U.K.'s first attempt at an orphan-works legislation has failed. Clause 43 was removed from the Digital Economy Bill by the House of Commons.
iStockphoto has gone from a Web site started in a basement to arguably the most successful stock photography business and profitable social network. The company is celebrating its 10th anniversary with a mini-site and more than $20,000 in giveaways.
After the courts denied requests to join on the creators' side of the Authors Guild et. al. v. Google, several photo and creative organizations, along with a few individual photographers and illustrators, have filed a separate class action against the search engine.
In "Do Publishers Use Microstock?" the last paragraph was misattributed to Barnes & Noble photography director Chris Bain. The statement was made by article author Jim Pickerell: "So, if you're a photographer who has a collection of some niche subject that simply can't be shot today, there is a chance you'll make a sale. Otherwise, things are not looking too good."
Chris Barton, a photographer and the managing director of Photographers Direct, has written an article highlighting multiple uses of the same microstock image and asking why a reputable company would do this to itself. There are numerous answers, and most are so mind-bogglingly simple as to make anyone wonder why stock-industry insiders are still having this meaningless debate.
"Agitation works: MPs want re-electing. Deadline 6 April," warns stop43.org.uk. The Web site, named after clause 43 of the proposed U.K. Digital Economy Bill, was launched by nine U.K. photography groups to prevent what they see as orphan-works exploitation.
As the photo industry struggles with pricing and licensing structures to accommodate digital uses, such uses keep growing. Every month brings new evidence of advertising, marketing and communications budgets steadily moving in the direction of the Internet, with predictions that 2010 will see digital spending surpassing print.