
UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own - jfasi
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/you-may-soon-need-a-licence-to-take-photos-of-that-classic-designer-chair-you-bought/
======
RobertoG
What I miss in this kind of articles is more details in how this kind of laws
are cooked.

They say "the UK government", OK, but who in the UK government, and who is
really behind. Not that we don't know, but making the process explicit would
be helpful.

~~~
blowski
[https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-
arr...](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-arrangements-
for-the-repeal-of-section-52-cdpa)

> 1\. Section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) limits
> the term of copyright protection for industrially exploited artistic works
> to 25 years. The Government had previously consulted on how and when to
> implement the repeal of section 52 CDPA and made a decision to have a
> transitional period of 5 years from April 2015. This meant that the repeal
> of section 52 would have come into effect in April 2020 and existing stock
> which had been made or imported prior to this date would have been
> unaffected by the repeal.

> 2\. However, the compatibility of these arrangements with EU law was
> challenged by way of a judicial review and the Government decided to
> reconsider the issue, as announced on the Government’s website on 23 July
> 2015. This consultation covers the areas which are now being considered as
> part of the repeal of section 52 CDPA.

~~~
RobertoG
Thanks for the link. I get lost in the legalese but found a easy explanation
somewhere:

[http://intellectualpropertyblog.fieldfisher.com/2015/section...](http://intellectualpropertyblog.fieldfisher.com/2015/section-52-cdpa-
transitional-arrangements-on-hold-while-government-consults)

I find interested and sensible this distinction (even if I think 25 years is
too much):

"When more than 50 copies have been made of such an artistic work, the period
of copyright protection is limited to 25 years after the work is first
marketed, in comparison to other artistic works which are protected for the
life of the author plus 70 years. In practical terms, this means, for example,
that furniture manufacturers and importers could start manufacturing and
importing furniture that qualified as industrially-manufactured artistic works
once the initial 25 year copyright protection had expired."

The fact that this rational exception is going to be eliminated in order to
harmonize with EU law just push the issue of 'who' to Brussels.

It seems that there is a great tradition of harmonizing copyright always to
the most draconian terms.

------
Aloisius
Won't this severely affect movies and television? I imagine a huge number of
movies and television shows have at least some piece from a classic designer
and I can't imagine Hollywood is going to track down who owns the licensing
rights for every set piece, building, article of clothing, etc. ahead of time
just to show it in the UK.

~~~
onion2k
If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put
it there. That's why films have all Samsung devices or all Apple devices, all
Mercedes or all BMW cars, all Armani wardrobes or all some other designer, and
so on. Brands pay millions to be seen on screen. Hollywood knows how to tap
every imaginable source of money.

~~~
mryan
> If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to
> put it there.

While paid product placement does exist and is widespread, this statement
isn't correct. There are many examples of organic product placement, where the
set/costume designer uses a particular product without any financial
incentive.

~~~
simonh
In fact for example Apple has confirmed repeatedly for many years that they
don't pay for product placement.

~~~
MagnumOpus
They do pay, but they pay in hardware.

They have dedicated staff to promote product placement and according to a
Hollywood movie maker, "Apple won’t pay to have their products featured, but
they are more than willing to hand out an endless amount of computers, iPads,
and iPhones".

It is actually a very unethical practice if you think about it in monetary
terms. Rather than paying the film company above the table like ethical
companies usually do, they outright bribe the prop department staff by giving
each of them gifts worth thousands of dollars for preferential product
placement.

~~~
mikeash
Thata a bit of a leap to go from "they hand out free hardware" to "they bribe
staff with free hardware."

~~~
scotty79
If "they" means "for profit entity" those two statements are exactly the same
in my ears.

~~~
mikeash
The difference is that the former means the free hardware likely goes to the
production company and is not available for personal use. It's not a moral
quibble, but a question of who owns the stuff and who gets to use it.

~~~
DanBC
Apple gives desirable stuff to the production company.

Who gets the stuff when the filming has finished?

~~~
mikeash
I imagine that the production company would keep it for their next project, or
sell it to recover some money. Are you implying that this stuff is typically
gifted to the employees instead?

~~~
scotty79
Companies sell equipment they don't need to their employees at seriously
reduced price.

~~~
mikeash
Why would they sell equipment below market price?

~~~
scotty79
Because selling takes effort.

------
buserror
It's just what happens when most of the policies are made up by 'sponsored'
lobbies -- the ones with the deep pockets.

It's completely bonkers really, most of the decisions that people care about
are made up in a gray area that doesn't involve them at all; you got an office
somewhere making up policies straight out of briefs they've been fed by
lobbies (who feeds it to every party too, just in case)

A good recent example is Heathrow's third runway. Despite _millions_ of people
living underneath, well, someone somewhere made a 'study' that 'proves' it's a
good idea, so despite the fact it impacts millions of people -- in fact,
millions of the most influential and rich people in the country even (London
and the Thames Valley) well, it's likely to go ahead anyway...

~~~
robk
There are also millions of us who would rather fly Heathrow over other local
airports and support the expansion. This isn't all astroturfed support you
know.

~~~
buserror
Oh, by local you mean you don't live in Windsor, Datchet or any of the other
places directly under the flightpath then, where you can't actually /talk/
outside because there is a plane every 30 seconds? And these aren't even the
closest to the airport.

Oh and as for takeoff, it's and even larger area as the planes don't climb
before making their turn, they climb /after/ turning over 20+ miles of densely
populated area to save fuel.

Oh and there's night flights, so forget it if you want to open a bedroom
window in the summer...

Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind going to gatwick, personally.

------
WalterBright
This may run head on into the ubiquitous surveillance state. After all, you
can how prevent anyone from legally photographing you if you wear some classic
designer objects.

~~~
roywiggins
It'll end up being enforced on publication, I'd guess. So if you photograph an
object and publish the picture, someone can come after you for money. Or, in
this case, if you published a book last year, they can sue you for
distributing it. Which is insane, but that's what you get with retroactive
copyright extensions.

Nobody actually cares whether you took the photograph, it's whether you
published it.

~~~
Olap84
But when you can request a copy of a cctv video, does that not become
publishing? Seems very wooly to me.

~~~
pc86
Presumably any sort of judicial order or action overrides copyright. You can't
get out of a mug shot if you're arrested because you happen to be wearing an
Armani shirt.

------
blowski
OK, seems like a storm in a teacup. The items covered by this ruling
('industrially exploited artistic works') are artistic items that have been
reproduced more than 50 times. They are already under copyright for 25 years,
but due to a judicial review based on EU law, that section has been repealed
so they are now covered by the same copyright as 2D artistic works (such as
paintings).

Therefore, it's not _everything_ that I own, but only items that a court would
consider to be a work of art. Since Apple would have a hard time convincing a
court that their laptops are first and foremost works of art, this will have
no effect on my ability to run a blog featuring photos of Apple laptops.
However, if I wanted to sell a book featuring photos of Busk and Hertzog
chairs, I would now need to wait for 70 years instead of 25.

IANAL, but I really don't think this is a big issue.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Unless one of your user submitted photos of an Apple laptop happens to contain
their desk chair that you don't notice is a designer chair. The first you may
know about this is the copyright troll that purchased the rights to images of
that chair sending you a speculative invoice after their chair recognising bot
has trawled your blog. You might when you reflect on this hazard decide that
your blog on Apple laptops is not worth the risk. This is an example of a
chilling effect.

~~~
gsnedders
My understanding of the current protections (of 2D works) is that the
photograph has to be an image of the protected object. A photo of an Apple
laptop with a desk chair in the background isn't a photo of the desk chair.
Similarly, a photo of an art gallery isn't a photo of every piece of art
contained therein.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Good. However, it will be for the publisher of the photo to argue this with
the copyright troll (and possibly eventually in court). In particular I guess
that they will probably have to demonstrate that the chair is background and
not a significant part of the image. I guess that the publisher will win
_eventually_. I personally don't want to be the test case though.

------
js8
I understand the reasoning of the UK government as follows:

It's important to preserve soul and essence of things. When you photograph
someone, you take part of their soul; similarly, when you photograph an
object, you take part of its essence. The modern technologies created lot of
soul-less people and essence-less things; to restore the world to its former
magical beauty, we need more protection against soul- and essence-taking.

Now, I am not an expert in psychology of governments, but the UK empire is
actually quite old. We have to consider the possibility that it may be getting
senile.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
The UK is a leading member of the Church of Capitalism, so "soul" actually
means "ability to profit from."

When you photograph a cultural object, profiting from it without the creator's
permission is very, very sinful, and an outrageous attack on the concept of
Eternal Profitability and Financial Immortality.

------
netcan
To me, the long term trend in copyright legislation is the perfect quite
example of how our system is broken.

------
wildefyr
Yet again I am ashamed of my government.

~~~
ptaipale
I think you don't need to be, because it seems arstechnica is misrepresenting
the proposed change.

This kind of sensationalist activism is all too common, but my understanding
is similar to blowski's above:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10730178](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10730178)

not about photographing, but about publishing, particularly in commercial
purpose, pictures of actual works of art.

------
userbinator
This sounds like it'd run counter to the requirements of sellers to provide
clear pictures of the products they're selling, and gives an opportunity for
scammers to weasel around them by referring to this ridiculous law. What's
next, illegal to describe something you own without license?

------
carlob
I think they're trying to curb websites like voga.com. The UK now is in a
weird position in terms of copyright law of designer objects: basically a
physical copy of say a designer chair is considered the same as a photo of it
and so it can be mass produced without paying royalties to the designer's
estate if they've been dead for more than 25 years (as opposed to 70).

Wouldn't it be better to rephrase the law making a distinction between unique
(or small batch) works of art and works of design that are going to be mass
produced?

[http://www.voga.com/still-legal/](http://www.voga.com/still-legal/)

------
im2w1l
DMCA has been used to accomplish this in the US. A man who took a photo of a
star wars action figure he had bought got issued take down requests for the
photos. Also relevant is that the figurine was apparently accidentally sold
ahead of schedule, but still.

~~~
panglott
The difference is that in the US, if it was a picture he took himself, he was
the actual owner of the copyright. The complaint was in the wrong if they
simply confused their image with his.

It is unfair, but based on the inequality of legal resources, not because some
third party owns a copyright on a picture that you take yourself.

~~~
brlewis
They would argue that the photograph was a work derived from the creative work
of the figurine.

------
vezzy-fnord
A lot of technologists here have certain dreams or aspirations they want to
see materialized in their lifetimes. AGI, transhumanism, space colonization,
etc.

My dream is that I hope to see the emergence of a viable minarchist or
anarchist society (beyond Mennonite and kibbutzim arrangements). Thus far the
closest was a brief period of Catalonian history amidst a civil war.

~~~
karmapolice
Communists and anarchists talking about the new utopian society before winning
the war. I wonder why they lose...

~~~
guard-of-terra
In Russia, communists won the Civil War precisely because they were talking
about the new utopia.

Because, the other side said: "we will win the war and then decide what to
build". That's why I even struggle name them, other than "white" (as opposed
to communist "red").

~~~
vezzy-fnord
The Whites were pretty clear in their goals, I'd thought: preservation of
monarchy and status quo.

A more interesting counterfactual would have been Menshevik victory.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Except most of them were actually republican, supporting Provisional
Government.

It was a wide coalition of monarchists, republicans, orthdox priests and
military. Their only common ground was perhaps dislike and fear of reds (and
that turned out very justified).

~~~
chimprich
> Their only common ground was perhaps dislike and fear of reds (and that
> turned out very justified).

Getting wildly OT now but the atrocities and systematic killings performed by
the Nationalists absolutely dwarfed the isolated killings on the Republican
side, perhaps by a factor of ten to one.

~~~
guard-of-terra
I'm sorry, who are nationalists that you're talking about? Is it the right
civil war? Only thing coming to my mind is ukrainian nationalists, Petlura,
that kind of thing.

~~~
chimprich
Ah sorry, I thought you were referring to the Spanish Civil War as discussed
by the original poster. I failed to notice the thread had shifted context.

------
walterbell
There was a recent HN thread on the world's highest-grossing photographer,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10689889](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10689889).
Would this impact Prince's business model?

~~~
Yhippa
Wondering the same. This could be the antidote to that.

------
bsenftner
Clarify: does this impact fashion, as in clothing, hair and so on? The Fashion
industry treats their work as art. Can this be used to block fashion critics
from using imagery in the criticism of an outfit, shoe, hair or makeup design?

------
Joakal
I have not read the laws but mostly likely this applied to commercial use
already for years and they wanted it applied to private use.

However, it's a racket. To give an example, the happy birthday song is illegal
to 'broadcast without permission of copyright holders'. But, the restaurant
owner can buy a license from a copyright group for a fee.

Second example; Imagine being a school and dealing with students who submit
assignments with copyrighted content. It's illegal to accept such submissions
without approval. So, all schools usually have to pay for a license from
copyright groups (Music, photography, video, etc).

Here's a really good article on it from Australia:
[http://insidestory.org.au/the-copyright-cops/](http://insidestory.org.au/the-
copyright-cops/) (Most, if not all copyright groups in Australia are
Hollywood-based).

Here's a copyright group website: [http://www.musicrights.com.au/fact-
sheets/usingmusicinschool...](http://www.musicrights.com.au/fact-
sheets/usingmusicinschools/)

> How do I know if I am doing the right thing at school?

> To make using music in schools easier, there are a number of licences in
> place between copyright owners and schools. These are set out at the end of
> this Guide. A reference to (Licence # ) is a reference to the licence
> applicable in each instance.

~~~
sjclemmy
I see your references are Australian, so the rules there may be different but
I'd like to clarify the rules in force in the UK around your second example.
According to the Copyright Act 1988 there is the idea of fair use / fair
dealing, which extends to the type of academic activity you highlight. This
means it is not an infringement of copyright and no notification or license is
required.

[https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_oth...](https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others)

~~~
DanBC
And even then UK fair dealing is much more restrictive than US fair use.

------
jackgavigan
The Act that that includes these changes also includes provisions to allow
compulsory licensing of "orphaned" copyright works:
[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/section/77/enact...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/section/77/enacted)

------
blowski
I'm trying to understand what problem this law is trying to solve. Without
this law, would it be legal for me to buy a Damien Hirst painting, photograph
it and sell the photographs? Or is it that I could run an unofficial
information website (say, on Apple laptops) on which I list detailed photos,
and the brand owners want to limit that?

~~~
justincormack
In the case of paintings it is already illegal, this law just extends that to
all other objects (well it only mentions designer chairs, but obviously it
must apply to kids toys and anything else, they will claim they are artistic).

The government has just recently confirmed that digital reproductions to not
create new copyright, so you already need to pay Damien to sell pictures of
your Hirst.

~~~
blowski
So if I posted a picture on Facebook of my son playing with a Fisher Price
telephone, then Fisher Price could contact me and order me to take it down?
I'm assuming they couldn't sue for 'loss of earnings'? And if I run an
unofficial Apple blog on which I do teardowns of Apple equipment then they
could order me to remove any photos?

~~~
coldtea
Yes, that's the spirit.

------
iofj
Insanity.

------
mcv
How do you determine whether an object you own requires a license to
photograph? It sounds to me like you'd want every object you buy to come with
an automatic license to make photos of it.

And of course you need to store all those licenses somewhere. What an awful
overhead.

------
pwm
I would love to see a statistical analysis on how many times an average
citizen, assuming zero maliciousness, breaks laws like this unknowingly in
his/her lifetime. It wouldn't surprise me at all that literally everyone
breaks one at one point.

~~~
DanBC
England has civil and criminal law. I'm not sure what the US equivalents are.

When you break civil law the wronged party can take you to court and try to
get damages. There's no chance of prison or conviction or criminal record.
When you break criminal law the police get involved, you're arrested and
charged with an offence, you're prosecuted, and if convicted you're sentenced.

For copyright stuff it's almost entirely civil. It tips into criminal law if
you do it as part of trading. So, if I download a movie it's civil. If I
upload a movie it's still civil. If I download a movie, and burn it to DVDs
and sell those at a market it's now criminal.

UK copyright law is bafflingly bad. If someone wants a strong example of over-
powerful lobbying in law creation the copyright laws are a great example.

~~~
gozur88
US law, with the exception of that of the state of Louisiana, is based on
English common law. We have civil and criminal law very similar to the UK.

Except for the wigs.

------
gambiting
I mean.....it already sort of happens in the US. Every single TV show censors
out any brand names, car logos, restaurant names out of fear of I don't know
what. Being sued I guess? It's ridiculous.

~~~
iand
Usually it's to avoid accidentally promoting a product that competes with a
sponsor or advertiser.

~~~
gambiting
But how is that only a problem in the US? I've never seen UK, German, French,
Spanish or Polish TV shows censoring out brand names. Surely they could have
made the same argument, yet they don't?

~~~
neikos
They don't censor it, but they don't want to promote it either. On broadcasts
we do we try really hard not to do 'sleeper ads' where we drink from let's say
a coke bottle on air.

------
tantalor
Do I also need a license to sit in a designer chair?

~~~
SEMW
No. Sitting is not an act restricted by copyright in the UK.

    
    
      16 The acts restricted by copyright [are]:
      (a)to copy the work;
      (b)to issue copies of the work to the public;
      (ba)to rent or lend the work to the public;
      (c)to perform, show or play the work in public;
      (d)to communicate the work to the public;
      (e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation
    

Source: CDPA1988 s.16(1).

Photoing a designer chair comes under copying: "copying includes ... the
making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work" (s.17(3))

IANAL.

~~~
tantalor
What if I sit on the chair in a public place? Surely that constitutes a
performance of the chair; after all to sit on a chair is to perform its
essential function.

~~~
SEMW
No. The performance right is for "literary, dramatic or musical work[s]".

(Remember: legislation is drafted by lawyers whose entire job is to make a
document that is as painfully, excruciatingly unambiguous as English allows.
Each of those rights in the short list I posted has long sections clarifying
very precisely what it means. Where ambiguities or absurdities remain, there's
probably been a lawsuit over them in the past 25 odd years, and a judge will
have spent dozens of pages analysing each one.

In other words - criticising an act by trying to spot semantic absurdities
based on a tiny extract of its summary is probably not a sensible game to
play..)

------
tempodox
A prime example of how law creates the criminals in the first place. We could
live in perfect peace without this brain fart.

------
mhandley
So if a celebrity wears a designer hat or jewelry and they own the copyright
to it, they can sue the gossip magazines for publishing unauthorized photos
taken in a public place (which would normally be fair game)? Could be fun to
watch how that plays out in court!

~~~
bencollier49
In fact, any celebrity could design their own piece of jewellery, a badge
even, then sue anyone who publishes it.

The mags would have to photoshop all their photos, I guess. Already do. But
then I guess they might be sued for misrepresenting a person by photoshopping
them without their permission? Check-mate?

------
Nano2rad
If there is a copyright on a chair, you cannot manufacture the chair without
permission. Where is photographing it mentioned?

------
jkot
I do not think this can pass. I think it would be incompatible with EU law,
which has higher priority than local country law.

~~~
blowski
Which bit of EU law? I figure if I can understand this in more detail, then I
could write to my MP.

EDIT: Seems this is actually to align EU and UK law:

> The repeal of s. 52 was brought in by statute - by section 74 of the
> Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The rationale for the repeal was
> that UK law was incompatible with the EU following the Court of Justice of
> the European Union's decision in Flos v Semeraro (Case C-168/09). The
> purpose of the repeal was to align the period of copyright protection across
> all artistic works and to eradicate inconsistencies between the term of
> protection afforded by copyright in different Member States.

[http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/commencement-of-repeal-
of...](http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/commencement-of-repeal-
of-s52-cdpa-1988-postponed/)

~~~
coldtea
> _Which bit of EU law? I figure if I can understand this in more detail, then
> I could write to my MP._

I thought this ("writing to my congressman/MP") was an American thing.

In real life, does anybody actually expect them to pay attention, and not
directly toss all these mails in the dustbin (or e-dustbin)?

~~~
blowski
Depends on your MP. I have a pretty good local MP (David Amess, Southend West)
and he does represent constituent views in Parliament. Of course, whether the
government will in turn listen to him is questionable, but it's still a good
course of action.

------
whibble
No more photos of celebrities in designer clothing then. It would get too
expensive for the rags to do it.

------
DanBC
Pinterest is fucked. Many people have Pinterest boards of designed objects.

------
jevgeni
Is this some contrived plot to repel people from taking UK citizenship?

~~~
lucozade
No we invented drizzle for that.

This is the first step in a cunning plan to remove vacuous images from the
net. Next step is working out a plausible reason for banning
small,furry,mammal images.

------
zoner
Not a surprising act after the rest of the population pays "TV license" for
decades to watch BBC lying.

