They Seem to Have Adopted a Different Policy Themselves...
By making all the cartoons & animations on their site so piss-poor, nobody would bother nicking them.
The web has grown up without letting people own and control their own stuff, but a British-backed initiative might change all that, offering a glimpse of how the internet can work in the future. Their work will all be open sourced early next year. Britain's much-anticipated Copyright Hub was given ministerial blessing when it …
Much like Shrek, I rather like my "rancid free-for-all swamp" pretty much as it is, sorry. But those thrilled by the not-too-far-fetched prospect of seeing an image of a sunset only to have helpful little windows pop up with "Would you like a large print of this picture for only $12.99? Special offer: framed only $29.99 with free delivery if you order right now!" are welcome to like it to their heart's content...
Why don't I get a warm and fuzzy feeling from the fact that this idea is backed by bigger investment?
They do it solely for our benefits, I understand. Has nothing to do with them offering aaaaany licensing service. Completely out of the goodness of their hearts.
I think a lot of entertainment-industry lawyers splooge their pants about all this.
And let me guess, with fees and fineprint rules, an artist will see pennies on the dollar, if that?
...because we have had property lawyers for at least 1000 years. Being able to control what you own was just as important for medieval craftsmen and traders caravanning their merchandise over long distances as it is now. Property laws, and the people who can defend them, arose because they were needed. Do you think the early lawyers invented a profession and then hung around the marketplace touting their wares? I don't get the downer on lawyers. I have always got excellent advice and service and I don't mind paying for what I need.
Firstly I must thank you for cheering my day up with the description " the rancid free-for-all of today’s clickbait-infested swamp", it is spot-on!
It remains to be seen how well the system works, but for a lot of commercial sites I can see it would be a great advantage if photos and other materiel could be licensed for a small fee more-or-less instantly. Even for some of us who choose to put things up for free, it would be nice to track its popularity (particularly if your funding is based on "public impact" factors).
However, the issue of meta-data stripping is more complex as it can reveal information about the person they really don't want public. For example, the lat/lon of their home, or a personal identifier if its a crime they reported. Having an agree copyright metadata field that is not stripped by web sites on pain of legal action is much better, so long as phones, etc, always confirm you want it sent in sensitive cases.
Copyright is a privilege, like letters patent, granted by the power of the government, because it wants to encourage people to create stuff. It is not a natural right, unlike the natural right not to have one's physical property stolen.
This distinction needs to be kept clear, so that when record companies or movie studios come to the government, and ask for new sweeping extensions of what copyright gives them, the politicians and the public clearly understand that they're free to say yes or no based on what is genuinely in the public interest; there is no 'natural right' for copyright owners to control their work essentially forever.
There is only the bargain the government made, and they accepted, that they control their work for a certain time in return for creating it. That's the right they have, that society keep its promise to them.
Isn't that required so that Facebook (etc) can actually serve up your content to ask of your so-called friends?
According to the law, you have the right of "copyright" in the content you create. You can upload stuff to third party sites but then they could not pass it on to anybody else, which would make things like sharing photos a bit pointless. So this giving up of rights to the provider you are using is a compromise; and surely better than suggesting that by uploading content, it enters the public domain in some manner...