Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property

Written evidence submitted by Andrew Shaylor

My name is Andrew Shaylor. I am a working commercial photographer and have been so for the past 20 years. I earn my living as a photographer, from magazine commissions, contract publishers and occasionally from advertising commissions. I would like to illustrate my concerns for the future of my livelihood in relation to Hargreaves Review inquiry.

Here are three examples of recent experiences I have had in relation to my rights as a creator:

1. A magazine published by a Formula One racing team asked me to visit their headquarters to make some photographs. The fee was reasonable. However, they insisted that I should sign over all my rights to them if the commission was to go ahead.

2. I visited several people at a very large television broadcaster with a view to gaining a commission from them. It was indicated to me by some that they would like to give me some work but that I would need to sign away all rights for that particular commission and any future commissions. I also note here that the this company as well as a number of large magazine publishers also ask those who have worked for them in the past, to sign away their rights retrospectively, and that if they do not, they will be offered no more work.

3. I was recently alerted to an exhibition in Belgium by a very well known conceptual artist, that included an image he had created using two of my images.

The first two points are basically the same. If I don’t sign away my rights, I don’t get the work. The third point is interesting, because I would never have known about this infringement had I not been told by someone who knew my work. The artist ‘stole’ my images from a photographic book I had made, that contained the usual copyright information from my publisher. Yet he still went ahead and copied the images, and changed them as well. I have also had my images used for tee shirts and badges, with no recourse to me.

Nearly all of my clients are reasonable people and have an understanding and respect for the present law. But, I have recently become aware that some of my clients are looking into changing their commissioning contracts in a way that would have a negative effect on my earning power. If I stick to my principles, and refuse to work for companies who insist on me waiving my rights, I’ll soon have no work offered to me.

The UK is well known and highly respected around the world as a leader in the creative industries. Therefore, I think we need to approach the issue of copyright and IP on a global basis. My case in point 3 would mean that the artist in question would have been very clear that what he was doing was wrong and that there are consequences to this ‘stealing’ and abuse of someone else’s creation. It need not be complicated, and I believe that the Plus Coalition is a long way down the road to achieving this goal.

The need for clarity and strong, robust guidance on what is right and wrong with relation to IP is desperately needed. I find that many of my smaller clients are confused about the law in this area, and look to people such as myself to guide them. It would be much better for everyone if there was clear guidance.

The stripping of metadata should be an offence, because it takes effort to strip this information and it takes no effort to leave it alone. There has to be a proper deterrent in place to stop this widespread practice.

In particular, I would like the implementation of inalienable copyright concerning contract law in the new copyright legislation. This would hopefully stop the present problem facing many creators of ‘if you do not sign, we will look elsewhere’.

To paraphrase Professor Hargreaves, ‘The release of a vast treasure trove of images has no economic downside’ is simply wrong. Consumers may benefit, but the creators will not as their work will be available at no or very little cost.

Please take my views into consideration, as your decision will have an impact on my life.

2 September 2011