world. There are treaties instead, Like WIPO)

Quote

The EU is doing some good work in this area, like requiring big companies like google and FB to remove images not used with permission, but this doesn't apply outside to most of the world outside of the EU.

Not just the EU, but every country that is part of the " World Intellectual Property Organization" (WIPO) and that is a lot of countries, including the Russian Federation.

As a result of their WIPO participation, the US implemented the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) in 1998.  Every member of WIPO is required to have similar measures as the DMCA in place. Those measures include provisions for the take down of unauthorized use of images by search engines Like Google and Yahoo. It also requires that these search engines have a so called Copyright Agent where people can file a complaint. Here are the guidelines of Verizon, who owns Yahoo, as an example. All other search engines have something similar in place, incl Google. https://www.verizonmedia.com/policies/us/en/verizonmedia/ip/index.html

So, the EU is not doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts, but only because they are required to do so and they have the decency to abide by the rules of the WIPO treaty The WIPO is in place since 1996, so until now, each individual EU member country was responsible, but I guess (not sure) that under the latest EU guidelines, treaties like this will be handled/negotiated/implemented by the EU as an organization

 

 

I wrote this, but I am not sure why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

There is no such thing as International law.

agreed!

I was trying to use words that were easy to understand in the vernacular, but sacrificed accuracy. 

 

26 minutes ago, Rudy Umans said:

I wrote this, but I am not sure why.

I'm glad you did.  It's fascinating stuff.

I've been digging deep into fair use vs fair dealings much of last year.  That's when I decided I needed a hobby and bought a camera. 

(edit - it was fair dealings, not fair copy.  copyright law hurts my brain)

Edited by Crowing Hen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...