11 ms·

UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own

255 points by jfasi 11y ago

Aloisius 11y ago
Won't this severely affect movies and television? I imagine a huge number of movies and television shows have at least some piece from a classic designer and I can't imagine Hollywood is going to track down who owns the licensing rights for every set piece, building, article of clothing, etc. ahead of time just to show it in the UK.
- onion2k 11y ago
  If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. That's why films have all Samsung devices or all Apple devices, all Mercedes or all BMW cars, all Armani wardrobes or all some other designer, and so on. Brands pay millions to be seen on screen. Hollywood knows how to tap every imaginable source of money.
  - mryan 11y ago
    > If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. While paid product placement does exist and is widespread, this statement isn't correct. There are many examples of organic product placement, where the set/costume designer uses a particular product without any financial incentive.
    - simonh 11y ago
      In fact for example Apple has confirmed repeatedly for many years that they don't pay for product placement.
      - MagnumOpus 11y ago
        They do pay, but they pay in hardware. They have dedicated staff to promote product placement and according to a Hollywood movie maker, "Apple won’t pay to have their products featured, but they are more than willing to hand out an endless amount of computers, iPads, and iPhones". It is actually a very unethical practice if you think about it in monetary terms. Rather than paying the film company above the table like ethical companies usually do, they outright bribe the prop department staff by giving each of them gifts worth thousands of dollars for preferential product placement.
        mikeash 11y ago
        Thata a bit of a leap to go from "they hand out free hardware" to "they bribe staff with free hardware."
        scotty79 11y ago
        If "they" means "for profit entity" those two statements are exactly the same in my ears.
        mikeash 11y ago
        The difference is that the former means the free hardware likely goes to the production company and is not available for personal use. It's not a moral quibble, but a question of who owns the stuff and who gets to use it.
        DanBC 11y ago
        Apple gives desirable stuff to the production company. Who gets the stuff when the filming has finished?
        mikeash 11y ago
        I imagine that the production company would keep it for their next project, or sell it to recover some money. Are you implying that this stuff is typically gifted to the employees instead?
      - Thimothy 11y ago
        I guess it's coincidence then that Beats started appearing all over the place in movies and videoclips right around the time when Apple bought them (I remember searching for them when I became aware of their ubiquity and learning that Apple had just acquired them). Seriously, it's pretty obvious when the technology spot has been bought by whatever means, otherwise they use no-brand completely generic devices.
        tehwebguy 11y ago
        I've seen a few iMacs with the Apple logo covered in TV shows as well.
        Piskvorrr 11y ago
        Most likely a case of "so, Apple, you don't want to pay the TV just a little bit of money for product placement? Oh well, out come the stickers." Follow the money.
        tehwebguy 11y ago
        Yeah I guess what I'm saying is that Apple can give people free shit all day but a director & producer will decide what goes in and what doesn't, not the prop department (as mentioned by others here)
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - coldtea 11y ago
    That's the case for hollywood blockbusters. Not for the 80% of movies out there, especially pre-00s European and American cinema.
  - pravda 11y ago
    >If you see a designed object in a movie Not just movies! Looks like Samsung bought placement in a music video. https://youtu.be/lf_wVfwpfp8?t=4 https://youtu.be/lf_wVfwpfp8?t=4
iofj 11y ago
Insanity.
wildefyr 11y ago
Yet again I am ashamed of my government.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  I think you don't need to be, because it seems arstechnica is misrepresenting the proposed change. This kind of sensationalist activism is all too common, but my understanding is similar to blowski's above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10730178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10730178 not about photographing, but about publishing, particularly in commercial purpose, pictures of actual works of art.
WalterBright 11y ago
This may run head on into the ubiquitous surveillance state. After all, you can how prevent anyone from legally photographing you if you wear some classic designer objects.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  It'll end up being enforced on publication, I'd guess. So if you photograph an object and publish the picture, someone can come after you for money. Or, in this case, if you published a book last year, they can sue you for distributing it. Which is insane, but that's what you get with retroactive copyright extensions. Nobody actually cares whether you took the photograph, it's whether you published it.
  - andreasklinger 11y ago
    perfect for celebrities
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Well the question is then does it cover all photographs or only those in which the item is the subject. E.g model on a chair is ok chair on its own is not. Also what makes an item a classical designer item? Do ikea chairs count as designer goods now since they come with an image stock photo of some middle age white guy with a Nordic name?
    - simonh 11y ago
      The mention of 'designer' objects is a distraction. It's about any object for which the design is protected by copyright.
      - blowski 11y ago
        No it's not, it's about "industrially exploited artistic works". Industrially exploited means 'more than 50 copies produced'. Artistic is left to the court to decide on a case-by-case basis. The design of an Apple laptop or a Fisher Price toy phone is copyrighted, but it's very unlikely to be considered an 'artistic work'.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
A lot of technologists here have certain dreams or aspirations they want to see materialized in their lifetimes. AGI, transhumanism, space colonization, etc. My dream is that I hope to see the emergence of a viable minarchist or anarchist society (beyond Mennonite and kibbutzim arrangements). Thus far the closest was a brief period of Catalonian history amidst a civil war.
- karmapolice 11y ago
  Communists and anarchists talking about the new utopian society before winning the war. I wonder why they lose...
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    In Russia, communists won the Civil War precisely because they were talking about the new utopia. Because, the other side said: "we will win the war and then decide what to build". That's why I even struggle name them, other than "white" (as opposed to communist "red").
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      The Whites were pretty clear in their goals, I'd thought: preservation of monarchy and status quo. A more interesting counterfactual would have been Menshevik victory.
      - guard-of-terra 11y ago
        Except most of them were actually republican, supporting Provisional Government. It was a wide coalition of monarchists, republicans, orthdox priests and military. Their only common ground was perhaps dislike and fear of reds (and that turned out very justified).
        chimprich 11y ago
        > Their only common ground was perhaps dislike and fear of reds (and that turned out very justified). Getting wildly OT now but the atrocities and systematic killings performed by the Nationalists absolutely dwarfed the isolated killings on the Republican side, perhaps by a factor of ten to one.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
RobertoG 11y ago
What I miss in this kind of articles is more details in how this kind of laws are cooked. They say "the UK government", OK, but who in the UK government, and who is really behind. Not that we don't know, but making the process explicit would be helpful.
- justincormack 11y ago
  The UK is bringing some copyright law in line with the EU, eg they just ruled that reproductions of out of copyright pictures do not create a new copyright, unlike what some museums like to tell you. This might be related, certainly design is more protected in eg France than in the UK, not sure though.
  - Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
    > they just ruled that reproductions of out of copyright pictures do not create a new copyright That's great news. Do you have a link?
    - justincormack 11y ago
      See http://hyperallergic.com/261496/uk-affirms-that-photographs-of-public-domain-art-are-fair-use/ http://hyperallergic.com/261496/uk-affirms-that-photographs-...
  - Piskvorrr 11y ago
    [citation-needed] - I have yet to see such abomination as mandated by EU. (OTOH, there's always the convenient excuse of "we don't like this either, but the Evil Union is forcing us to do this, we have no choice!!!")
- blowski 11y ago
  https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-arrangements-for-the-repeal-of-section-52-cdpa https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-arr... > 1. Section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) limits the term of copyright protection for industrially exploited artistic works to 25 years. The Government had previously consulted on how and when to implement the repeal of section 52 CDPA and made a decision to have a transitional period of 5 years from April 2015. This meant that the repeal of section 52 would have come into effect in April 2020 and existing stock which had been made or imported prior to this date would have been unaffected by the repeal. > 2. However, the compatibility of these arrangements with EU law was challenged by way of a judicial review and the Government decided to reconsider the issue, as announced on the Government’s website on 23 July 2015. This consultation covers the areas which are now being considered as part of the repeal of section 52 CDPA.
netcan 11y ago
To me, the long term trend in copyright legislation is the perfect quite example of how our system is broken.
js8 11y ago
I understand the reasoning of the UK government as follows: It's important to preserve soul and essence of things. When you photograph someone, you take part of their soul; similarly, when you photograph an object, you take part of its essence. The modern technologies created lot of soul-less people and essence-less things; to restore the world to its former magical beauty, we need more protection against soul- and essence-taking. Now, I am not an expert in psychology of governments, but the UK empire is actually quite old. We have to consider the possibility that it may be getting senile.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  The UK is a leading member of the Church of Capitalism, so "soul" actually means "ability to profit from." When you photograph a cultural object, profiting from it without the creator's permission is very, very sinful, and an outrageous attack on the concept of Eternal Profitability and Financial Immortality.
buserror 11y ago
It's just what happens when most of the policies are made up by 'sponsored' lobbies -- the ones with the deep pockets. It's completely bonkers really, most of the decisions that people care about are made up in a gray area that doesn't involve them at all; you got an office somewhere making up policies straight out of briefs they've been fed by lobbies (who feeds it to every party too, just in case) A good recent example is Heathrow's third runway. Despite millions of people living underneath, well, someone somewhere made a 'study' that 'proves' it's a good idea, so despite the fact it impacts millions of people -- in fact, millions of the most influential and rich people in the country even (London and the Thames Valley) well, it's likely to go ahead anyway...
- djhn 11y ago
  Any good links on the Heathrow vs. Gatwick campaigning and lobbying effort?
  - buserror 11y ago
    There are quite a few articles about the report ([0] for one of many of them) -- the lobbying efforts themselves are not generally made public anyway, but heathrow hasn't been particularly subtle about it -- It's at least the third or perhaps fourth 'consultation' on the subject. When it get refused, they just try again a bit later. However there are concerted efforts to buy/silence the people most affected -- there's a proposal to buy houses are significantly over the market price for example for people 'most affected' -- however there is no mention of the millions of others in a circle of 15+ miles that are also affected.... let alone the fact they can't just collectively say 'no' like you'd expect in a democracy, for example. [0] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad2918a4-6972-11e4-9f65-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad2918a4-6972-11e4-9f65-00144feabd... Disclaimer: Beside the fact that I'm affected by this particular topic, I'm not an expert on it. The industry lobbying applies to many other topics tho, like planning permissions etc.
    - djhn 11y ago
      The whole concept of campaigning for an issue like this - of "lobbying" the public - struck me as quite novel for a project of this type (when I was visiting the UK and saw the massive PR campaign). I'm really interested in the emergence of this phenomenon, since at least in Europe it seems fairly new. Broadly speaking before 1800s this would be a discourse among the elite and aristocracy guiding the houses' opinion. In the 1700s-1900s paradigm the grey power behind such deals would be in the hands of the industrialists. 1950s-2000s paradigm would be to handle this with cabinet-level lobbying or other kinds of nepotism.. In a way it's an obvious improvement - the power of the people and the relevance of public opinion is sort of respected by taking it into account in the first place. But is trying to influence it at such great a cost really respect? It is a noisy world, it is difficult to get people to care about such projects (advocacy for which doesn't gain you social status or warm, fuzzy emotional satisfaction and self-fulfilment unlike many other grass-root efforts could), but both lobbies hiring consultants to compete in shoving their own message down the public's throat on what should be a pretty straight-forward, apolitical, impersonal assessment/bidding process feels perverse...
Joakal 11y ago
I have not read the laws but mostly likely this applied to commercial use already for years and they wanted it applied to private use. However, it's a racket. To give an example, the happy birthday song is illegal to 'broadcast without permission of copyright holders'. But, the restaurant owner can buy a license from a copyright group for a fee. Second example; Imagine being a school and dealing with students who submit assignments with copyrighted content. It's illegal to accept such submissions without approval. So, all schools usually have to pay for a license from copyright groups (Music, photography, video, etc). Here's a really good article on it from Australia: http://insidestory.org.au/the-copyright-cops/ http://insidestory.org.au/the-copyright-cops/ (Most, if not all copyright groups in Australia are Hollywood-based). Here's a copyright group website: http://www.musicrights.com.au/fact-sheets/usingmusicinschools/ http://www.musicrights.com.au/fact-sheets/usingmusicinschool... > How do I know if I am doing the right thing at school? > To make using music in schools easier, there are a number of licences in place between copyright owners and schools. These are set out at the end of this Guide. A reference to (Licence # ) is a reference to the licence applicable in each instance.
- sjclemmy 11y ago
  I see your references are Australian, so the rules there may be different but I'd like to clarify the rules in force in the UK around your second example. According to the Copyright Act 1988 there is the idea of fair use / fair dealing, which extends to the type of academic activity you highlight. This means it is not an infringement of copyright and no notification or license is required. https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_oth...
  - DanBC 11y ago
    And even then UK fair dealing is much more restrictive than US fair use.
- hrnnnnnn 11y ago
  In a sudden outbreak of common sense, Warner lost their claim to owning the copyright of the Happy Birthday song a few months ago. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-s...
im2w1l 11y ago
DMCA has been used to accomplish this in the US. A man who took a photo of a star wars action figure he had bought got issued take down requests for the photos. Also relevant is that the figurine was apparently accidentally sold ahead of schedule, but still.
- snsr 11y ago
  I was reminded of that incident as well. I think it's also worth noting that this was an illegal use of the DMCA. I'm of the mind that there should be liability for claimants knowingly misusing the DMCA to censor others.
- panglott 11y ago
  The difference is that in the US, if it was a picture he took himself, he was the actual owner of the copyright. The complaint was in the wrong if they simply confused their image with his. It is unfair, but based on the inequality of legal resources, not because some third party owns a copyright on a picture that you take yourself.
  - brlewis 11y ago
    They would argue that the photograph was a work derived from the creative work of the figurine.
userbinator 11y ago
This sounds like it'd run counter to the requirements of sellers to provide clear pictures of the products they're selling, and gives an opportunity for scammers to weasel around them by referring to this ridiculous law. What's next, illegal to describe something you own without license?
gambiting 11y ago
I mean.....it already sort of happens in the US. Every single TV show censors out any brand names, car logos, restaurant names out of fear of I don't know what. Being sued I guess? It's ridiculous.
- iand 11y ago
  Usually it's to avoid accidentally promoting a product that competes with a sponsor or advertiser.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    But how is that only a problem in the US? I've never seen UK, German, French, Spanish or Polish TV shows censoring out brand names. Surely they could have made the same argument, yet they don't?
    - neikos 11y ago
      They don't censor it, but they don't want to promote it either. On broadcasts we do we try really hard not to do 'sleeper ads' where we drink from let's say a coke bottle on air.
jackgavigan 11y ago
The Act that that includes these changes also includes provisions to allow compulsory licensing of "orphaned" copyright works: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/section/77/enacted http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/section/77/enact...
blowski 11y ago
I'm trying to understand what problem this law is trying to solve. Without this law, would it be legal for me to buy a Damien Hirst painting, photograph it and sell the photographs? Or is it that I could run an unofficial information website (say, on Apple laptops) on which I list detailed photos, and the brand owners want to limit that?
- justincormack 11y ago
  In the case of paintings it is already illegal, this law just extends that to all other objects (well it only mentions designer chairs, but obviously it must apply to kids toys and anything else, they will claim they are artistic). The government has just recently confirmed that digital reproductions to not create new copyright, so you already need to pay Damien to sell pictures of your Hirst.
  - blowski 11y ago
    So if I posted a picture on Facebook of my son playing with a Fisher Price telephone, then Fisher Price could contact me and order me to take it down? I'm assuming they couldn't sue for 'loss of earnings'? And if I run an unofficial Apple blog on which I do teardowns of Apple equipment then they could order me to remove any photos?
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Yes, that's the spirit.
jevgeni 11y ago
Is this some contrived plot to repel people from taking UK citizenship?
- mahouse 11y ago
  Yes, that and Corbyn.
- lucozade 11y ago
  No we invented drizzle for that. This is the first step in a cunning plan to remove vacuous images from the net. Next step is working out a plausible reason for banning small,furry,mammal images.
jkot 11y ago
I do not think this can pass. I think it would be incompatible with EU law, which has higher priority than local country law.
- blowski 11y ago
  Which bit of EU law? I figure if I can understand this in more detail, then I could write to my MP. EDIT: Seems this is actually to align EU and UK law: > The repeal of s. 52 was brought in by statute - by section 74 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The rationale for the repeal was that UK law was incompatible with the EU following the Court of Justice of the European Union's decision in Flos v Semeraro (Case C-168/09). The purpose of the repeal was to align the period of copyright protection across all artistic works and to eradicate inconsistencies between the term of protection afforded by copyright in different Member States. http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/commencement-of-repeal-of-s52-cdpa-1988-postponed/ http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/commencement-of-repeal-of...
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Which bit of EU law? I figure if I can understand this in more detail, then I could write to my MP. I thought this ("writing to my congressman/MP") was an American thing. In real life, does anybody actually expect them to pay attention, and not directly toss all these mails in the dustbin (or e-dustbin)?
    - blowski 11y ago
      Depends on your MP. I have a pretty good local MP (David Amess, Southend West) and he does represent constituent views in Parliament. Of course, whether the government will in turn listen to him is questionable, but it's still a good course of action.
    - yarrel 11y ago
      In my experience they do pay attention. Mine responded and even helped.
- 11y ago
mhandley 11y ago
So if a celebrity wears a designer hat or jewelry and they own the copyright to it, they can sue the gossip magazines for publishing unauthorized photos taken in a public place (which would normally be fair game)? Could be fun to watch how that plays out in court!
- bencollier49 11y ago
  In fact, any celebrity could design their own piece of jewellery, a badge even, then sue anyone who publishes it. The mags would have to photoshop all their photos, I guess. Already do. But then I guess they might be sued for misrepresenting a person by photoshopping them without their permission? Check-mate?
carlob 11y ago
I think they're trying to curb websites like voga.com. The UK now is in a weird position in terms of copyright law of designer objects: basically a physical copy of say a designer chair is considered the same as a photo of it and so it can be mass produced without paying royalties to the designer's estate if they've been dead for more than 25 years (as opposed to 70). Wouldn't it be better to rephrase the law making a distinction between unique (or small batch) works of art and works of design that are going to be mass produced? http://www.voga.com/still-legal/ http://www.voga.com/still-legal/
blowski 11y ago
OK, seems like a storm in a teacup. The items covered by this ruling ('industrially exploited artistic works') are artistic items that have been reproduced more than 50 times. They are already under copyright for 25 years, but due to a judicial review based on EU law, that section has been repealed so they are now covered by the same copyright as 2D artistic works (such as paintings). Therefore, it's not everything that I own, but only items that a court would consider to be a work of art. Since Apple would have a hard time convincing a court that their laptops are first and foremost works of art, this will have no effect on my ability to run a blog featuring photos of Apple laptops. However, if I wanted to sell a book featuring photos of Busk and Hertzog chairs, I would now need to wait for 70 years instead of 25. IANAL, but I really don't think this is a big issue.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Unless one of your user submitted photos of an Apple laptop happens to contain their desk chair that you don't notice is a designer chair. The first you may know about this is the copyright troll that purchased the rights to images of that chair sending you a speculative invoice after their chair recognising bot has trawled your blog. You might when you reflect on this hazard decide that your blog on Apple laptops is not worth the risk. This is an example of a chilling effect.
  - gsnedders 11y ago
    My understanding of the current protections (of 2D works) is that the photograph has to be an image of the protected object. A photo of an Apple laptop with a desk chair in the background isn't a photo of the desk chair. Similarly, a photo of an art gallery isn't a photo of every piece of art contained therein.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Good. However, it will be for the publisher of the photo to argue this with the copyright troll (and possibly eventually in court). In particular I guess that they will probably have to demonstrate that the chair is background and not a significant part of the image. I guess that the publisher will win eventually. I personally don't want to be the test case though.
pwm 11y ago
I would love to see a statistical analysis on how many times an average citizen, assuming zero maliciousness, breaks laws like this unknowingly in his/her lifetime. It wouldn't surprise me at all that literally everyone breaks one at one point.
- DanBC 11y ago
  England has civil and criminal law. I'm not sure what the US equivalents are. When you break civil law the wronged party can take you to court and try to get damages. There's no chance of prison or conviction or criminal record. When you break criminal law the police get involved, you're arrested and charged with an offence, you're prosecuted, and if convicted you're sentenced. For copyright stuff it's almost entirely civil. It tips into criminal law if you do it as part of trading. So, if I download a movie it's civil. If I upload a movie it's still civil. If I download a movie, and burn it to DVDs and sell those at a market it's now criminal. UK copyright law is bafflingly bad. If someone wants a strong example of over-powerful lobbying in law creation the copyright laws are a great example.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    US law, with the exception of that of the state of Louisiana, is based on English common law. We have civil and criminal law very similar to the UK. Except for the wigs.
zoner 11y ago
Not a surprising act after the rest of the population pays "TV license" for decades to watch BBC lying.
tempodox 11y ago
A prime example of how law creates the criminals in the first place. We could live in perfect peace without this brain fart.
bsenftner 11y ago
Clarify: does this impact fashion, as in clothing, hair and so on? The Fashion industry treats their work as art. Can this be used to block fashion critics from using imagery in the criticism of an outfit, shoe, hair or makeup design?
mcv 11y ago
How do you determine whether an object you own requires a license to photograph? It sounds to me like you'd want every object you buy to come with an automatic license to make photos of it. And of course you need to store all those licenses somewhere. What an awful overhead.
whibble 11y ago
No more photos of celebrities in designer clothing then. It would get too expensive for the rags to do it.
walterbell 11y ago
There was a recent HN thread on the world's highest-grossing photographer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10689889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10689889. Would this impact Prince's business model?
- Yhippa 11y ago
  Wondering the same. This could be the antidote to that.
tantalor 11y ago
Do I also need a license to sit in a designer chair?
- SEMW 11y ago
  No. Sitting is not an act restricted by copyright in the UK. 16 The acts restricted by copyright [are]: (a)to copy the work; (b)to issue copies of the work to the public; (ba)to rent or lend the work to the public; (c)to perform, show or play the work in public; (d)to communicate the work to the public; (e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation Source: CDPA1988 s.16(1). Photoing a designer chair comes under copying: "copying includes ... the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work" (s.17(3)) IANAL.
  - tjr 11y ago
    So ... can I sit on the chair, in public?
    - SEMW 11y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10732039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10732039
  - tantalor 11y ago
    What if I sit on the chair in a public place? Surely that constitutes a performance of the chair; after all to sit on a chair is to perform its essential function.
    - SEMW 11y ago
      No. The performance right is for "literary, dramatic or musical work[s]". (Remember: legislation is drafted by lawyers whose entire job is to make a document that is as painfully, excruciatingly unambiguous as English allows. Each of those rights in the short list I posted has long sections clarifying very precisely what it means. Where ambiguities or absurdities remain, there's probably been a lawsuit over them in the past 25 odd years, and a judge will have spent dozens of pages analysing each one. In other words - criticising an act by trying to spot semantic absurdities based on a tiny extract of its summary is probably not a sensible game to play..)
Nano2rad 11y ago
If there is a copyright on a chair, you cannot manufacture the chair without permission. Where is photographing it mentioned?
DanBC 11y ago
Pinterest is fucked. Many people have Pinterest boards of designed objects.

255 points by jfasi 11y ago

Won't this severely affect movies and television? I imagine a huge number of movies and television shows have at least some piece from a classic designer and I can't imagine Hollywood is going to track down who owns the licensing rights for every set piece, building, article of clothing, etc. ahead of time just to show it in the UK.

onion2k 11y ago
If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. That's why films have all Samsung devices or all Apple devices, all Mercedes or all BMW cars, all Armani wardrobes or all some other designer, and so on. Brands pay millions to be seen on screen. Hollywood knows how to tap every imaginable source of money.
- mryan 11y ago
  > If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. While paid product placement does exist and is widespread, this statement isn't correct. There are many examples of organic product placement, where the set/costume designer uses a particular product without any financial incentive.
  - simonh 11y ago
    In fact for example Apple has confirmed repeatedly for many years that they don't pay for product placement.
    - MagnumOpus 11y ago
      They do pay, but they pay in hardware. They have dedicated staff to promote product placement and according to a Hollywood movie maker, "Apple won’t pay to have their products featured, but they are more than willing to hand out an endless amount of computers, iPads, and iPhones". It is actually a very unethical practice if you think about it in monetary terms. Rather than paying the film company above the table like ethical companies usually do, they outright bribe the prop department staff by giving each of them gifts worth thousands of dollars for preferential product placement.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Thata a bit of a leap to go from "they hand out free hardware" to "they bribe staff with free hardware."
        scotty79 11y ago
        If "they" means "for profit entity" those two statements are exactly the same in my ears.
        mikeash 11y ago
        The difference is that the former means the free hardware likely goes to the production company and is not available for personal use. It's not a moral quibble, but a question of who owns the stuff and who gets to use it.
        DanBC 11y ago
        Apple gives desirable stuff to the production company. Who gets the stuff when the filming has finished?
        mikeash 11y ago
        I imagine that the production company would keep it for their next project, or sell it to recover some money. Are you implying that this stuff is typically gifted to the employees instead?
    - Thimothy 11y ago
      I guess it's coincidence then that Beats started appearing all over the place in movies and videoclips right around the time when Apple bought them (I remember searching for them when I became aware of their ubiquity and learning that Apple had just acquired them). Seriously, it's pretty obvious when the technology spot has been bought by whatever means, otherwise they use no-brand completely generic devices.
      - tehwebguy 11y ago
        I've seen a few iMacs with the Apple logo covered in TV shows as well.
        Piskvorrr 11y ago
        Most likely a case of "so, Apple, you don't want to pay the TV just a little bit of money for product placement? Oh well, out come the stickers." Follow the money.
        tehwebguy 11y ago
        Yeah I guess what I'm saying is that Apple can give people free shit all day but a director & producer will decide what goes in and what doesn't, not the prop department (as mentioned by others here)
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- coldtea 11y ago
  That's the case for hollywood blockbusters. Not for the 80% of movies out there, especially pre-00s European and American cinema.
- pravda 11y ago
  >If you see a designed object in a movie Not just movies! Looks like Samsung bought placement in a music video. https://youtu.be/lf_wVfwpfp8?t=4 https://youtu.be/lf_wVfwpfp8?t=4

iofj 11y ago

Insanity.

wildefyr 11y ago

Yet again I am ashamed of my government.

ptaipale 11y ago
I think you don't need to be, because it seems arstechnica is misrepresenting the proposed change. This kind of sensationalist activism is all too common, but my understanding is similar to blowski's above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10730178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10730178 not about photographing, but about publishing, particularly in commercial purpose, pictures of actual works of art.

WalterBright 11y ago

This may run head on into the ubiquitous surveillance state. After all, you can how prevent anyone from legally photographing you if you wear some classic designer objects.

roywiggins 11y ago
It'll end up being enforced on publication, I'd guess. So if you photograph an object and publish the picture, someone can come after you for money. Or, in this case, if you published a book last year, they can sue you for distributing it. Which is insane, but that's what you get with retroactive copyright extensions. Nobody actually cares whether you took the photograph, it's whether you published it.
- andreasklinger 11y ago
  perfect for celebrities
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Well the question is then does it cover all photographs or only those in which the item is the subject. E.g model on a chair is ok chair on its own is not. Also what makes an item a classical designer item? Do ikea chairs count as designer goods now since they come with an image stock photo of some middle age white guy with a Nordic name?
  - simonh 11y ago
    The mention of 'designer' objects is a distraction. It's about any object for which the design is protected by copyright.
    - blowski 11y ago
      No it's not, it's about "industrially exploited artistic works". Industrially exploited means 'more than 50 copies produced'. Artistic is left to the court to decide on a case-by-case basis. The design of an Apple laptop or a Fisher Price toy phone is copyrighted, but it's very unlikely to be considered an 'artistic work'.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

A lot of technologists here have certain dreams or aspirations they want to see materialized in their lifetimes. AGI, transhumanism, space colonization, etc. My dream is that I hope to see the emergence of a viable minarchist or anarchist society (beyond Mennonite and kibbutzim arrangements). Thus far the closest was a brief period of Catalonian history amidst a civil war.

karmapolice 11y ago
Communists and anarchists talking about the new utopian society before winning the war. I wonder why they lose...
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  In Russia, communists won the Civil War precisely because they were talking about the new utopia. Because, the other side said: "we will win the war and then decide what to build". That's why I even struggle name them, other than "white" (as opposed to communist "red").
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    The Whites were pretty clear in their goals, I'd thought: preservation of monarchy and status quo. A more interesting counterfactual would have been Menshevik victory.
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago
      Except most of them were actually republican, supporting Provisional Government. It was a wide coalition of monarchists, republicans, orthdox priests and military. Their only common ground was perhaps dislike and fear of reds (and that turned out very justified).
      - chimprich 11y ago
        > Their only common ground was perhaps dislike and fear of reds (and that turned out very justified). Getting wildly OT now but the atrocities and systematic killings performed by the Nationalists absolutely dwarfed the isolated killings on the Republican side, perhaps by a factor of ten to one.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

RobertoG 11y ago

What I miss in this kind of articles is more details in how this kind of laws are cooked. They say "the UK government", OK, but who in the UK government, and who is really behind. Not that we don't know, but making the process explicit would be helpful.

justincormack 11y ago
The UK is bringing some copyright law in line with the EU, eg they just ruled that reproductions of out of copyright pictures do not create a new copyright, unlike what some museums like to tell you. This might be related, certainly design is more protected in eg France than in the UK, not sure though.
- Doctor_Fegg 11y ago
  > they just ruled that reproductions of out of copyright pictures do not create a new copyright That's great news. Do you have a link?
  - justincormack 11y ago
    See http://hyperallergic.com/261496/uk-affirms-that-photographs-of-public-domain-art-are-fair-use/ http://hyperallergic.com/261496/uk-affirms-that-photographs-...
- Piskvorrr 11y ago
  [citation-needed] - I have yet to see such abomination as mandated by EU. (OTOH, there's always the convenient excuse of "we don't like this either, but the Evil Union is forcing us to do this, we have no choice!!!")
blowski 11y ago
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-arrangements-for-the-repeal-of-section-52-cdpa https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/transitional-arr... > 1. Section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) limits the term of copyright protection for industrially exploited artistic works to 25 years. The Government had previously consulted on how and when to implement the repeal of section 52 CDPA and made a decision to have a transitional period of 5 years from April 2015. This meant that the repeal of section 52 would have come into effect in April 2020 and existing stock which had been made or imported prior to this date would have been unaffected by the repeal. > 2. However, the compatibility of these arrangements with EU law was challenged by way of a judicial review and the Government decided to reconsider the issue, as announced on the Government’s website on 23 July 2015. This consultation covers the areas which are now being considered as part of the repeal of section 52 CDPA.

netcan 11y ago

To me, the long term trend in copyright legislation is the perfect quite example of how our system is broken.

js8 11y ago

I understand the reasoning of the UK government as follows: It's important to preserve soul and essence of things. When you photograph someone, you take part of their soul; similarly, when you photograph an object, you take part of its essence. The modern technologies created lot of soul-less people and essence-less things; to restore the world to its former magical beauty, we need more protection against soul- and essence-taking. Now, I am not an expert in psychology of governments, but the UK empire is actually quite old. We have to consider the possibility that it may be getting senile.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
The UK is a leading member of the Church of Capitalism, so "soul" actually means "ability to profit from." When you photograph a cultural object, profiting from it without the creator's permission is very, very sinful, and an outrageous attack on the concept of Eternal Profitability and Financial Immortality.

buserror 11y ago

It's just what happens when most of the policies are made up by 'sponsored' lobbies -- the ones with the deep pockets. It's completely bonkers really, most of the decisions that people care about are made up in a gray area that doesn't involve them at all; you got an office somewhere making up policies straight out of briefs they've been fed by lobbies (who feeds it to every party too, just in case) A good recent example is Heathrow's third runway. Despite millions of people living underneath, well, someone somewhere made a 'study' that 'proves' it's a good idea, so despite the fact it impacts millions of people -- in fact, millions of the most influential and rich people in the country even (London and the Thames Valley) well, it's likely to go ahead anyway...

djhn 11y ago
Any good links on the Heathrow vs. Gatwick campaigning and lobbying effort?
- buserror 11y ago
  There are quite a few articles about the report ([0] for one of many of them) -- the lobbying efforts themselves are not generally made public anyway, but heathrow hasn't been particularly subtle about it -- It's at least the third or perhaps fourth 'consultation' on the subject. When it get refused, they just try again a bit later. However there are concerted efforts to buy/silence the people most affected -- there's a proposal to buy houses are significantly over the market price for example for people 'most affected' -- however there is no mention of the millions of others in a circle of 15+ miles that are also affected.... let alone the fact they can't just collectively say 'no' like you'd expect in a democracy, for example. [0] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad2918a4-6972-11e4-9f65-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad2918a4-6972-11e4-9f65-00144feabd... Disclaimer: Beside the fact that I'm affected by this particular topic, I'm not an expert on it. The industry lobbying applies to many other topics tho, like planning permissions etc.
  - djhn 11y ago
    The whole concept of campaigning for an issue like this - of "lobbying" the public - struck me as quite novel for a project of this type (when I was visiting the UK and saw the massive PR campaign). I'm really interested in the emergence of this phenomenon, since at least in Europe it seems fairly new. Broadly speaking before 1800s this would be a discourse among the elite and aristocracy guiding the houses' opinion. In the 1700s-1900s paradigm the grey power behind such deals would be in the hands of the industrialists. 1950s-2000s paradigm would be to handle this with cabinet-level lobbying or other kinds of nepotism.. In a way it's an obvious improvement - the power of the people and the relevance of public opinion is sort of respected by taking it into account in the first place. But is trying to influence it at such great a cost really respect? It is a noisy world, it is difficult to get people to care about such projects (advocacy for which doesn't gain you social status or warm, fuzzy emotional satisfaction and self-fulfilment unlike many other grass-root efforts could), but both lobbies hiring consultants to compete in shoving their own message down the public's throat on what should be a pretty straight-forward, apolitical, impersonal assessment/bidding process feels perverse...

Joakal 11y ago

I have not read the laws but mostly likely this applied to commercial use already for years and they wanted it applied to private use. However, it's a racket. To give an example, the happy birthday song is illegal to 'broadcast without permission of copyright holders'. But, the restaurant owner can buy a license from a copyright group for a fee. Second example; Imagine being a school and dealing with students who submit assignments with copyrighted content. It's illegal to accept such submissions without approval. So, all schools usually have to pay for a license from copyright groups (Music, photography, video, etc). Here's a really good article on it from Australia: http://insidestory.org.au/the-copyright-cops/ http://insidestory.org.au/the-copyright-cops/ (Most, if not all copyright groups in Australia are Hollywood-based). Here's a copyright group website: http://www.musicrights.com.au/fact-sheets/usingmusicinschools/ http://www.musicrights.com.au/fact-sheets/usingmusicinschool... > How do I know if I am doing the right thing at school? > To make using music in schools easier, there are a number of licences in place between copyright owners and schools. These are set out at the end of this Guide. A reference to (Licence # ) is a reference to the licence applicable in each instance.

sjclemmy 11y ago
I see your references are Australian, so the rules there may be different but I'd like to clarify the rules in force in the UK around your second example. According to the Copyright Act 1988 there is the idea of fair use / fair dealing, which extends to the type of academic activity you highlight. This means it is not an infringement of copyright and no notification or license is required. https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_oth...
- DanBC 11y ago
  And even then UK fair dealing is much more restrictive than US fair use.
hrnnnnnn 11y ago
In a sudden outbreak of common sense, Warner lost their claim to owning the copyright of the Happy Birthday song a few months ago. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-song-lawsuit-decision-20150922-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-happy-birthday-s...

im2w1l 11y ago

DMCA has been used to accomplish this in the US. A man who took a photo of a star wars action figure he had bought got issued take down requests for the photos. Also relevant is that the figurine was apparently accidentally sold ahead of schedule, but still.

snsr 11y ago
I was reminded of that incident as well. I think it's also worth noting that this was an illegal use of the DMCA. I'm of the mind that there should be liability for claimants knowingly misusing the DMCA to censor others.
panglott 11y ago
The difference is that in the US, if it was a picture he took himself, he was the actual owner of the copyright. The complaint was in the wrong if they simply confused their image with his. It is unfair, but based on the inequality of legal resources, not because some third party owns a copyright on a picture that you take yourself.
- brlewis 11y ago
  They would argue that the photograph was a work derived from the creative work of the figurine.

userbinator 11y ago

This sounds like it'd run counter to the requirements of sellers to provide clear pictures of the products they're selling, and gives an opportunity for scammers to weasel around them by referring to this ridiculous law. What's next, illegal to describe something you own without license?

gambiting 11y ago

I mean.....it already sort of happens in the US. Every single TV show censors out any brand names, car logos, restaurant names out of fear of I don't know what. Being sued I guess? It's ridiculous.

iand 11y ago
Usually it's to avoid accidentally promoting a product that competes with a sponsor or advertiser.
- gambiting 11y ago
  But how is that only a problem in the US? I've never seen UK, German, French, Spanish or Polish TV shows censoring out brand names. Surely they could have made the same argument, yet they don't?
  - neikos 11y ago
    They don't censor it, but they don't want to promote it either. On broadcasts we do we try really hard not to do 'sleeper ads' where we drink from let's say a coke bottle on air.

jackgavigan 11y ago

The Act that that includes these changes also includes provisions to allow compulsory licensing of "orphaned" copyright works: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/section/77/enacted http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/section/77/enact...

blowski 11y ago

I'm trying to understand what problem this law is trying to solve. Without this law, would it be legal for me to buy a Damien Hirst painting, photograph it and sell the photographs? Or is it that I could run an unofficial information website (say, on Apple laptops) on which I list detailed photos, and the brand owners want to limit that?

justincormack 11y ago
In the case of paintings it is already illegal, this law just extends that to all other objects (well it only mentions designer chairs, but obviously it must apply to kids toys and anything else, they will claim they are artistic). The government has just recently confirmed that digital reproductions to not create new copyright, so you already need to pay Damien to sell pictures of your Hirst.
- blowski 11y ago
  So if I posted a picture on Facebook of my son playing with a Fisher Price telephone, then Fisher Price could contact me and order me to take it down? I'm assuming they couldn't sue for 'loss of earnings'? And if I run an unofficial Apple blog on which I do teardowns of Apple equipment then they could order me to remove any photos?
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Yes, that's the spirit.

jevgeni 11y ago

Is this some contrived plot to repel people from taking UK citizenship?

mahouse 11y ago
Yes, that and Corbyn.
lucozade 11y ago
No we invented drizzle for that. This is the first step in a cunning plan to remove vacuous images from the net. Next step is working out a plausible reason for banning small,furry,mammal images.

jkot 11y ago

I do not think this can pass. I think it would be incompatible with EU law, which has higher priority than local country law.

blowski 11y ago
Which bit of EU law? I figure if I can understand this in more detail, then I could write to my MP. EDIT: Seems this is actually to align EU and UK law: > The repeal of s. 52 was brought in by statute - by section 74 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. The rationale for the repeal was that UK law was incompatible with the EU following the Court of Justice of the European Union's decision in Flos v Semeraro (Case C-168/09). The purpose of the repeal was to align the period of copyright protection across all artistic works and to eradicate inconsistencies between the term of protection afforded by copyright in different Member States. http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/commencement-of-repeal-of-s52-cdpa-1988-postponed/ http://www.wragge-law.com/insights/commencement-of-repeal-of...
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Which bit of EU law? I figure if I can understand this in more detail, then I could write to my MP. I thought this ("writing to my congressman/MP") was an American thing. In real life, does anybody actually expect them to pay attention, and not directly toss all these mails in the dustbin (or e-dustbin)?
  - blowski 11y ago
    Depends on your MP. I have a pretty good local MP (David Amess, Southend West) and he does represent constituent views in Parliament. Of course, whether the government will in turn listen to him is questionable, but it's still a good course of action.
  - yarrel 11y ago
    In my experience they do pay attention. Mine responded and even helped.
11y ago

mhandley 11y ago

So if a celebrity wears a designer hat or jewelry and they own the copyright to it, they can sue the gossip magazines for publishing unauthorized photos taken in a public place (which would normally be fair game)? Could be fun to watch how that plays out in court!

bencollier49 11y ago
In fact, any celebrity could design their own piece of jewellery, a badge even, then sue anyone who publishes it. The mags would have to photoshop all their photos, I guess. Already do. But then I guess they might be sued for misrepresenting a person by photoshopping them without their permission? Check-mate?

carlob 11y ago

I think they're trying to curb websites like voga.com. The UK now is in a weird position in terms of copyright law of designer objects: basically a physical copy of say a designer chair is considered the same as a photo of it and so it can be mass produced without paying royalties to the designer's estate if they've been dead for more than 25 years (as opposed to 70). Wouldn't it be better to rephrase the law making a distinction between unique (or small batch) works of art and works of design that are going to be mass produced? http://www.voga.com/still-legal/ http://www.voga.com/still-legal/

blowski 11y ago

OK, seems like a storm in a teacup. The items covered by this ruling ('industrially exploited artistic works') are artistic items that have been reproduced more than 50 times. They are already under copyright for 25 years, but due to a judicial review based on EU law, that section has been repealed so they are now covered by the same copyright as 2D artistic works (such as paintings). Therefore, it's not everything that I own, but only items that a court would consider to be a work of art. Since Apple would have a hard time convincing a court that their laptops are first and foremost works of art, this will have no effect on my ability to run a blog featuring photos of Apple laptops. However, if I wanted to sell a book featuring photos of Busk and Hertzog chairs, I would now need to wait for 70 years instead of 25. IANAL, but I really don't think this is a big issue.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
Unless one of your user submitted photos of an Apple laptop happens to contain their desk chair that you don't notice is a designer chair. The first you may know about this is the copyright troll that purchased the rights to images of that chair sending you a speculative invoice after their chair recognising bot has trawled your blog. You might when you reflect on this hazard decide that your blog on Apple laptops is not worth the risk. This is an example of a chilling effect.
- gsnedders 11y ago
  My understanding of the current protections (of 2D works) is that the photograph has to be an image of the protected object. A photo of an Apple laptop with a desk chair in the background isn't a photo of the desk chair. Similarly, a photo of an art gallery isn't a photo of every piece of art contained therein.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Good. However, it will be for the publisher of the photo to argue this with the copyright troll (and possibly eventually in court). In particular I guess that they will probably have to demonstrate that the chair is background and not a significant part of the image. I guess that the publisher will win eventually. I personally don't want to be the test case though.

pwm 11y ago

I would love to see a statistical analysis on how many times an average citizen, assuming zero maliciousness, breaks laws like this unknowingly in his/her lifetime. It wouldn't surprise me at all that literally everyone breaks one at one point.

DanBC 11y ago
England has civil and criminal law. I'm not sure what the US equivalents are. When you break civil law the wronged party can take you to court and try to get damages. There's no chance of prison or conviction or criminal record. When you break criminal law the police get involved, you're arrested and charged with an offence, you're prosecuted, and if convicted you're sentenced. For copyright stuff it's almost entirely civil. It tips into criminal law if you do it as part of trading. So, if I download a movie it's civil. If I upload a movie it's still civil. If I download a movie, and burn it to DVDs and sell those at a market it's now criminal. UK copyright law is bafflingly bad. If someone wants a strong example of over-powerful lobbying in law creation the copyright laws are a great example.
- gozur88 11y ago
  US law, with the exception of that of the state of Louisiana, is based on English common law. We have civil and criminal law very similar to the UK. Except for the wigs.

zoner 11y ago

Not a surprising act after the rest of the population pays "TV license" for decades to watch BBC lying.

tempodox 11y ago

A prime example of how law creates the criminals in the first place. We could live in perfect peace without this brain fart.

bsenftner 11y ago

Clarify: does this impact fashion, as in clothing, hair and so on? The Fashion industry treats their work as art. Can this be used to block fashion critics from using imagery in the criticism of an outfit, shoe, hair or makeup design?

mcv 11y ago

How do you determine whether an object you own requires a license to photograph? It sounds to me like you'd want every object you buy to come with an automatic license to make photos of it. And of course you need to store all those licenses somewhere. What an awful overhead.

whibble 11y ago

No more photos of celebrities in designer clothing then. It would get too expensive for the rags to do it.

walterbell 11y ago

There was a recent HN thread on the world's highest-grossing photographer, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10689889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10689889. Would this impact Prince's business model?

Yhippa 11y ago
Wondering the same. This could be the antidote to that.

tantalor 11y ago

Do I also need a license to sit in a designer chair?

SEMW 11y ago
No. Sitting is not an act restricted by copyright in the UK. 16 The acts restricted by copyright [are]: (a)to copy the work; (b)to issue copies of the work to the public; (ba)to rent or lend the work to the public; (c)to perform, show or play the work in public; (d)to communicate the work to the public; (e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation Source: CDPA1988 s.16(1). Photoing a designer chair comes under copying: "copying includes ... the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work" (s.17(3)) IANAL.
- tjr 11y ago
  So ... can I sit on the chair, in public?
  - SEMW 11y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10732039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10732039
- tantalor 11y ago
  What if I sit on the chair in a public place? Surely that constitutes a performance of the chair; after all to sit on a chair is to perform its essential function.
  - SEMW 11y ago
    No. The performance right is for "literary, dramatic or musical work[s]". (Remember: legislation is drafted by lawyers whose entire job is to make a document that is as painfully, excruciatingly unambiguous as English allows. Each of those rights in the short list I posted has long sections clarifying very precisely what it means. Where ambiguities or absurdities remain, there's probably been a lawsuit over them in the past 25 odd years, and a judge will have spent dozens of pages analysing each one. In other words - criticising an act by trying to spot semantic absurdities based on a tiny extract of its summary is probably not a sensible game to play..)

Nano2rad 11y ago

If there is a copyright on a chair, you cannot manufacture the chair without permission. Where is photographing it mentioned?

DanBC 11y ago

Pinterest is fucked. Many people have Pinterest boards of designed objects.