Category Archives: International

StockFood takes over travel photo agency Look

On April 1, 2019, StockFood GmbH will take over the German travel photo agency Look. All employees, including their long-standing customer advisors and photo editors, will join the StockFood team.

For decades, Look (lookphotos.com) has been known as the leading German travel photo agency. From the very beginning, the name “Look” has been synonymous with the group’s mission. The agency was founded in 1989 in Munich by a small group of professional travel and sports photographers. Look photographers aimed to see the world through different eyes. No journey would be too great to keep them from taking the best photos from around the world and bringing them to you. Over the course of 30 years, Look has developed into one of the most sought-after specialist providers of high-quality travel and outdoor photography. The collection is focused on professional travel photos from around the world and is comprised of about 700,000 exclusive images.

Starting in April 2019, Look will be integrated with the professional agencies that operate under the umbrella of StockFood. StockFood will be taking all employees on board and continue to run Look as an independent brand within its broad portfolio. Following a complete relaunch in April 2019, the website www.lookphotos.com will gradually be enriched with many new functions. Look’s popular place within the Picturemaxx portal will continue and be expanded.

Within the stock photo industry, StockFood is the only global market leader from Germany. The agency is represented in 18 countries by its own representatives and is originally known to be the world leader in food photography. StockFood was founded in Munich in 1979. Today, the company operates a number of other specialized premium agencies. Each of these agencies is among the leading providers in their respective sectors (home, beauty, garden, health, etc.). The concept of marketing highly specialized niche content, each with its own team of specialists and on a branded technological platform has made StockFood one of the most successful European photo agencies.

Martin Skultety, Managing Director of StockFood GmbH, says: “We are delighted to add Look as another outstanding special collection to our portfolio of niche agencies. Look represents passionate travel photography. A multitude of incredibly talented photographers continue to discover our planet from new perspectives. Look photographers are taking us along on their journeys and invite us to marvel and dream. Our goal will be to inspire many more premium image users to literally take a look and to further expand the digital marketing channels for Look photographers.”

Thomas Wild, Managing Director of Look GmbH, emphasizes: “We are handing over Look to a very renowned photo agency and trust StockFood completely on their future path. No other agency has a similar track record of successfully marketing niche photo collections. All our founders and the many long-standing photographers are looking forward to exciting developments in the coming years”.

UNESCO Welterbe Speicherstadt, Wasserschloss bei Regen, Hansestadt Hamburg, Deutschland

Seebrücke im Gegenlicht, Ahlbeck, Usedom, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Deutschland

CEPIC Statement on Works of Visual Arts in the Public Domain

CEPIC expresses its extreme disappointment at the EU copyright Directive as we see that last minute compromises were reached that will directly hurt CEPIC members specialised in fine art, history and vintage photography. Some of these libraries are attached to cultural institutions and contribute to their financing – this not only by “selling postcards” as the agreed compromise text implies.

Indeed, the provisions related to works of visual arts in the public domain were agreed behind closed doors, following no impact assessment and no consultation with the various sectors that will be affected.

With no evidence as to the advantage to the larger public, the  compromise provisions will directly hurt the legitimate interests of small private businesses who support cultural heritage and in some European countries the cultural sector institutions who have invested millions in the digitization of  photography and contribute, avoiding tax-payer cost, to the preservation and distribution of cultural heritage and its promotion to the wider public. This provision is discriminatory to photographers working for cultural institutions, and in some cases it discriminates against the interests of those cultural institutions themselves who rely on income generation derived from licensing works of visual arts in their collections. In the long run the larger public will suffer from a lack of investment in digitization, indexation and proper documentation of cultural heritage material.

We regret that these provisions were introduced without proper assessment and that the private heritage sector was used as a “pawn” in a larger negotiation. As a result we see that the EU copyright directive will penalise rather than promote large parts of the visual sector.

We ask for Chapter 3 Art. 10 b) and Recital 30 a) to be removed.


Executive Director (Tel. Mobile + 49 177 2332 514) CEPIC Center of the Picture Industry, Tel. Berlin + 49 30 889 101 60, www.cepic.org/contact

The European Commission Has Reached an Agreement Over New Copyright Rules

The European Commission has reached an agreement over new copyright rules, including the controversial Article 13 that will require platforms like YouTube to tackle copyright infringements at the point of upload.

One of the objectives of the of directive is to “reinforce the position of creators and right holders,” helping them to be remunerated for the online use of their content by user-uploaded-content platforms. Read the article on Digital TV Europe.com  here .

CEPIC also reviews the agreement on their site here 

Our DMLA Counsel and Legal Committee is reviewing the agreement and will have further information on its impact on the industry.  Stay tuned.

IMAGERIGHTS BOOSTS OPERATIONS TO TACKLE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN GERMANY

 

ImageRights International Inc., the world’s leading copyright enforcement service, intensified its image search and copyright enforcement operations in Germany to drive value for its global photographer and photo agency client base.  ImageRights-developed artificial intelligence (AI), combined with its proprietary web search and image analysis algorithms, has enabled the company to analyze millions of German web domains to determine if an image use could be pursued for copyright enforcement purposes.

“Our clients have been asking us to strengthen our coverage in Germany due to the inability of existing technologies to locate the many unauthorized uses of their content that they see happening.  In response, we made the major investment necessary to ramp up our German operations in terms of both image search infrastructure and copyright enforcement capabilities,” explained Joe Naylor, President and CEO of ImageRights.

ImageRights’ most recent pool of web search servers was deployed in a biometrically secured German data center with redundant 10 Gbit/s fiber connections. As a result of the latest improvements, ImageRights is now finding and analyzing on average more than 77,000 new German sightings every day.  When clients access their ImageRights dashboard, they will see that the ImageRights AI has already filtered, sorted and ranked the sightings in terms of potential claim value, generating massive time savings for them.

“ImageRights is a reputable company that is known for a high level of integrity” said Marc Hügel, Partner at Munich-based law firm Waldorf Frommer Rechtsanwälte GbR. “As our firm is highly specialized in enforcing copyright claims for clients from all creative industries, we are looking forward to representing ImageRights and its clients and are ready to tackle the surge in copyright infringement claims.”

 

Copyright Law Rejected in EU Vote

A controversial bill in the EU seeking a rewrite of Europe’s copyright laws giving creators more power to restrict how their content is distributed has been rejected by lawmakers.  The vote was 318 against the legislation, known as The Copyright Directive, while 278 voted in favor, and 31 abstained, taking the reforms back to the drawing board.

The reforms to the law had two elements deemed particularly controversial by critics, Article 11 and Article 13.

Article 11, also called “link tax,” would force internet giants such as YouTube, Google, and Facebook to pay for using news snippets from publishers on their platforms.

Perhaps most contested is Article 13, which would require companies to monitor all content uploaded online to their platform to check it for copyright infringement. Critics said this could lead to the removal of internet memes, which often use copyrighted images.

The New York Times has a comprehensive article about the bill here.

 

Tech Giants Win a Battle Over Copyright Rules in Europe

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/business/eu-parliament-copyright.html

European Parliament lawmakers rejected a bill backed by news outlets and music publishers to restrict the use of their content on platforms like YouTube and Facebook.Frederick Florin/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

 

It’s a fight nearly as old as the internet.

On one side are news organizations, broadcasters and music companies that want to control how their content spreads across the web, and to be paid more for it. On the other are tech companies such as Facebook and Google, which argue that they funnel viewers and advertising revenue to media outlets, and free-speech advocates, who say that regulating the internet would set a dangerous precedent and limit access to information.

That battle flared up in Europe on Thursday. Two powerful industries faced off — technology against media, platforms against publishers — in an unusually aggressive lobbying campaign in the European Parliament over a bill that would impose some of the world’s strictest copyright laws, which would have required tech companies to filter out unlicensed content and pay for its use.

On this occasion, tech prevailed; the proposal was voted down.

The decision came amid broader efforts in Brussels to rein in tech giants. European regulators have already brought in tough new privacy rules, and are considering enhancing them. They have hit Silicon Valley companies with hefty antitrust fines, and are investigating them over their tax practices and handling of data. And like elsewhere in the world, they are increasingly skeptical of the argument made by internet companies that they are simply impartial platforms that cannot be held responsible for what is posted on their pages.

“Making content available on the internet does not come without responsibility,” said Eleonora Rosati, an associate professor on intellectual property law at the University of Southampton’s law school in England, who has been tracking the bill. “Rights holders want to control how their content is made available, shared and indexed.”

But after a well-coordinated effort by companies including Facebook, Google, Reddit and Wikipedia, as well as a grass-roots campaign by backers of an open internet, the European Parliament on Thursday rejected the proposed copyright law. Though lawmakers can still revise the bill and call another vote, the result is a blow to media companies that had believed that, if ever there was a good time to impose tougher rules on tech giants, this was it.

Media businesses like Axel Springer of Germany have become frustrated because even as their content has spread online, it is platforms like YouTube, owned by Google, and Facebook that have grown into advertising powerhouses on the back of the material.

Those media companies have been seeking a rewrite of Europe’s copyright laws that would give them more power to restrict how their content is distributed. They also cited concerns that Silicon Valley was not playing a strong enough gatekeeper role when it came to curtailing hate speech, violent extremism and fake news.

Supporters of the bill argued that stricter copyright laws would give content creators more leverage against internet behemoths such as Google. Publishers have long complained that such companies profit from the work of others.

“The real issue is Google’s market power,” said Lionel Bently, a law professor at the University of Cambridge who focuses on copyright. “The content industry feels it can’t negotiate on a level playing field.”

Influential policymakers in Brussels such as the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, have seemed receptive to such arguments. A proposal was put forward to require websites to use filtering technology to block unlicensed content from being posted and to obligate them to pay fees for news articles and other material posted online.

The proposed rules would have added up to a sweeping change to copyright law.

Operators of websites have long been protected from liability when unlicensed content is posted by a user. Instead, they are required only to remove infringing material once it is brought to their attention. In effect, if someone posts a movie clip on YouTube, or shares the text of an article on Reddit, those websites are not held legally liable.

The new European proposals would put more responsibility on website owners, creating a potentially costly problem for sites that depend on user-generated material.

The most contentious provision of the plans would require websites to use filtering software to screen such content before it was posted. YouTube already has a system to weed out unlicensed material, but the European rules would have gone further by requiring others to use similar tools. Another requirement, favored by book and news publishers, would prevent websites from using pieces of their content without authorization.

Critics of the bill argued that it would lead to many unforeseen consequences, warning that it could even affect satirical content or the use of images in internet memes. They said it would restrict what was available online, and some described a provision requiring permission before websites used publishers’ content as a “link tax.”

“There’s no way that those algorithmic filters are going to be able to decide that something is fair use, parody, a meme or a mash-up,” said Danny O’Brien, international director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights nonprofit group that opposed the bill.

In defeating the proposal, the technology industry showed that it still held considerable influence, even as it has faced widespread criticism over privacy violations, the spread of misinformation, accusations of anticompetitive business practices and concerns about smartphone overuse.

The coalition against the proposal that came together over the past month was similar to defenders of net neutrality in the United States, a mix of corporate giants and open internet activists. They said the copyright bill would limit the access to information and would overburden operators of websites, especially those without the resources of an American tech giant, with the costly task of screening user-generated content before posting it.

Wikipedia blocked access to articles on its site in many European countries and encouraged its users to call on their representatives in the European Parliament to vote against the proposal. Scientists credited with creating the internet sent a letter urging that it be rejected. Even David Kaye, the United Nations rapporteur on the protection of freedom of expression, raised concerns.

Wikipedia said on its website that the measure “threatens online freedom and creates obstacles to accessing the web, imposing new barriers, filters and restrictions.”

Lobbying ahead of the vote was “extraordinary, something we don’t experience on a normal basis here in the Parliament,” said Umberto Gambini, a senior aide to Ramon Tremosa, a Spanish member of the European Parliament.

Mr. Gambini said he had received hundreds of messages from individuals and organizations attempting to win Mr. Tremosa’s support. There was one from a Polish business group, he said, another from an artists’ organization, and others still from news publishers and associations representing tech companies.

He added that one message had come from the musician Paul McCartney, who wrote to members of the European Parliament in support of the tighter copyright rules.

But Mr. McCartney’s efforts were in vain: Mr. Tremosa ultimately opposed the bill.

General Data Protection Regulation Form

The General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR,  that goes into effect on May 25, 2018 will require companies that do business in the EU to provide a form to the companies that they are dealing with.  This regulation strengthens the privacy rights of individuals living in the European Union (not only E.U. citizens) and applies to anyone who does business with those persons, even if that simply means collecting data for marketing purposes.

Here is a form that you can use to facilitate this process.

General Data Protection Regulation Explained

There is some confusion over the GDPR, the General Data Protection Regulation,  that goes into effect on May 25, 2018. This regulation strengthens the privacy rights of individuals living in the European Union (not only E.U. citizens) and applies to anyone who does business with those persons, even if that simply means collecting data for marketing purposes.

Nancy Wolff, DMLA Counsel, has written a comprehensive explanation of the regulation that you can read here.

GDPR Explained

by Nancy Wolff, DMLA Counsel

You may have noticed an increase in urgent messages from companies updating their privacy policies in anticipation of the upcoming deadline to become GDPR compliant. “GDPR” refers to a new European Union law – the General Data Protection Regulation that goes into effect on May 25, 2018. This regulation strengthens the privacy rights of individuals living in the European Union (not only E.U. citizens) and applies to anyone who does business with those persons, even if that simply means collecting data for marketing purposes.

Privacy is becoming more and more of a global issue, and the E.U. is leading the way in attempting to protect personal data. The policies behind the GDPR aim to increase transparency, in terms of both what personal data is collected and how it may be used, and the accountability of those who maintain and use that personal data. The regulation is complex and extensive and includes steep penalties for those who are not compliant – up to €20,000,000 or 4% of global revenue from the previous year, whichever is greater.

But before you think the solution is to simply exclude all European residents from your client base, or have a panic attack, it is important to recognize that the E.U. “privacy police” are unlikely to expect immediate full compliance or have the operational capacity to scrutinize every business transacting with E.U. residents. Your goal should be to reevaluate your privacy practices to be as compliant as possible given your type of business and your use of personal data.

The stock industry is not a business that primarily engages in personal data collection. The purpose of the industry is to aggregate and license content on behalf of contributors to those who legitimately incorporate it in their publishing, marketing, or other media works. Stock companies should continue to use best practices regarding the security of personal data, obtaining proper consent from those who they send marketing communications, and updating privacy policies to accurately reflect how information is used and how an individual can contact someone in your company about what personal data is collected. (A new sample privacy policy that can be modified to comply with your company’s practices will be provided shortly). There is a common understanding in recent literature published about the GDPR that many industries will be provided a soft launch period, despite the fact that the regulation has been published since 2016.

At its highest level, the GDPR requires any company who collect personal data to maintain it securely, and to provide transparency in what ways it may use the personal data. The definition of “personal data” is quite broad and includes anyinformationthat relates to an identifiable person. See GDPR, Art. 4, Sec. 1. The individuals whose data is collected are called “data subjects.” See GDPR, Art. 4, Sec. 1. Those who collect data are called “controllers.” See GDPR, Art. 4, Sec. 7. Those who process data for controllers are referred to as “processers.” See GDPR, Art. 4, Sec. 8.  Any content library with contributors, distributors, customers and model releases, is a controller and needs to keep its records that contain personal data secure.

The first step toward GDPR compliance is to audit your data practices. Make a list of what personal data you collect and how you use that data. Then, when you update your privacy policy, you can use that list to make sure that you have provided adequate disclosure of how you use the personal data.The regulations require that the notice is not written in legalese but inclear and plain language.In general, you should not collect or retain information that you have no legitimate business purpose to collect.

The privacy notice should address the following to sufficiently inform the data subject:

  • Who is collecting the data?
  • What data is being collected?
  • What is the legal basis for processing the data?
  • Will the data be shared with any third parties?
  • How will the information be used?
  • How long will the data be stored for?
  • What rights does the data subject have?
  • How can the data subject raise a complaint?

Further, if someone from the E.U. requests information about the personal data you collect, you have an obligation to respond to requests within 1 month and may not charge the data subject for responding. You also need to give the E.U. resident the ability to update that information and the ability to remove the information if there is no legitimate reason to maintain that personal data.Additionally,any data breach of personal information must be reported within 72 hours.

Individuals subject to the GDPR can enforce these new rules, as it provides for a private right of action, but there must be some material damage.

In terms of marketing to customers or potential customers in the E.U., the consent rule under the GDPR is an “opt-in” instead of “opt-out” rule. Consent must be very clear and cannot be buried in terms and conditions. There should be a separate check box for marketing and promotions and for accepting terms and conditions.

It is too soon to know how these new regulations will impact the image licensing industry. To some extent all photographs of recognizable people contain personal data. Some have asked whether the new “right to be forgotten” will affect the industry and whether models or subjects could request that images be erased or consent withdrawn. While these regulations have not been officially interpreted yet, this kind of overly broad interpretation would be contrary to the purpose of the regulations – which is to address privacy issues with data collection.

The regulations do acknowledge that there are legitimate business reasons to retain certain personal information. The licensing of editorial as well as commercial images by image libraries serves an important business and newsgathering function and model releases are required to be retained for many business and legal purposes, and are necessary to produce in the event of a claim. Further, the “right to be forgotten” is not absolute and the regulations acknowledge that other rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression must be reconciled with this right. These exceptions should insulate the licensing of images and restrict persons from demanding that images be removed.

This article is intended to be a broad overview of this new regulation and not a complete description of the GDPR or any company’s obligations. You are encouraged to seek further advice and there are many websites offering insights. Importantly, the regulations have not been interpreted and we will continue to monitor this topic. The GDPR will be included in the DMLA legal panel at the DMLA Annual meeting in October.