[interested_observer]

Changes to UK copyright law will soon mean that you may need to take out a licence to photograph classic designer objects even if you own them. That's the result of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which extends the copyright of artistic objects like designer chairs from 25 years after they were first marketed to 70 years after the creator's death. In most cases, that will be well over a hundred years after the object was designed. During that period, taking a photo of the item will often require a licence from the copyright owner regardless of who owns the particular object in question.

The UK government is holding a consultation into when this change should enter into force: after a six-month, three-year, or five-year transitional period. An article in The Bookseller puts the starting date as October 2016 without citing a source. In any case, the change is definitely coming, and it'll likely be quite soon.

• UK citizens may soon need licenses to photograph some stuff they already own | Ars Technica
• Madness: UK Extends Copyright on Photos of Physical Objects, But You Won't Believe Who Owns That Right | The Digital Reader

[aoeu]

I have a Herman Miller chair that I would like to sell sight unseen . . .

[normhead]

That's nuts... what has to happen would be that people need to boycott every company that is supporting this change. The problem with this for photographers, is it could force them to pay licensing for studio props. To understand how grievous this is, Apple and many other companies currently pay companies to put their products into films etc. as part of their product placement advertising budget. These companies are trying to turn that around and collect licensing fees for people who are giving them free advertising. This is simply some companies trying to squeeze more money out of the same products, by creating new revenue streams through legislation. Everyone wants more money for doing exactly the same thing they do now. And this is a classic case of the government playing favourites and caving into the parties that contribute to their re-election. It would actually be a privately funded tax, paid to private interests with no benefit or advantage to those paying the tax, and no added responsibility or value provided by the companies collecting the tax. . A legal way of taxing people available to private companies. The same as the local police force being turned in to a local collection agency for entertainment companies through overly generous copy right laws.

These companies have so much money, they will use good money buying politicians, so they can have more money, rather than trying to increase income by making more desirable better built products. It's a scam.

[RobA_Oz]

I presume this just relates to photography for commercial purposes. There's so much contrived outrage in the media these days that it's hard to tell what's real and what's just mischief-making.

That said, there is a general movement in laws to restrict photography, based on ownership of objects, that is concerning to those of us who value the documentation of people and places. I've sometimes wondered how a legal argument based on the common ownership of light might hold up, but I suspect that might be too subtle for the highly-paid legal minds that rule us.

[virgilr]

This could also effectively kill the resale of used items online.

[normhead]

As with many things... even when governments do enact the laws. There is no enforcement enabling monetary support. When they passed similar legislation on another issue, the RCMP said "we can't afford to use the criminal code tools we already have, giving us more responsibility isn't going to help that, without new funding". And this is what is so wrong with monopoly capitalism. The goal is not success through excellence, the goal is success through monopoly practices.

When ever they think of a new social program that could help disadvantaged kids, they always ask "who is going to pay for this." When someone proposes new copyright laws, no one ever says "who's going to pay for this?" as if there are going to be no enforcement costs. It's absolute hypocrisy. It's simple, these laws are a drain on all other tax payer funded programs. They are a subsidy for the big companies that ask for them to be implemented. It's just handing them tax payer dollars. In our society, while that's not ok to do things that help the citizen population, it's quite acceptable to use big bucks to lobby for tax subsidies if you're a large corporation.

They shoud receive absolutely no tax deductions for lobbyists, in fact whatever they pay trying to get favourable legislation passed, they should have to put up the same amount into a fund for the competing public defence. It costs a lot of tax payer money to investigate and evaluate these get rich quick schemes. The tax payer shouldn't be paying that. The companies who want the changes should be paying the whole shot, lobby, and counter lobby, and no legislation for any industry should be undertaken without a funding model, paid for by the industry in question. If the movie industry wants tougher copyright laws, they should accept higher taxes on their product to pay the costs of added enforcement. That shouldn't be shared by those of us who think they make enough money as it is.

[Steve.Ledger]

But you're actually photographing (recording photons) 'light'. No-one hold that copyright

[bar_foo]

But you're actually photographing (recording photons) 'light'. No-one hold that copyright

Derivative works.

[Aberrator]

What implications does this have for professional portrait photographers? No fancy designer props in the studio? No shooting inside designer interiors? Is it really limited to unique "artistic objects" only? Mass produced items are designed by somebody after all. So only white background then (patterned background might be copyrighted!). Or shoot somewhere deep in the wilderness. No, wait a minute, designer clothes! So, to avoid being taxed, your subjects must be either naked or wear vatniks.

[waterfall]

As with many things... even when governments do enact the laws. There is no enforcement enabling monetary support. When they passed similar legislation on another issue, the RCMP said "we can't afford to use the criminal code tools we already have, giving us more responsibility isn't going to help that, without new funding". And this is what is so wrong with monopoly capitalism. The goal is not success through excellence, the goal is success through monopoly practices.

When ever they think of a new social program that could help disadvantaged kids, they always ask "who is going to pay for this." When someone proposes new copyright laws, no one ever says "who's going to pay for this?" as if there are going to be no enforcement costs. It's absolute hypocrisy. It's simple, these laws are a drain on all other tax payer funded programs. They are a subsidy for the big companies that ask for them to be implemented. It's just handing them tax payer dollars. In our society, while that's not ok to do things that help the citizen population, it's quite acceptable to use big bucks to lobby for tax subsidies if you're a large corporation.

They shoud receive absolutely no tax deductions for lobbyists, in fact whatever they pay trying to get favourable legislation passed, they should have to put up the same amount into a fund for the competing public defence. It costs a lot of tax payer money to investigate and evaluate these get rich quick schemes. The tax payer shouldn't be paying that. The companies who want the changes should be paying the whole shot, lobby, and counter lobby, and no legislation for any industry should be undertaken without a funding model, paid for by the industry in question. If the movie industry wants tougher copyright laws, they should accept higher taxes on their product to pay the costs of added enforcement. That shouldn't be shared by those of us who think they make enough money as it is.

Norm, I agree. Corporations have even tried to copyright the Happy Birthday song, Central Park in New York and who knows what else. I fear the day that the national parks are trademarked by concessionaires.

[FantasticMrFox]

One of these funny laws that everyone will just ignore and no-one will care about.

[interested_observer]

• Buildings,
• Clothes,
• Cars,
• Corporate Logos - Try taking a shot of downtown somewhere and not get a corporate name
• Furniture
• Everyday stuff - coffee mugs (with a corporate logo)
• .....

[jawsy]

If you look at the case law underpinning the changes, the amendment is not unreasonable. What becomes unreasonable are the vultures who will attempt to exploit the interpretation solely for commercial gain, as opposed to a designer or artist with a legitimate grievance to resolve.

If courts in developed countries were more inclined to savagely punish unsuccessful attempts to gouge the innocent, it might at least act to temper the inclination some people have to be ruthlessly greedy.

[Kerrowdown]

Try taking a shot of downtown somewhere and not get a corporate name

If they are gonna fine folk... my street photography will have to change from "Spot the Kerrowdown" to "Find the Kerrowdown".

Anyway that'll be English Law, which don't apply up here, we have our own Scottish Law which is much more sensible.

[pacu]

Next thing they will do is a campaign to ban cameras usage by the unwashed masses.