EU Copyright Directive & Article 13 & 11

[LarryH57]

Dear Mods,

Now that the European Union has just passed the Copyright Directive and in particular Articles 13 and 11, how is this forum going to manage when members such as myself re-posts an item on here that I have spotted on Youtube or a photo off the web for general discussion when I do not hold the copyright?

I'd be interested if this EU Directive banning such re-posting will ruin my enjoyment of this forum. I cannot find any exemptions for the likes of us the MV owning community.

Edited March 26, 2019 by LarryH57

[Surveyor]

I have not read the article but it was always told if you acknowledge source you are okay.

If this is not the case just think of all the students writing thesis and now face difficulty

[LarryH57]

For many, this EU Directive, makes it more difficult for tech giants to make money and gather traffic from copyright violations sounds good in theory. But experts like the inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, havetaken issue with two pieces of the legislation that they warn could have enormous unintended consequences.

Article 13 requires web platforms to make their “best efforts” to obtain licenses to copyrighted material before it is uploaded to their platforms and changes the current standard of requiring platforms to simply comply with copyright takedown requests. The expectation is that platforms will have to use blunt upload filters to deal with the flood of user-generated content, and the most draconian moderation practices will become the new normal. In both cases, critics argue that the directive is too vague and efforts to fix the issues are shortsighted.

The primary concern is that the legislation will do the exact opposite of what it’s intended to do. Publishers will suffer as it becomes more difficult to share articles or discover news, and instead of paying for a license, companies like Google will just stop displaying the results as they’ve done when similar rules were tried in Spain. Smaller platforms or startups that allow users to upload content, meanwhile, won’t have a chance of competing with the Facebooks of the world that can afford massive moderation operations and still fail to get it right. The idea of fair use will become null and void as companies and other online forums decide it’s not worth the headache to allow a re-post and risk legal liability.

Each EU country has two years to implement this directive.

Time for a lawyer I guess?

[sirhc]

Don’t upload it here, link to its original source instead?

[ruxy]

Seems to me that European countries having languages other than English have had to invent new words for what we have always used  PLAGIARISM..

[SimonBrown]

Copyright is something I had a pretty deep knowledge of - and still do - up to and including taking those who chose to use my work without payment to the High Court if necessary, so I will add my thoughts here.

 Infringement of my underwater images drove me to the point of despising the creative process - dealing with rich multinational companies who used my work for nothing was tiresome and tedious, every time getting the same old "we don't pay' answer then threatening the High Court to see them realise things were serious...it would take weeks or months to get paid...I hated creating underwater images only to see them stolen so much I actually stopped creating. Which in part was a good thing as it stopped me doing the same-old-same-old and allowed photogrammetry to be discovered and flourish. I digress. 

The content aggregators - Google/Facebook etc - have always worked inside a US framework of copyright and something called 'fair dealing' or 'fair use'. If you want to get an idea about how some of these principles can be applied just look up an artist  called Richard Prince - he is a controversial fella who will copy an image verbatim, write a few words under it and then sell the print for $$$$$ whilst paying the original photographer nothing. He can do this as he is claiming 'fair use' and to challenge it in a US court is expensive and risky.  The european approach to copyright differs in so much that 'fair use' (by way of example) is minimalist and typically restricted to things like critical review. The US-based tech aggregators have had a very easy ride with other people's work. Pinterest is such an example with the business valued in billions, all built on people posting up images they find and like on the internet. I really do object to someone making money from the risk and cost laden world of underwater photography and not sharing so much as a penny...morally, its an uncomfortable place. Its also worth bearing in mind I will object to any of my images being used for racist, political, homophobic or other nasty causes or beliefs and I have been known to refuse permission at any price on this basis. This is an often overlooked principle and its an important one. I digress again.

On this EU Directive I would say "don't panic".

There is still no idea how it will be implemented and how it will work in practice. US tech won't like it. They can actually afford to fix the problem but not without hurting their bottom line and shareholder value. It also opens up an entire new market for a niche player to find a way to apply the law simply and cheaply. There are opportunities for creators to derive an income or refuse permission outright. At its peak infringement accounted for 80% of my turnover and without that income I would have been out of business, so for some it might work. The internet will continue to function and we can still share our projects, historical images and links elsewhere here for a very long time I think.

I will add that I have not fully digested the implications, but right now thats where I am with this.

[No Signals]

Very interesting to read your perspective SimonBrown.

[LarryH57]

I certainly agree that nicking peoples work and labelling up as your own or over writing it with comments is wrong.

But getting back to this Forum, if for example I spot a photo on the web that supports my study of RAF Camo schemes in WW2,  will I be causing problems for HMVF whether I post a link or a copy of the actual photo? The same might apply to YouTube; if I see a video of say a guy who runs his Lwt on beer and bananas and post the link on here are the 'owners' of HMVF going to get sued by the owner of the YouTube video?

Interestingly over the years of searching eBay I know that many people selling WW2 photos have actually copied some from official sources and sold copies as their own, so I wonder how eBay will police that, as the seller might actually be selling an original print taken and printed in WW2 whereas another bloke might be selling a scan of the original as his own?

Of course the biggest losers in all this will be the youth of today who post memes, which can involve getting a photo off the web and adding a funny caption, just for fun and not for profit.

In my opinion the EU Copyright Directive is going to be a law of unintended consequences a bit like the Violet Crime Reduction Act that has done nothing to reduce the crimes it was set out to do. If I post on the web only using bright orange and blue images will that satisfy the EU Copyright Directive? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited March 26, 2019 by LarryH57

[SimonBrown]

Of all the laws copyright can be very complex (differing rules/territories/legislation) and its very, very difficult to make generalisations, but here goes:

Quote

will I be causing problems for HMVF whether I post a link or a copy of the actual photo?

Right now, linking almost certainly will not cause problems. Copying is a matter between the rights holder and whoever copies, not the forum itself.

The new directive seeks to put a responsibility on the host of the content. It might mean 'links only' or it might mean copying is ok with some other form of checking. Who knows?

Quote

Interestingly over the years of searching eBay I know that many people selling WW2 photos have actually copied some from official sources and sold copies as their own, so I wonder how eBay will police that?

Complex Here goes...Selling an original photo transfers the ownership of the physical object, but the rights to the image are distinct and separate. The rights are the really valuable bit as that allows you to publish, copy, sell and do as you wish with an image. 

Historical images may well be out of copyright, or not. It depends on many factors. Just when you think copyright is complex, try understanding historical rights - it will all depend on (for example) the year of creation, the year of death of the creator, if the creator was employed to create, who bought and paid for the film...etc etc etc...

So selling an original object is fine. Selling the rights is an altogether different matter.

Personally, I'm glad its Ebay's problem not mine. They have lawyers and deep pockets to understand and fund the solution.

Quote

Of course the biggest losers in all this will be the youth of today who post memes, which can involve getting a photo off the web and adding a funny caption, just for fun and not for profit.

I think the youth with cope and maintain their supply of memes. Two possible reasons:

Firstly, there is (in the UK) a copyright exception that allows parody without causing issues. It may (or may not) apply to images and the subsequent manipulation. I say may as I don't know if there is any case law where a judge has ruled on such an issue and even then it would depend on the circumstances of modification and use/purpose perhaps?

Secondly, if there is a filter that stops youth slavishly copying an image then we may just be entering a golden age of creativity and new talent might just flourish. Why? Anything you create from scratch is yours and you can do what you like with it. The youth may well just refrain from copy/paste and start creating more new stuff. Anyone who creates something can choose to not only publish it, but tell the world to fill their boots and not only copy it but modify it too.

Personally I do not appreciate it when someone copies my work without asking first (bloody rude) and I always assert something known as moral rights which means modifying the work is not permitted. Some of the stuff I shot over the years (Shipwrecks with loss of life, RN Clearance Divers at work) was intended as a record of the moment in time and thus I would not permit advertising or other uses. But equally, I can see other folk taking delight in seeing what others make from an original idea or creation...

Finally, its worth remembering where the profit is. Every website demands new and fresh content - who would go back to a static page every day/hour if nothing changed? The addictive nature of Facebook means FOMO (fear of missing out) users come back to see another image of someones dinner or a dancing cat video. Its all very disposable stuff and the users of FB are churning out new content all for free and if the dross stopped the world would still turn. Except FB is a billion dollar company and derives huge quarterly revenues on the back of targeted advertising thanks to that fire hose of new stuff arriving every second. Not for profit? Not for the user, but the host is doing very nicely thank you.

Quote

In my opinion the EU Copyright Directive is going to be a law of unintended consequences 

Agreed. Good and bad I suspect in equal measure perhaps.

Quote

If I post on the web only using bright orange and blue images will that satisfy the EU Copyright Directive?

Remember, anything you create yourself will be just fine now and going forward.

[LarryH57]

Simon,

I appreciate your points as a professional photographer regarding copyright.

However, I cannot share your optimism over this EU Directive regarding simple people like me, who find interesting / historic photos online and like to post them on HMVF to add to our historic MV knowledge or perhaps show parts of vehicles to assist in restorations etc. Surely photos posted on the web already are fair game for sharing and if someone doesn't want to share then they won't post. Its not as if the photo cannot be viewed already and I'm not doing it for profit.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by LarryH57

[SimonBrown]

38 minutes ago, LarryH57 said:

However, I cannot share your optimism over this EU Directive regarding simple people like me, who find interesting / historic photos online and like to post them on HMVF to add to our historic MV knowledge or perhaps show parts of vehicles to assist in restorations etc.

Sharing the knowledge is something very positive indeed, and yes I'm on your side with that. It all helps the world go around and make it a better place. 

Quote

Surely photos posted on the web already are fair game for sharing and if someone doesn't want to share then they won't post. Its not as if the photo cannot be viewed already and I'm not doing it for profit.

Strictly - and I mean really, really strictly - sharing photos already on the web right now may well be breaching someone's rights, somewhere - for profit or not. In that respect the EU directive changes absolutely nothing.

There are some caveats to that but in all honesty all it does is shift the responsibility from the user to the host/aggregator.

Its an old cliche, but the EU have 'followed the money' and the social media/tech companies are reaping vast fortunes from content and are now asking them to figure out a way to either restrict what can and cannot be uploaded, or to distribute some of their vast profits back to the creator.

This is actually nothing new - Youtube do this now with videos and the creator can choose to block, monetise or track/follow the video uploaded. The directive is making this kind of behaviour something all tech should comply with.

Do I like it? Jury is out right now and like you can see risks. But the internet is still a very new place (relatively) and will continue to evolve as laws and legislation alter its behaviour. Its part of evolution I suppose.

[LarryH57]

Dare I say it, the most useful online tech firms are typically based in the USA so a bit of USA bashing to support the (non) existing EU based tech firms seems to be the motive. For the majority of web users, surfing is free, the things we view we don't pinch for our own financial benefit. Soon the mods of every forum will be so scared that nothing will be posted of use, and any posts that get through will be monitored for political content (as in France) and any other subject the powers that be decide to ban. On some sites you cannot even mention the name of a bit of kit carried by soldiers that shoots people. Its the start of a freedom of expression limiting exercise, may not now but soon! 

[ferretfixer]

I suppose the only glimmer of hope on the Horizon may be. That when we FINALLY Extract from the Corrupt EU.

We will no longer be bound by thier Dictatorial rules in most cases?......

[LarryH57]

I try to avoid politics on this site (even if I agree praying hard, down on my knees with you ferretfixer),  but a newly found consequence of this Directive will be that Shazam will no longer be able to function. For us oldies, Shazam allows a snippet of music to be played and for it to be identified. Sadly the legally-binding filter the tech company will be forced to integrate into its algorithm will essentially crash the platform, as any attempt to identify music snippets in Shazam will be flagged as use of copyrighted material and be blocked by the filter. So now if I cannot identify that obscure hit from yesteryear, or the youngsters identify a new release being played somewhere, we will be unable to buy the record. Consequently its an own goal by Sony and Universal and RIP Shazam.

Still back to MVs - it would be nice to have a HMVF Moderator response (via their lawyers) for our information, as I'm mightily worried that reposting something from elsewhere will be soon be blocked. As all web surfers we  know that sometimes we might look at a sight unrelated to our hobby and find a really interesting MV photo, such as one linked to someone having their 70th wedding aniversary who met in WW2 or a property history that mentions its WW2 usage.

Edited April 4, 2019 by LarryH57

[ruxy]

I propose LarryH57  for next moderator

Seconder  ?