http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22337406

Photography groups have reacted angrily to new legislation passed in Parliament over the use of copyrighted material when the owner cannot be contacted.

Photographs or other creative works can be used without the owners' explicit permission as long as a "diligent search" has taken place.

Campaigners said the new act paved the way for the exploitation of images posted on the internet.

NOT JUST PHOTOS, 3D CGI TOO......

Not good at all. :(

Nope, anyone can now effectively and legally steal your images.....

From the same article:

'For the first time, these "orphan works" - as they are known - can be licensed for commercial or non-commercial use.

However, in order to do so, the company in question would have to prove to an independent body that a "diligent search" to find and approach the copyright holder had taken place without success.

If the body is satisfied there has been a sufficient search, it would then allow the company to pay a licence fee to use the material.

This money is then to be held by the independent body, and can be claimed by the rights holder should they come forward at a later date.'

"The powers do not remove copyright for photographs or any other works subject to copyright, nor do they allow anyone to use a copyright work without permission and free of charge."

I've read the article and I really don't see a problem with this, I see this actually as a good thing. It prevents companies from just stealing artwork, but they need to do a lot of work to use it now.

Come off it Chris, you know as well as I do, that one persons "dilligent search" is another mans "yea I've done that"......

It will become very clear in the Months to come that art works will be stolen, I'd put money on it....

This is not just about money. This is about companies using images in ways the artists might not approve. Sure, if someone uses an image without permission after satisfying the "diligent search" requirements, the artist...upon learning about the usage...will be compensated. But what if the artist extremely disapproves of HOW the imaged was used? What then?

Who decides what is a "diligent search" ?

What is its definition in law?

Nobody has put down inside this new law what constitutes a "diligant search"....It's all down to interpretation, a lose, lose scenario for artists, photographers, etc. etc.

Your work will be stolen [if someone wants it]...

I'm only quoting the article YOU posted...

However, in order to do so, the company in question would have to prove to an independent body that a "diligent search" to find and approach the copyright holder had taken place without success.

But again, where and what is that definition..?

Who is this Independant body, who are its members..?

Too many questions unanswered, the whole thing is ambiguous...

You will see, the Industry isn't in uproar over it for nothing, perhaps you don't understand what's really going on...

You mentioned "Parliament". Does this apply universally now?

It's a law passed in the UK but covers any image posted anywhere, including on the internet....

People are being naive if they think it won't affect their images....

Example: Chris, the bryster posts an image, someone uses it without his permission, he complains when he finds out... Allegedly, an indpendent body will then sit in judgement and decide if he has a case....

Now, call me cynical if you like, but do you really think that is going to happen..? Unless you are a really high profile important artist, photographer, sculptur etc., they won't give a toss, to think otherwise is naive in the extreme....

So put some nice name , LOGO in your work smack down in the middle with some 80% transp. in it ..and the image still is good to look at online but useless for anything other..

Simple.. 

Doing so without a name or logo is kinda asking for it to be ripped ..

like a bike with no lock ...

Chris B.

Akak BAR-code

This is a godsend for corporations who want to stop paying artists a pittance to actually create stuff. Now the whole Internet is free labor until proven otherwise.