The Dilemma Of Image Copyright. Visual China Group. Media Essay

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
By
Course Name
Professor’s Name
University
City, State
Date of Submission
Image Copyright
Introduction
Production and distribution of images are now cheaper because copyright holders are providing digital copies of their works on web platforms where they can be easily accessed by their customers (Perzanowski and Schultz 2011, p. 2068). It is currently possible for an artist to produce their products such as images and sell several copies within a few days, a feat that could not be achieved few years ago. It is easy for individuals to copy and share images through the Internet (Weiskopf 1998, p. 4). However, cases of infringement of image copyright are increasingly becoming an issue with the development of new technologies in a big data environment. Such technologies are enabling reproduction and distribution of digital copies by unauthorised people with the aim of making illegal profits. At the same time, such individuals are able to protect themselves from legal actions by operating without revealing their identity (Perzanowski and Schultz 2011, p. 2068). These internet characteristics along with culture of sharing content freely and lack of awareness by common users of the legal repercussions of their activities have resulted in increased cases of digital piracy at levels that have had negative impacts on the revenues in the copyrighted industries. This has sometimes raised a question of whether traditional copyright doctrines are effective in protecting copyrighted works. Piracy levels have increased worldwide for image artworks, which has severely affected copyrighted works such as televisions, photographic works, films, and books, among others (Beams 1998, p. 823). Individuals participating in piracy source images from internet; thus, use of big data has created an enabling environment for image pirating. Huge volumes of data have made it difficult for authorities to capture the violators of copyright laws. Big data has introduced a huge dilemma in image copyright because images can be shared through various technologies, raising the question whether reproduction of such images through various digital media amounts to infringement of copyright laws or not (Beams 1998, p. 823). Also, there is a contradiction between paid use and free transmission of works. This paper will analyse and focus on the dilemma and protection of image copyright in the era of big data. The paper takes the Visual China Group event as an example to analyse image copyright protection.
The Dilemma of Image Copyright
Since it costs less money and time to make a copy of a particular work, the copyright protection faces a massive challenge. It is much easier to manipulate and reproduce images in the big data environment because it is easy to combine and process information as opposed to traditional forms piracy (Strickland 2003, p. 9). Authors, publishers, and providers of multimedia data are reluctant to distribute their works through the Internet. Distribution of images via the internet creates loopholes that could lead to copying and reproduction of the images, which affect the profitability of the legitimate producer. Generally, photographs, pictures, illustrations, and other images are protected by copyright similar to other artistic work (Cohrs 2014, n.p). Subsequently, users need permission from the copyright holder in case they anticipate to perform any action on the image such as copying or sharing it through online platforms such as Facebook, Email, and Twitter, among others (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p). There are various types of images that can be including digital photos taken on mobile devices such as phones and digital cameras, images that were initially generated in photographic films and any other digital images reproduced from such images, and images such as illustrations and diagrams. The image copyright belongs to the person who creates it, who is considered the copyright holder of that particular image (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p). Nevertheless, there are several occasions where this is not necessarily the case. For digital photos created through mobile phones and cameras, the ownership depends on when such photos were taken. The rules that governed the ownership of photos before 1989 are different from the rules that regulate copyright today. In the event an image was created by an employee on behalf of an employer then, the image copyright defines the employer as the rightful owner of the image (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p). Similarly, if an image is created by an individual during freelancing, then the copyright ownership belongs to that person. In some instances, controversy arises when it comes to ownership of a particular photo. For instance, it is unclear who should own a photo in an instance where one person arranges equipment and makes critical decisions before taking a photo, but another person presses the camera button. In such a scenario, the owner could be the person making arrangement and important decisions concerning that photo, but the person pressing the trigger could also claim ownership (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p). An example is a situation where the photographer has made innovative decisions in preparing for a shot and has an assistant who presses the trigger. While the former can claim the total ownership of that particular photo, the latter could also demand some sort of credit for the entire arrangement.
The image creator has the authority to allow and individual or an organisation to license their work, license the work themselves or transfer the copyright to another individual (Gov. UK 2014, n.p). The term licensing refers to allowing another individual or an organisation to use one’s work, including images, usually in exchange for payment or particular conditions for a given duration of time. Moreover, in some cases, images might bear more than one copyright ownership in cases where there was more than one creator. For instance, cartoon images and sometimes illustrations are usually created by various artists. Contrary, there are other copyrighted works that have different underlying works that are also under copyright protection. For instance, if a person wanted to use image C, which also contains image D, they might require permission from the owners of both images as long as the inclusion of image D was not incidental.
Most of the images appearing on various websites are regulated by picture libraries in different countries, which are either copyright owners of these images or have obtained owner’s permission to become the copyright holders of the images (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p). Usually, the picture library control defines how copies of various images are used both online and offline as a part of their contract terms and conditions when they allow consumers to use the images. The restrictions put in place by picture libraries do not necessarily originate from the copyright law. A picture library can formulate its own terms and conditions to use with respect to the images it supplies such as the ones out of copyright via a strong contract (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p).
Another challenge that has arisen in the sector of image copyright is the duration of copyright. In some countries such as the United Kingdom, image copyright lasts as long as the creator lives, plus another 70 years from the end year after the death of the copyright holder (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p). However, in some instances, the length of image copyright is dependent on the date of creation of an image. For example, an image that is below 70-year-old is still in copyright, and the older ones may well be, depending on the time of their creation. For old photos and images, one may never be completely sure if they are in copyright (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p). However, being aware of their age will offer good guidance in making a correct conclusion on whether the image is protected by copyright. Some images or photos, as well as illustrations, may contain materials that can help an individual to identify the date when they were created, which helps in knowing whether they might be still in copyright or not. For example, a motorcar image of a particular brand can give a suggestion that a photograph was taken in the first year of manufacture (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p). Thus, it is fundamental for one to be aware that image copyright duration can be highly complex, particularly for older images such as photographs, drawn pictures, and illustrations.
Another imperative aspect relating to image copyright is the copyright protection of copies of older images. By simply creating a copy of an older image does not result in new copyright of the copy (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p). Nonetheless, it is unclear on whether digitised copies of past images share copyright with the original image. Some scholars contend that in such a scenario, new copyright may arise, especially if specialists have introduced some features to optimise details on the original images. Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union indicates that copyright only exists in the original subject matter because it is the author’s own intellectual creation. Using this argument, it is apparent that what is simply an improved, digitised copy of an older work cannot be considered as original (Gov.UK 2015b, n.p). This is as a result of the minimal scope of the owner to exercise free and innovative choices if their goal is to basically make a faithful imitation of the existing works.
Some people believe that image copyright disappears once the holder cannot be identified. The images for which copyright holders are not known or cannot be identified are known as orphan works (Gov. UK 2015, n.p). In such cases, individuals may think that they can use these works without seeking permission from anyone. Nevertheless, it is usually advisable for the user to apply for a license of orphan works from the intellectual property offices if they cannot find the copyright holder after a diligent search (Gov.UK 2015, n.p). This creates a safe route because orphan work licensing allows individuals to use any image considered orphan for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. Prior to making an application for licenses of orphan works, it is important to conduct a thorough search for a copyright holder. After failing to trace the copyright holder, then one can apply for an orphan work license (Gov.UK 2015, n.p).
The dilemma of protecting image copyright in the era of big data has the following features and aspects. First of all, the infringement becomes more subtle. In the contemporary big data network environment, the types of information resources are more complicated and diversified (Mei 2008, p. 1). The basic characteristics of fast information flow and a variety of products increase the difficulty of digital publishing products, especially when part of a certain type of publication products is authorised. For example, with the support of cloud sharing technology, Baidu Library has more than 100 million copies of various information documents stored on the website.
Although most domestic publishing organisations have gradually shifted to digitalisation and informationisation in the course of business, their business direction is still focused on publishing content (Mei 2008, p. 2). Due to the lack of their own technology, publishing organisations are not deep enough in the development and mining of big data. Therefore, digital information technology cannot be used to effectively identify and classify the infringement of digital publications. In addition, publishers are weaker in their ability to guard against online infringement when most websites can use existing crawling or copying technology to process existing images and form secondary processed products, which are then published on the appropriate websites. ‘The public outrage against VCG points to a bigger problem in China’s cyberspace, which is that its open nature has to a degree been spoiled by some profit-driven companies; there is a lack of clear rules and fair use conventions for images on the internet.’
Secondly, under the network operating environment, all kinds of digital publishing resources are difficult to maintain copyright because of the fast flow rate and wide reading audience. The implementation of the current “safe haven” principle of the network, which is the “Regulations on the Protection of Information Network Communication Rights”, has also to some extent condoned the infringement of digital publications. Compared with the infringement of traditional publications, the infringement of digital images in the big data environment not only has invisible and concealed features, but also a fast-spreading speed and wide range of influence.
For example, a huge number of high-quality photos and images are currently copied and reprinted into documents and shared on the third-party platforms (Mei 2008, p. 1). In addition, the cost of implementing online publication infringement is relatively low, and it does not require the support of paper and printing equipment. A limited number of network technologies can be used to implement plagiarism and copying quickly in large quantities. Moreover, the subjects who implement illegal acts are often anonymous, which makes it difficult for the regulatory authorities to identify and verify the information.
Then, in the current industry, the development of the digital publishing industry is lagging behind due to the development of personalised service models. For example, the black hole image is not owned by VCG, but belongs to the photography works from EHT. The way to use the license should be categorised as “Creative Commons Attribution”, which refers to a relatively loose copyright agreement. On one hand, the user can clearly understand the rights of the owner, and it is not easy to infringe the copyright; whereas, on the other hand, the work can be spread more widely. Photographing the black hole images is a major activity for human beings to explore nature and conduct scientific and technological research. Using the "knowledge sharing signature" license indicates that photos can be widely and freely used as long as there is a clear explanation and labelling of the signature, in order to spread, convey, and educate the popular scientific information of the Black Hole images as widely as possible.
Personal use plays a crucial role in the copyright system of any country across the world, and some of its benefits have been cited by several scholars. In the following paragraphs, the paper discusses the various benefits of personal use of data such as increased public access to important data and the preservation and enjoyment of copyrighted works such as digital images (Litman 2006, p. 1871). Similarly, it protects consumers’ autonomy and privacy as well as transactional clarity, innovation, and respect for copyright laws. The core purpose of image copyright laws is to ensure public access, preservation, and enjoyment of various works. Moreover, various researchers have highlighted the positive impact of personal use on public access and many closely related benefits of preservation.
Consumers’ autonomy and privacy is another benefit of personal use. Non-violating personal use contributes to high levels of privacy by reducing the power of owners of copyrights as far as tracking the behaviour of consumers is concerned (Litman 2006, p. 1871). In addition, the independence of consumers is bolstered by the reasonable expectation that when a person purchases a product, they are considered owners and can use, dispose or alienate these products whenever they want (Litman 2006, p. 1871). Prohibiting personal use is against the highlighted expectations and can underrate this sense of independence as well as the basic notions of personal property that forms its basis.
Innovation is another benefit of personal use, which justifies its legality (Reid 2019, p. 110). Designers of devices and services are having problems with copyright owners who are accusing them of making devices that allow users to manipulate and introduce innovative ideas to copyrighted products. Therefore, the amount of risk-taking and experimentation device designers can exercise in making new products and services depend on the legality of personal use. Designers of devices try to immunise them from violation and give the consumers a chance to be innovative. Currently, almost all manufacturers of electronics and cloud service provider must put into consideration the lawfulness of personal use while designing new devices or services. Obtaining licenses to enable personal use require high costs th...