[SystemSafety] Current Events

[Chris Hills]

Hi all

For many years, as a hobby,  I have been a photographer and a Photo Journalist so have to have a reasonable grasp of the laws on this. Though I am not a Lawyer. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-
> bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Prof. Dr. Peter Bernard Ladkin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 9:32 PM
> Wikipedia/Wikimedia seems to be making hay with "fair use" provisions. I have no idea if they are
> viable.
 
The "Fair Use" rules in the USA and "Fair Dealing" in the UK  are specific to those countries.  The Internet is of course international and knows no boundaries.   In any case Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable for accuracy. Anyone can edit it (even me!) and few actually understand copyright rules.  I often get people quoting US "fair use" rules at me in the UK.  

 > But I do know that the Wikimedia "habit" of taking a picture, making  minor changes, and then
> publishing it under your name, does not wash in German copyright law. In Germany, if the picture is
> substantially the same as it was, visually, then so is the copyright.[>] 

If you  take a photo from somewhere on-line, modify it and then claim it as your own you will certainly get lawyers after you.  It is not the same as taking some text and re-writing it. 

The problem has developed over the last 25 years with the culture of  "if a picture is on the internet it is free" 
In the past you had academic use and maybe 50-100 academics saw the paper in their research. Now with the internet it goes to 100s probably 1000s of people and often escapes to the public domain.  The originator of the image, a photographer, is not being paid for his work.   

Of course at the same time as the internet sprang upon the world in general personal computers and desktop publishing came of age in the same decade (the 90s)  permitting the easy insertion of images.  So this problem has really only happened in the last couple of decades. Prior to that I had to stick prints of original photos to the pages of reports (anyone remember 3M Photomount?) . 

>From the other side of the fence I have had some of my photos stolen and used by others.  In the ~UK it is copyright theft and comes under the (criminal, not civil) theft acts.

We all like to be paid for our work yet it seems photographers are expected to work for free.  It is no use saying that the photographer was paid [once] by someone to take the image.  It is like all consultants on this list giving advice once to a company, having it recorded by that company and then broadcast to everyone else.  Well you were paid once for the advice...

There are teams of lawyers engaged in finding and recovering fees for the unauthorised use of their clients work. This can be worth a lot to the photographers especially some of those whose work is more often seen in unlicensed and unpaid for posts on line.  The problem is the ability to search and find these images  has arrived over a decade after the horse has bolted.  The images and the culture of using them for free is here.  

As a photographer the internet is a double edged sword. It gets you known but once online any image will be stolen.  

Regards
 Chris