Written evidence submitted by Malcolm Hardie

1. I shall be most grateful if the proposed new legislation protects all my intellectual and creative poperty rights over images produced by me, in whatever form -– print, silver-based negative or transparency, digital file as stand alone or as transmitted attachment and any handiwork - for my lifetime and an appropriate period beyond my death. I consider the latter to be a period of at least fifty years and would prefer this to be one hundred years.

2. I would also call for the new legislation to make it illegal to organise a photographic competition that provides the organisers and/or others to use non-prize winning images without remuneration for any period whatsoever. I would also call for the legislation to limit the free use of prize-winning images to one year and for the copyright owner's details to be displayed with the image at all times. I do not think a limit on markets and domains would be practical but I would encourage Government to consider with the major users of photography and the major photographic bodies whether a continental limitation might be imposed based on the location of the organiser's registered or principal place of business.

3. In addition, I would call for the legislation to make it essential for any organisation whether for business purposes or not, that is granted a reproduction right whether electronic, in print or via some display, whether for remuneration by money or goods or prize or not, by the creator of an image to display that creator's name and copyright with the work.
 
4. I most strongly object that I should be forced to actually register work and consider that such a rule would be completely impractical anyway: the number of images created each day in London alone would require a substantial number of clerks  to register and the likely opportunity for cost, error, complaint and compensation would be massive. If I take steps to indicate on first submission that I hold copyright then that should stay with the created work thereafter.
 
5. I challenge the view that enabling created works to be instantly deemed orphans if the intellectual property right holder's details are suppressed or omitted and the work is subsequently copied or transfered will add value to the UK economy. It may reduce some existing costs but there would be a consequent loss to the rights holder and possibility of legal costs expenditure on their part. Growth in the legal sector, apart from creating congestion in our system is, of course, not truly productive growth.

5 September 2011