| Get the EPUK Weekly News ! |
Once a week we put together a roundup of the week's photography, media and copyright news. It's interesting, free and you don't have to meet the usual EPUK membership criteria to sign up. We don't give your details to anyone else, and you can unsubscribe anytime. So what's stopping you ?
| This week we discussed... |
The above advertisers have not been endorsed by EPUK.
| Headlines | News | First Person | Opinion | Resources | The Curve | Showcase | Masterclass | WTD | Sqweegee's blog | |
About | Join
| Help
| Shop
| Lost And Stolen
| Discounts
|
Support EPUK
|
Advertise on EPUK
| RSS
| Atom
|
|
What the Gowers Review means for photographersThe most wide ranging review into UK intellectual property for almost twenty years has failed to recommend key changes proposed by photographers groups whilst advocating a UK equivalent to the controversial US “orphan works” bill. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
8 December 2006
|
Nearly two decades after the dramatic changes of the 1988 Copyright Act, Andrew Gowers’ wide-ranging review into intellectual property in the UK has dashed expectations of further reform, concluding: “I do not think the system is in need of radical overhaul”. However, among the changes recommended is an introduction of an “orphan works” bill, where copyrighted work can be used without permission if reasonable attempts to find the copyright holder have failed. A similar bill caused controversy in the US until it was shelved several months ago. While the report explores the whole range of intellectual property, the words “photographer” and “photographers” do not occur at all in the body of Gowers’ 150-page report, which was released on Wednesday. Nevertheless, the review is expected to be the biggest influence on the working practice of freelance photographers since the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which gave photographers ownership of the copyright of their commissioned work for the first time ever under UK law.
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Comments on this article:
Add your comments here:
|
||||||
| Headlines | News | First Person | Opinion | Resources | The Curve | Showcase | Masterclass | WTD | Sqweegee's blog | |
About | Join
| Help
| Shop
| Lost And Stolen
| Discounts
|
Support EPUK
|
Advertise on EPUK
| RSS
| Atom
|
| Site design and CMS integration © Scotland photographer Nick McGowan-Lowe. Site content is © original authors. To reproduce any content on this website, contact editor@epuk.org who will put you in touch with the copyright holder. You can read our privacy policy here. Any advice given on this site is not intended to replace professional advice, and EPUK and its authors accept no liability for loss or damage arising from any errors or omissions. EPUK is not responsible for third party content, such as epuk.org adverts, other websites linked to from epuk.org, or comments added to articles by visitors. |
|
|
I am a student confused by descriptions of copyright. Sounded simple. I knew there was more than meets the photographers eye.Read the Gowers as a result, now i know there is more than meets. ........... really useful,thanks
Comment #1 posted by alison o'brien at 3 January, 07:48 PM