| EPUK News |
Get photography news updates direct to your Facebook page or Twitter feed. It's 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.
• By weekly email
| This week EPUK discussed ... |
Copyright infringements by MPs, taxation of interest on Payment Protection Insurance payouts, compulsory self-billing, the PLUS registry, finding a good copyright lawyer and ‘Stolen photographs: what to do?’ – Simon Crofts’ excellent article published right here on the EPUK web site.
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
|
Eight Questions BAPLA Must AnswerWhen BAPLA wrote to the Government regarding the controversial Clause 43 of the Digital Economy Bill the association claimed to be speaking on behalf of a united photographic industry. It wasn’t. BAPLA ignored thousands of photographers lobbying to stop the clause. In an open letter to BAPLA, EPUK asks “Why?” |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
12 April 2010
|
Dear BAPLA,
Yours sincerely, The EPUK moderators Related storiesMost commented |
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Comments on this article:
BAPLA has also let down further thousands of photographers outside the UK as well as the resident ones. You can add to the outraged those of us who supply libraries with their work from abroad. We can expect BAPLA to endeavour to protect the images in UK libraries; not to work out how best to license our stolen pictures for micro sums. Heads must roll. Comment #2 posted by Michael Howard at 13 April, 04:30 PM I was going to sign up to BAPLA after the summer, however I simply do not like what they have stood for. BAPLA no longer seem to adequately promote the work of agencies in this ever changing business – no more handbooks, just a website and an exhibition. I feel that I can quite confidently suggest that BAPLA were looking for an alternative income to support their presence in this industry by being a gatekeeper. Are the foreign agencies under the BAPLA umbrella aware of their actions? Equally, are its own members aware of their stance on this crazy legislation? Comment #3 posted by Matthew Ashton at 13 April, 04:48 PM It seems to me that BAPLA represents picture libraries and agencies, NOT photographers. How can BAPLA claim to speak for togs? Surely the AoP, BFP, SWPP, RPS etc, etc, speak for togs not BAPLA which is a picture agency association. Comment #4 posted by Chris Hills at 13 April, 07:32 PM 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 © . 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. |
|
|
Excellent questions all.
On Question 8, has BAPLA ever had any sort of mandate to speak for “the photography industry”? Has BAPLA ever had any credibility as an advocate for photographers?
Comment #1 posted by Jon Sparks at 13 April, 03:49 PM