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.
> 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
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.
Given that there is not currently an issue with needing a licence to include a protected object in a photo, I'd like to understand what other changes are coming to make this happen - or if Ars has misunderstood the issue.
That's great news. Do you have a link?
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.
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.
Who gets the stuff when the filming has finished?
Isn't that how hollywood accounting works?
I don't think it's actually a bad thing, but your analogy was weak. In your scenario, Apple gets much, much more of a benefit than bacardi would, and the bartenders get much less of a perk than the set dressers would.
Did I mischaracterize your stance?
Clearly this is not legally bribery. But giving out free bacardi and t-shirts at a bar is likely to provide less influence, and less resulting material gain, than giving macbooks to the guys who buy props.
Since you appear to enjoy picking fights with strangers, I highly recommend you switch to that site. It's a much better platform for making sure that everyone who disagrees with you knows how stupid you think they are.
Seriously though, I looked at your comment history, and the whole top page is you just arguing with people and putting down their opinions. Yuck.
One seems more like marketing, other more like bribery.
Seriously, it's pretty obvious when the technology spot has been bought by whatever means, otherwise they use no-brand completely generic devices.
Not just movies! Looks like Samsung bought placement in a music video. https://youtu.be/lf_wVfwpfp8?t=4
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...
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.
However there are concerted efforts to buy/silence the people most affected -- there's a proposal to buy houses are significantly over the market price for example for people 'most affected' -- however there is no mention of the millions of others in a circle of 15+ miles that are also affected.... let alone the fact they can't just collectively say 'no' like you'd expect in a democracy, for example.
Disclaimer: Beside the fact that I'm affected by this particular topic, I'm not an expert on it. The industry lobbying applies to many other topics tho, like planning permissions etc.
Broadly speaking before 1800s this would be a discourse among the elite and aristocracy guiding the houses' opinion. In the 1700s-1900s paradigm the grey power behind such deals would be in the hands of the industrialists. 1950s-2000s paradigm would be to handle this with cabinet-level lobbying or other kinds of nepotism..
In a way it's an obvious improvement - the power of the people and the relevance of public opinion is sort of respected by taking it into account in the first place. But is trying to influence it at such great a cost really respect? It is a noisy world, it is difficult to get people to care about such projects (advocacy for which doesn't gain you social status or warm, fuzzy emotional satisfaction and self-fulfilment unlike many other grass-root efforts could), but both lobbies hiring consultants to compete in shoving their own message down the public's throat on what should be a pretty straight-forward, apolitical, impersonal assessment/bidding process feels perverse...
Nobody actually cares whether you took the photograph, it's whether you published it.
Also what makes an item a classical designer item? Do ikea chairs count as designer goods now since they come with an image stock photo of some middle age white guy with a Nordic name?
The design of an Apple laptop or a Fisher Price toy phone is copyrighted, but it's very unlikely to be considered an 'artistic work'.
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.
This doesn't handle the issue of people making claims that things are works of art even if the courts would not agree. Add in the cost to fight it and you end up with a chilling effect.
For example, it would be possible for some laptop design company to say that while the guts of the laptop are not primarily a work of art, the case that holds them is. Maybe they would lose in court, but what is the chance that you would be willing to fight them instead of just taking down the blog?
I think you're right that this could happen, but this line of thought can lead you to doing nothing about anything due to the way it might be abused in the future. In this specific case, I don't understand what specific problem the law is trying to solve so I can't balance the positive and negative effects of the law against each other. However, it does seem to me a narrowly focused law with a reasonable definition of the subject.
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.
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.
This kind of sensationalist activism is all too common, but my understanding is similar to blowski's above:
not about photographing, but about publishing, particularly in commercial purpose, pictures of actual works of art.
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?
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.
I think it's also worth noting that this was an illegal use of the DMCA. I'm of the mind that there should be liability for claimants knowingly misusing the DMCA to censor others.
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.
They originated more out of necessity than out of ideology (not to say that it didn't play a big part in it) as the lack of resources of the early Jewish settlers and the overall lack of development of most of the land pretty much mandated it.
I still have yet to see a viable example of a large scale communist society and I do not think one exists, communism eventually dwindles down to planned economics which pretty much kill everything.
Even if you do get to the point where scarcity especially of all basic goods is non-existent at best you'll end up with Star Trek like meritocracy, and considering that scarcity would always exists at some point regardless of technological advancement I'm not even sure how much of that is achievable.
So you can clothe, feed, and keep your entire population healthy with ease using technology that's great, but as you became that advanced you also want to do other things and one thing would always hold true you will have limited resources even if your only bottleneck is time and the production capacity of your replicators which is also why I think Star Trek is pretty much a pipe dream. Eventually you'll have to decide if you want to produce food or built another Enterprise and if it's not your own family who's going to be left hungry you'll more likely than not choose to make another Enterprise than to provide blankets to the folks on the 3rd moon of Endor (and yes i know exactly what i did there ;)).
Same here, but I'm not very optimistic right this minute.
If you really think you have a model, go and see if you can implement it. If your model requires revolution, wide agreement with everyone or some such, it's probably not relevant as a model.
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").
A more interesting counterfactual would have been Menshevik victory.
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).
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.
(Wait, are we still talking about "communists and anarchists" in general, or is it just the Spanish Civil War now?)
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/ (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...
> 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.
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.
And of course you need to store all those licenses somewhere. What an awful overhead.
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.
Except for the wigs.
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
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))
(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..)
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?
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.
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)?
That is why you see not that much pictures of the Atomium in Brussels online or on postcards. But I was under the impression that Belgium will implement it in the future as the situation is clearly ridiculous.
Look at how TUPE is implemented across the EU and you will see how this works compare the Uk and Spain
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.