Most will know about my dispute with EMAP and Zoo magazine over the unauthorised use of images I have put together and the runaround I (and others) have been getting.
If not, just type in zoo in the search box.
On April 24th, the European Parliament will vote on IPRED2, the Second Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive.
This will make “aiding, abetting, or inciting” copyright infringement on a “commercial scale” a crime.
Link to explanation and petition AGAINST the law here – Now, am I a fair man or not ?
While many agree this will be a bad law, including myself, if it does pass I’m sure there will be a hell of a queue at Scotland Yard as several of us do our duty as good citizens.
This will probably mean an awful lot of paperwork because it won’t just be a transgressing publisher which will have to defend itself.
An awful lot of big name companies could be calling on the help of their lawyers, especially when “penalties for these brand new copycrimes will include permanent bans on doing business, seizure of assets, criminal records, and fines of up to €100,000.”
I reckon offering prizes (sometimes to the value of hundreds of pounds) to send in other people’s work for publication without any permission, remuneration (and often credit) is a pretty good example of inciting copyright infringement.
In fact I’d go as far to say that this is far more clear cut than the potential ‘transgressions’ music and film companies will want the relevant authorities to prosecute.
Ironically some of those who may be forced to defend their actions will be those companies who would be ecstatic if the law was to pass.
Recent sponsors of Zoo magazine’s viral pages have been :
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
Universal Pictures
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
Icon Home Entertainment
Warner Home Video
Carphone Warehouse
Entertainment Arts
Momentum Pictures
Pathe Distribution Limited
Blaupunkt
It may be bad law but every cloud has a silver lining.
Comments (3)
I don’t have the time to go through the bill – but does how does is it (if at all) describe derivative works? After all, many of the images snarfed by Zoo and Nuts are modified versions of somebody else’s original work.
Zoo and other similar magazines often rip-off and just blatently steal work that was done by myself and my friends. They give no credit to the original author and make a pile of money in the process or give prizes to people for sending in our work.
My family happens to have a legal company and when the new law comes in it will be interesting to see if the new law has any teeth.
Mark, the derivative works thing is a minefield.
However, in the case of Zoo magazine, regardless of who owns copyright of the component parts of a derivative image, Zoo publishes these images.
Let’s say the creator has rights to the composition and a photographer has the rights to parts of that image.
Zoo and EMAP could be accused of knowingly infringing copyright of both parties because it appears that they DO NOTHING to check on the ownership of the copyright before publishing.
In my view, this leaves them wide open to prosecution under this new law. It leaves Sony (who sponsors the page today) culpable as they are providing inducements.
The act, in its present form mentions ‘commercial scale’ and I don’t think any B3TA poster does this on a commercial scale.
When I create an image to earn anything, I pay for the copyrighted images I use AND have permission to alter them in the way I do.