Does Guernsey Really Want To Become Famous -- And Ostracized -- For Introducing Image Rights?
from the unintended-consequences dept
Just as the original term of copyright has been constantly extended from the original 14 years in the Statute of Anne, so the the scope of intellectual monopolies has been widened by the introduction of new ways in which people assert ownership of abstractions. Here's the latest idea: a right to protect your image.
It comes from an unusual quarter: the island of Guernsey, officially "Bailiwick of Guernsey", one of a group of small islands off the northern coast of France. Despite its geographical location, it is not part of France, or of the UK, and it is not even a member of the European Union. This unique situation perhaps encourages it to try out novel ideas like the proposed law, claimed to be a world first:
Image rights (or the 'right of publicity') are generally recognised as the right to control the commercial use of a person's identity and images associated with that person including distinctive expressions, characteristics or attributes.
That last paragraph underlines one of the key problems with image rights. Like the UK's infamous libel laws, such rights might enable the world's rich and powerful to censor stories that presented them in an unflattering light, by invoking their "image rights".
The importance and value of those rights have become an increasingly controversial topic, the latest instalment being the UK debate over the role of super injunctions as public figures seek to exercise significant control over the use of their image in the media.
The same article quoted above talks about how the "legislation will define the rights of an individual to protect their own image and balance those against the freedom of news reporting and the public interest." But a new law -- especially in completely uncharted areas as here -- is likely to require a number of detailed court cases to establish its contours. That's going to be expensive, and not something that news organizations can lightly undertake, to say nothing of lone bloggers, which gives those with deep pockets a powerful weapon against the media.
The Internet's global reach means that anything placed online could theoretically be viewed in Guernsey, and might therefore "infringe" on somebody's image rights there; this could presumably result in local courts applying financial sanctions. The question is, what happens next?
One response might be for most Web sites to attempt to block all access from Guernsey in order to avoid image infringements. That's likely to be imperfect, but it would be enough to cripple Guernsey's economy by cutting it off from huge swathes of the Net. Alternatively, other countries might pass legislation that forbids the enforcement of any awards based on image infringement, just as the US did to nullify libel tourism directed against its citizens.
Either way, it's hard to see much benefit to Guernsey from creating a new monopoly here. If it does, the island runs the risk that it will become isolated in a more modern, and ominous sense: cut off from the Net, and its legal decisions ignored by foreign courts. Neither would be very good for the island's own image as a modern forum for business.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, guernsey, image rights, publicity rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Btw, hello to all you Google-slaves; I believe today is the day they announced your privacy is taking a new and greater corn-holing.
Cue the shills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
.........For my brainz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I hope you flushed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...but you're already here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hello Dr. Nick!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What does Google have to do with Guernsey? Or Pinterest?
Have you slipped off your meds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In other words, it has nothing to do with anything, except the desperation of these people to try and pretend they're in the right, despite all the growing evidence to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the flip side, because copyright protections are paid for by the taxes from the public, when does the public get back their investment and get ownership of the previously protected material?
As it seems, never.
What a deal! No wonder I feel ripped off.
I really don't blame the individual artist. They are addicted to the sweet deal governments world wide give them.
The lawmakers need to be booted out. Every one of them. I really don't care how much "good" they have done. Until they learn that they are there at the whim of the public, they will work very hard to keep their seat of power and influence. After all, it sure seems to pay very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they haven't yet been isolated due to their banking and companies practices then I'd suspect they aren't particularly worried about being so due to copyright policies. Of course they could be quite wrong on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clearly the best response to this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Image
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Image
This is what I believe is at the root of our governments problem. So many things seem like such great ideas when you just look at them by themselves.
The idea that we should protect children from child molesters is a great thing that very few people will ever argue against when the issue is looked at by itself. As a result everyone will agree to a new law to protect the kids. Then a little later a new law is proposed once again to protect the kids.
Each of these laws when looked at by themselves seem like such great and noble things. The problem is so very few bother to take a step back and look at the entire system. Little by little laws were added, each with their own merit but when placed beside all the others we suddenly have a system that is far to complicated to understand, maintain or ever hope to enforce.
It is time for government to do some house cleaning. Take a step back and look at the system as a whole. Take a look at the laws and toss them replacing the 30-40 laws about something into 1 simple law containing the best of all the little laws.
If they were to do this then we would come out with a clear system of government. There would no longer be the rampant cheating of the system. It would close the loopholes and make it possible to actually enforce the things that truly matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bunch of stupid cows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my ugly face likes this one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How close will this go?
Can I charge the government every time they photograph me for security reasons or with a speed-camera? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]