Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property

Written evidence submitted by B M Totterdell

I have been working as a photojournalist for 22 years largely specialising in an Olympic sport and I would like to express my concerns with the Hargreaves review.

1. Moral rights e.g the right to be credited are not automatically granted and indeed can be waived by certain sectors e.g. newspapers. This coupled with the ability to remove all digital information attached to photographs leaves the proposed orphan works open to abuse - and it will be abused by many commercial organisations such as publishers, web companies as well as businesses - the review is heavily weighted in their favour and ignores the interests of the creator.

2. I dislike the idea of orphan works - my images are never orphans unless created as explained in paragraph 1. This is for three reasons.

a. The photographer needs to know who is using their work and for what purpose. We have a right to choose where and how it will be used. As someone whose work includes working with young people and women, I cannot allow my images to be in a place where they can be described as orphans and used how the exploiter wishes. That place if the government goes ahead with the Hargreaves review without making very important changes will be one that the Government will have created - and the image could be of someone close to you.

b. To be offered after the event a small token payment for images that have been expensive to produce (with very expensive photography equipment, computers, software, insurances, travel etc) is both a recipe for closing many small businesses for the benefit of large commercial companies quite able to include photographs within their project budgets. Further any register created would need to have global reach and would also put the cost back on to the creator in both time and money.

c. This represents a total lack of respect for creators, a respect offered to the baker when bread is bought, to the taxi driver when a fare is paid, to the consultant and accountant for the work they have done. Why is this respect not offered to the visual creator, the writer etc who provide something obviously wanted and valued and something that enriches our society?

3. Of course, if they can get away with it, commercial companies want the freedom to use images and words to add value to their product at low or no cost. They will be encouraged to continue believing that photographers and other creative workers are not to be respected. Encouraged to hope that their use is not found out and even if it is they will have got away with a small fee far less than the real value - restaurants only being paid £4.00 for a meal costing £8.00 to make will soon go out of business to the eventual detriment of society.

4. I also believe that artists rights to have their work protected has not been recognised by the review.

6 September 2011