I've been thinking a while about the case of Google Books massive scanning project. It reminds me of the Harvester machines from Terminator Salvation. Google was hell-bent on acquiring books and it eventually became a battle between publishers and the Google Harvester. Publishers at least had the funds to hire attorneys and the ramifications of what Google Books will become haven't even begun to take hold.
The UK Government wants to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first.
In reading more about the UK Digital Economy Bill, I realize something bigger than any individual has been put into motion: the world-wide culture of content harvesting.
Without exaggeration, Google's business model dictates it must own all the world's content. Right now everybody is okay with that because we all use Google's Web, image, news, blog, map, book, and scholar search services. Every day we are telling Google they are doing what we want.
So why should it surprise anyone when companies use the Internet in the same way individuals do (see image above)? Companies are made of people. Governments are run by people. When it became a cultural norm to pirate books, movies, music, and photographs, why wouldn't company employees do what they do at home?
Enter Clause 43 of the UK Digital Economy Bill. The language legitimizes unauthorized use of intellectual property by lumping all work on the Internet into a "collective". The philosophy seems to be this: creators who put any content on the Internet divorce themselves of control of that content. Side note: I'm seeing more questioning of the hive mentality (recommended reading You are Not a Gaget by Jaron Lanier).
My internal question machine kicks into gear:
- Does accidental publishing of content put it into the collective to be used?
- Can content be retracted?
- Is there any direct recourse for individuals who retract published work?
- Can a web-based service's failure to hide private content provide any recourse for individuals whose works became part of the collective?
- Will I see my daughter's face on a can of soup one day?
- What are the international ramifications? Specifically, does that mean if I know a photographer in the UK, for example, can I use his work without telling him?
- Can people in the UK use my stuff without my permission?
- Who decides what is and isn't in the collective?
- Most importantly: what does this mean for people who make a living as artists and writers? Will the "licensing body" feed their children and pay their rent?
I could come up with questions along those lines all day. Many content creators could.
I agree with the opponents of this legislation. But this is a basic problem with society in general. When things are left up to a government to decide, they will screw it up. Just because technology poses hard questions to answer, we shouldn't leave it up to government bodies to decide. Culturally the world is saying they want everything for free. A large part of the solution is to work on public campaigns, education, and real solutions as to how to handle intellectual property. The war between people and companies will get nastier, especially when governments feel compelled to get involved and have such a history of siding where the money is.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Google to digitize old books from Rome, Florence (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Google's China ad partners wait in 'incomparable pain' (macworld.com)
- Stat Shot: Google's Growing Infrastructure Advantage (gigaom.com)
- British Authors And Publishers Opt Out Of Google Books By The Thousands (huffingtonpost.com)
- Amazon And Others Slam Revised Google Books Deal (huffingtonpost.com)
- Thousands of authors opt out of Google book settlement (guardian.co.uk)
- UK Internet Filtering Bill Watered Down (yro.slashdot.org)
- Digital economy bill rushing through parliament (iwr.co.uk)
- Photographers rue Mandy's copyright landgrab (go.theregister.com)
- British Telecom and Google oppose clauses in UK's Digital Economy Bill (newstatesman.com)
- 3 Count: Sweeping Reform (plagiarismtoday.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=60b02ddf-35df-4c54-828b-1e183c7015d7)
Popularity: 91% [?]
Of Course by Jane's Addiction
{ 1 trackback }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Read it. Excellent. Here's hoping our daughters don't end up on soup can labels.
Just re-reading your post Keith. Broadly I think it's 'bang on the money'.
However, I'd like to expand on some of your remarks and maybe answer and pose a few more questions:
Clause 43 of the Digital Economy Bill legitimises unauthorised use where creator/rights holder can't be found, to be exact, thus it's not saying it's fair game for a free for all 'all you can eat' content dinner, but I feel it is the thin end of a wedge I would rather not see. If I can mix my metaphors like that!
Post Digital Economy Bill Clause 43: Copyright still exists but not as an exclusive property right, controllable by the creator or right holder as before. Collecting societies – we can guess who would want to set those up
will get to set rate and conditions on works as long as a 'diligent search' has been made and the work has been subsequently registered. This has been defined but is still open to lots of interpretation and no-one has come up with a way of making this truly workable for visual works, whether in the initial search or the register – a register where no textual info pertaining to the author can be produced.
Any authorisation could override an existing, possibly exclusive, contract be it between photographer and model, rights holder and licencee. Who is deemed at fault then? Who can sue whom? It will vastly impact the reputation and good standing, and bank balance of any professional.
Even if the powers that be determine it's not for 'commercial photography' then how would one define that? Photography can become commercial not just in its conception but also simply in its use. Thus an amateur can take a snap and find it used in a way they would find offensive c.f. shark fin soup above.
UK government has said it will consult, but after successive rounds of what they call consultation, going back several years, with hardly a shred of evidence that they have ever listened to visual content creators, especially photographers, I very much doubt this will be anything other than a lip-service exercise by them.
This is why I and others in my profession have been fighting this tooth and nail.
We have also been looking at the wider impact globally and seeing whether or not companies using an orphan works licence under C43 in the UK could open themselves up for legal action in the US for infringement, if it turns out the work was created by a US citizen or rights held by a US company. If that is the case the collecting society could be named in suit in theory too I think.
UK Government through Lord Young seemed to think that, somehow, licences could be restricted territorially, that may be the case for print publishing but is not at all the case for the internet – even restricted live video feeds get routinely circumvented for example.
It is clear they haven't really thought through the ramifications of this new law they want to rush through the elected chamber before election. I and others are lobbying hard so it gets thorough debate or even runs out of time.