For the serious photographers and artists in general

[Maniah]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

Here is an excerpt of the above link

Previously, and in most of the world today, ownership of your creation is automatic, and legally considered to be an individual's property. That's enshrined in the Berne Convention and other international treaties, where it's considered to be a basic human right. What this means in practice is that you can go after somebody who exploits it without your permission - even if pursuing them is cumbersome and expensive.

The UK coalition government's new law reverses this human right. When last year Instagram attempted to do something similar, it met a furious backlash. But the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act has sailed through without most amateurs or semi-professionals even realising the consequences.

The Act contains changes to UK copyright law which permit the commercial exploitation of images where information identifying the owner is missing, so-called "orphan works", by placing the work into what's known as "extended collective licensing" schemes. Since most digital images on the internet today are orphans - the metadata is missing or has been stripped by a large organization - millions of photographs and illustrations are swept into such schemes.

Im honestly not sure how this all will affect people, since this has just happened, and since I don't live in the UK.. But I think it's worth noting.

Since I know of a few people here to do serious or semi serious photography or artwork, I thought It might be something you would want to read. Especially if you have been on the fence about watermarks and how you use them.

[LuvlyMelody]

I'm a little slow and do not understand.

1st Paragraph: Back then, if someone stole your work, you can/should/could pursue them with legal actions

The other two went through one ear, out the other.

Does it mean that if someone takes our work, we can't do nothing about it anymore??

ETA: Nvm, opened link and yeah, that's just so stupid...

[Maniah]

That's how I'm reading it. Remove it from the internets or pay money to ONE company to have it registered.

But this decision comes from the UK.. So does it mean only UK business can do it?

I'm so confused, yet terrified on behalf of artists everywhere.

[Icicle]

I have a lot of colorful words that I can say in regards to that. So stupid, I took the picture. If you want it you better be paying me for it :<

[LuvlyMelody]

I got a whole lot of...stuff to say to, but we'll keep it all sugar and rainbows for now.

Once a picture goes online, it's basically eternal now, so taking a picture offline is practically impossible...

So pretty much it'll play like this:

Woman: *Takes picture of her newborn baby* Dawww I'm gonna post this on Facebook. *posts*

Baby Product Company: *sees picture of newborn baby* Izz our baby nao!! *puts their company slogan and logo on picture*

Woman: Thats my picture!! You didn't get my permission!!

Baby Product Company: Nuh-uhhhh...Izz our baby nao!! *charges woman for HER picture*

[hamsteh]

... Well that sounds dumb. >< I don't really want to start watermarking my photos. D:
I don't think I have anything worth taking anyways, but I know my dad does. D:

[sakuralu]

Does it mean that if someone takes our work, we can't do nothing about it anymore??

yes, exactly

But it concern only people who live in UK since it's a law from UK. For the rest of the world nothing change (well for the moment =/ I hope this stupid law will stay in UK!)

I think too that, if someone yake your work, and if this person live in UK, it will be harder for you to do something

(I've studied a little law at university ^^)

But I think (hope) that this law will have a short life because people won't never accept this...

[Fräulein_Kim]

Yes it is only for the UK, but as a professional designer/illustrator let me assure you, Artwork with no watermark or tag is useless to you ANYWAYS. This new law just adds another (admittedly BIG) reason why to put your name and URL on your images.

That is, if I understand this correctly and creator-information put on your images will make them 'NOT-orphan-images', since creator info can be seen at first glance.
(if this is just a big push to make us all pay for licensing our pictures.. well then, we're probably screwed and the only way would be to make our pics un-usable by cutting them to previews and uploading in a bad resolution. :c)

But back to tagging: Whenever you post something online, it's for advertising yourself. To do that in a proper way, you HAVE to put an URL linking back to your site. © is not even mandatory, since this is mostly a thing regarding US law. But creators name, year of creation and an URL to your website should be on.
Even if a person is meaning no harm to you, they could take your pic of flickr or your website and slap it on tumblr just because they LIKE it. Still, if there is no tag or watermark if must (I personally find them ugly and chinese copy factories have ways to edit them all out anyways, but each to their own ;>), other people who like it won't find out who did this - Thus no advertise for you at all! D:

..this is also how I understand 'orphan pictures' - Pics with no name or URL put on that would give away the creator. Metadata is nice to add, too.. but could easier be stripped from the image than a tag. (for stripping that a person would have to go and crop it away which is and as far as I understand stays illegal, since it is changing the artwork)

So.. just put a tag. ^^

(but my poor little avatar pony has none.. so feel free to bloat that up and print it.. in a very... bad.. resolution. )

[JustHereForPictures]

Excuse me, I'm going to go and write to my government.