That’s the Mail Online brush-off, saying after publishing Rebecca Reid’s profile picture without either permission or payment, that by making her picture ‘public and discoverable’ she has posted it ‘into the public domain’. This is arrant nonsense. The public domain has a very specific meaning in copyright law, indicating that copyright has either been forfeited or expired, and in UK law it does not expire until
Last month Andrew Wiard attended the annual IPTC Metadata Conference in Paris on behalf of the BPPA ( IPTC – International Press and Telecommunications Council ). There he proposed drafting ‘quick guides’ to get the IPTC basic essentials across to as many photographers as possible. Starting with the Four Cs, the four IPTC metadata categories that every photographer should complete in every picture – Creator, Caption, Copyright Notice and Contact details.
Tomorrow (26th March 2019) MEPs will vote on a controversial EU directive to copyright work used on the web. It sets terms and conditions for others to reuse content (posted by people like us) commercially. The battle has been between the tech giants, whose business model is all about reusing other’s intellectual property without license or renumeration, and us ‘the creative community’. Scares have included that
The UK Press Gazette quoted The BPPA’s open letter to Alamy’s CEO in their piece about his video signalling his intention to reduce the photographers percentage of royalties to 40%. This morning the UKPG asked us to provide a response to James West’s latest video where he offers to keep the 50% split for exclusive content. We provided the following text: “Alamy’s move to alter
Every year The Design and Artists’ Copyright Society (DACS) distributes the fees paid by libraries and schools and so forth for copying copyright work – including photographs. Basically that means they licence secondary uses of your work that you couldn’t possibly deal with on a day to day basis – and you are entitled to a share of the income! There have been changes to the scheme
Ok – now we have your attention. Every year DACS ( The Design and Artists Copyright Society) collects millions of pounds worth of royalties due for use of our photographs from libraries, universities and other organisations. It is payment for lending books, photocopying and things like that. They then redistribute this money to us through the “Payback Scheme” – and it usually comes to several hundred
As I write this post sitting at my desk in my home office I am surrounded by an ever-increasing collection of photography books. Books that I have been gathering over many years firstly as an amateur with a keen interest and now as a working professional photographer. Over these years and I assume like many other photographers I have always found that seeing a photograph in
In this second part of his assessment of what is happening with DACS, Andrew Wiard explains why the current situation is not something that photographers should accept. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Insisting on ALL secondary rights – does it really matter? Is it such a big deal? Yes it
In the first of a two-part blog post Andrew Wiard, a member of The BPPA’s Board, asks “What’s going on at DACS?” Last year we all had to sign a new agreement, and if we didn’t – no annual payout at Christmas. So, why? Short answer, because DACS is at the bottom of a collecting society food chain, and they are all fighting like rats in a sack.
When several photographers started getting letters from Hamish Dawson, Publishing Director of Time Inc.(UK) Ltd, Specialist Sport and Leisure with a new rights grab which asked them to agree to sign away all rights in any work that they carried out for the magazines and websites in the group we decided to write to him. Below is that letter and below that is his reply. We are
- Page 1 of 2