Stop43.org.uk stop confiscation of your property and Human Rights in the UK Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill






  • 1. Is there any evidence of the relationship between the overall IP enforcement framework and economic growth or innovation?

    Yes. In its Executive Summary, the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of Intellectual Property rights states:

    "Effective means of enforcing intellectual property rights are essential for promoting innovation and creativity."

    The White House appears to agree:

    "Our economic prosperity as a nation, the health of our people, and the safety of our citizens depend on effective enforcement of intellectual property laws... Our Founding Fathers showed tremendous foresight in providing for the creation of intellectual property rights in the Constitution, which has helped spur our emergence as a global economic power and creator of products the world craves. But creating intellectual property rights, without effective enforcement of those rights, is meaningless and leads to stifling of innovation and growth."

    Closer to home, the booklet Copyright - Essential Reading recently published by the IPO states:

    "Copyright rewards the making of, and investment in, creative works while also recognising the need for use to be made of those works."

    The booklet Agreeing a Price for Intellectual Property Rights, also published by the IPO, states:

    "A licensee will not be willing to pay a generous royalty if the licence is restricted to a country where the law affords little protection for the IPR. In those circumstances others may (unlawfully) exploit the IPR even though the licensee is granted exclusive rights."

    We think you will find that anyone who has ever had to support himself and his family entirely on income derived from licensing the Intellectual Property he creates will agree unreservedly with these statements. The luxury of dreaming that "information wants to be free" is usually only afforded to the salaried, tenured and grant-aided.

    LINKS

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0779:FIN:EN:PDF
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/ipec_annual_report_feb2011.pdf
    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/c-essential.pdf
    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/iprpricebooklet.pdf
  • 2. In terms of promoting economic growth, what should be the objective of the overall framework for enforcing IP rights?
    • achieving near-total compliance with IP rights?
    • achieving an acceptable level of compliance?
    • deterrence of only blatant rights infringement?

    It should be actually to enforce IP rights, unlike the current framework, which largely does not.

    In addition, given the current and foreseeable economic situation and UK structural debt, it should be to promote growth in a way that maximises HM Government's tax receipts as a direct consequence of that growth.

    When announcing the Independent Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, Prime Minister David Cameron stated:

    'The founders of Google have said they could never have started their company in Britain. The service they provide depends on taking a snapshot of all the content on the internet at any one time and they feel our copyright system is not as friendly to this sort of innovation as it is in the United States.

    Over there, they have what are called 'fair-use' provisions, which some people believe gives companies more breathing space to create new products and services. So I can announce today that we are reviewing our IP laws, to see if we can make them fit for the internet age.'


    Individuals and micro-businesses generally pay income tax, corporation tax and VAT at high effective rates because they don't have the resources of large organisations with which to reduce their tax liabilities. UK Corporation Tax is presently set at between 21% and 28%; by using the Dutch Sandwich ploy, Google reduce their contribution to 2.4% (1), (2), (3). That is an order of magnitude less than is paid by individuals and micro-businesses.

    If a monopsonist Dutch Sandwich-class corporation supplied mostly by freelancers and micro-businesses cuts its costs and grows its market by driving down the level of fees it pays to its suppliers it reduces HM Government's overall tax take from that corporation plus its suppliers as a percentage of the gross turnover of that corporation's microeconomy. From HM Government's perspective this is deflationary even if that corporation's microeconomy grows.

    "According to the Government's own analysis, the creative industries account for around 8% of UK GDP, and probably a rather larger proportion of total employment. That's roughly the same size as financial services, and a good sight less dangerous to the wider economy these industries seem to be too. Many would put the figures much higher.

    Even so, Mr Cameron... dreams of making Shoreditch the next Silicon Valley. Clustered around the unlikely location of a busy North London intersection – which some already refer to as Silicon Roundabout – there are indeed a number of quite promising little technology start-ups. Many of them complain that antiquated copyright law gets in their way. But in a sense, so it should.

    You don't kiss goodbye to a highly successful, employment sustaining content sector on the off chance that one of these tiddlers, living like parasites on the pig's belly of supposedly free content, might one day become the next Google". Jeremy Warner in The Daily Telegraph.

    In what way would it be in the interests of the UK economy to reduce creators' rights in order to create a new Google in the UK? In what way will this lower the UK's structural deficit faster than encouraging growth at the creator and initial rights-holder level?

    We believe that measuring the contribution to the UK economy of the different sizes of entities comprising the Creative Industries by using a tax receipts metric will indicate that strengthening IP rights and ease of access to redress for infringements for individuals and micro-businesses will result in the greatest and most immediate increase in HM Government tax receipts.

    In order to prove our assertion, Stop 43 would need access to figures detailing:

    • The gross turnover of the UK Creative Industries;
    • The number of people active in them;
    • How many are individuals or micro-businesses with a turnover of less than (say) £1m;
    • How many are SMEs with a turnover of less than (say) £10m;
    • How many are organisations sophisticated and large enough to be able to implement a Dutch Sandwich or similar;
    • The number of employees of such organisations and their PAYE tax contributions;
    • The total income tax, corporation tax and VAT contribution made by the Creative Industries;
    • The average income tax, corporation tax and VAT contribution as a percentage of income from individuals or micro-businesses with a turnover of less than (say) £1m and their percentage of the total tax contribution of the Creative Industries;
    • The average corporation tax and VAT contribution as a percentage of income from SMEs with a turnover of less than (say) £10m and their percentage of the total tax contribution of the Creative Industries;
    • The average corporation tax and VAT contribution as a percentage of income from organisations sophisticated and large enough to be able to implement a Dutch Sandwich or similar, and their percentage of the total income tax, corporation tax and VAT contribution of the Creative industries.
    Being the unfunded voluntary Big Society effort of a relatively small number of activists, unfortunately Stop43 does not have the resources to acquire, collate and analyse these figures. But you do, Professor Hargreaves. We would like you to, please, and publicise the results.

    Let us turn to the photographic industry. According to Skillset, it is overwhelmingly composed of individual freelance professionals and micro-businesses:

    Size of the Sector2:

    The photo imaging industry comprises almost 14,000 companies, almost half (49% and 6,800) of which are sole trading or freelance photographers. Of the remaining companies in the sector more than half (58%) are in photography, a third (35%) are retail, laboratories or image production companies, 5% are picture libraries and agencies and 3% are manufacturers or support services companies. As can be seen below in Figure 1 the industry is predominantly made up of small companies and freelancers; including the freelance photographers more than nine in ten (93%) of companies employ between 1 and 5 people, 5% employ between 6 and 10 people, 2% employ between 11 and 20, just 1% employ between 21 and 50 and just 0.5% are large and employ more than 50 people and many of these can be found in the sub-sector of manufacturing and support services.


    Around 43,700 people work in the photo imaging industry which equates to around one tenth of the creative media workforce as a whole3. The majority of the workforce operates within the area of photography (56%) or retail (30%) with the remainder employed in picture libraries and agencies (8%) or manufacturing or support services (7%).

    That assessment does not include the vast army of part-timers who also generate saleable intellectual property. By definition those amateurs and semi-professionals will be individuals mostly operating on a cash basis when transacting their photographs, i.e. working in the black economy, and paying little tax on those transactions. It would be in the Treasury's interests to bring them into the white economy. Stop43's proposed scheme would facilitate this.

    Given the composition of the photographic industry it is highly probable that steps taken to strengthen the IP protection afforded to photographs will result in a far greater increase in HM Government tax receipts than weakening that protection in the hope of creating a new "UK Google" and enabling free access to our IP to subsidise its growth into the Dutch Sandwich class.

    Again, The White House has something relevant to say on this subject:

    The digital environment is at its core an economy of intellectual property. Digitalization of goods, services, data, ideas and conversations creates intrinsically new assets, often built on or derived from assets for which there are existing protections. The application of intellectual property rules to the digital environment are therefore essential to enabling creators to be rewarded for their work. Lack of intellectual property enforcement in the digital environment, by contrast, threatens to destabilize rule-of-law norms, with severe effects on jobs and economic growth. Undermining respect for rule-of-law values impacts a range of other policy goals affected by the Internet (e. g. , privacy). In short, criminal laws and intellectual property laws that apply in the physical world are based on a tradition of rules, checks and balances that must be applied to and tailored to the digital world.

    The current UK framework is costly, unwieldy to use and time-consuming. The move of copyright cases from Small Claims and County Courts to the Patents County Court has made this even more so for individual and micro-business creators, for whom the expense and disruption of pursuing the typical photographic rights infringement value of £50 - £350 represents a significant burden on their businesses, loss of revenue, loss of business confidence and consequent reduction in overall economic activity, growth and HMG tax receipts. Nevertheless, since its establishment last October the Patents County Court system has been kept unexpectedly busy.

    To add insult to injury, once a successful civil claim has been pursued the damages awarded do not exceed the value of the license for that infringing use, had it been agreed in the normal way. Punitive damages are only available for criminal breaches of copyright. History reveals that in practice, the chances of an individual or micro-business photographer successfully prosecuting a criminal damages claim for infringement are vanishingly small. We invite you to spend an unproductive day searching case law for examples. We understand if you have more pressing things to do that day.

    Contrast this with the situation in the USA where infringements of IP registered with the US Copyright Office can be subject to punitive damages of up to $150,000 per infringement. We invite you to spend a productive ten minutes searching case law for examples. If you can't spare ten minutes, here's one with a local flavour.

    In our view the framework for enforcing IP rights can only effectively be improved by establishing by statute a low-cost, simple, straightforward, on-line system by which claims by rights holders against rights infringers can be made and damages awarded in sums significantly greater than a normal licence fee would have been, even if not all of the money charged to an infringer gets paid to the rights owner, to make the pursuit of claims for infringements worthwhile and deter infringers. This system must allow us to be compensated for our time, costs and business disruption consequent upon pushing the infringement. We therefore require a practical punitive damages sanction to be made available to us. One example is that in force in the USA.

    • achieving near-total compliance with IP rights?
    This would be ideal but probably not workable and would probably cause unacceptable operational business harm.

    • achieving an acceptable level of compliance?
    What is an acceptable level of compliance? Is it to be judged by a percentage of turnover, a percentage of transactions, a percentage of IP objects the rights-holder has in the market, value of infringement, type of infringement, type of infringer?

    Photographers are realists and prepared to tolerate a certain level of infringement as a cost of doing business, as high street retailers tolerate a certain level of shoplifting. Note, however, that high street retailers go to all practicable lengths to eliminate shoplifting, commensurate with maintaining a workable, inviting and profitable shopping environment. Note also that while high street retailers are obliged to tolerate a certain level of shoplifting, that tolerance does not extend to an acceptance that property laws should be changed to make some categories of shoplifting legal.

    • deterrence of only blatant rights infringement?
    Even that would be an improvement on our current framework, which provides no deterrence at all against blatant infringement.

    LINKS


    http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2010/11/east-end-tech-city-speech-56602
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html
    http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/12/28/dutch-sandwich/
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/22/google_double_irish_tax_loophole/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeremy-warner/8358045/Intellectual-Property-reform-cannot-be-dictated-by-Google.html
    http://www.skillset.org/uploads/pdf/asset_13234.pdf
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/ipec_annual_report_feb2011.pdf
    http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/keeping-down-price-of-copyright-justice.html
    http://www.jeremynicholl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DM_COMPLAINT.pdf

  • 3. How can the effectiveness of the enforcement framework be measured?
    • the ability of companies to obtain financing based on their IP?
    • the ability of companies to innovate within the law?
    • the economic viability of new products, brands, or other innovative behaviour?
    None of the above, as primary metrics of the performance of individual and micro-business creators.

    Photographers can provide evidence in bulk demonstrating the cost to their businesses, the loss in their productive time and loss of creativity resulting from attempting to use the current IP enforcement framework to gain redress from infringers, and consequent actual and potential reduction in growth. A varied selection of case histories is included in an Appendix to this submission.

    For us, the effectiveness of the enforcement framework can be measured primarily by
    • its efficacy in deterring rights infringement;
    • its efficacy in obtaining redress for the rights holder;
    • its efficacy in minimising the amount of disruption and cost it imposes on the rights-holder in gaining that redress; and
    • the resulting confidence levels among rights-holders that businesses based upon license income from IP rights are worthy of investment.
    Judged on those criteria, for individual and micro-business creators the enforcement framework as presently structured is about as effective as a chocolate teapot.

    The EU agrees with us.

    In its Executive Summary, the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of Intellectual Property rights says:

    "Effective means of enforcing intellectual property rights are essential for promoting innovation and creativity. Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights harmonises the minimum means available to right holders and public authorities for fighting infringements of intellectual property rights. It also establishes a general framework for exchanging information and administrative co-operation between national authorities and with the Commission.

    A first evaluation of the impact of the Directive shows that noteworthy progress has been made since it was adopted and implemented in the Member States. The Directive created high European legal standards to enforce different types of rights that are protected by independent legal regimes (such as copyright, patents, trademarks and designs, but also geographical indications and plant breeders' rights).

    However, despite an overall improvement of enforcement procedures, the sheer volume and financial value of intellectual property rights infringements are alarming. One reason is the unprecedented increase in opportunities to infringe intellectual property rights offered by the Internet. The Directive was not designed with this challenge in mind.

    Other issues that could need special attention are the use of provisional and precautionary measures such as injunctions, procedures to gather and preserve evidence (including the relationship between the right of information and protection of privacy), clarification of the meaning of various corrective measures, including the costs of destruction, and calculation of damages."

    LINKS

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0779:FIN:EN:PDF
  • 4. What evidence is there of the effectiveness, in terms of promoting economic growth, of various approaches to improving compliance with IP rights?
    • type of sanction: criminal / civil / injunctive relief
    • use of mediation or other alternative dispute resolution
    • adjustments in commercial terms, e.g. pricing
    • education
    • technological protection measures
    Looking at the operation of property laws in other economic sectors, and referencing physical property, it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of laws against property theft accompanied by deterrent and punitive sanctions accessible at reasonable cost commensurate with the size of the theft, such as claims for £5,000 or less pursued via the Small Claims Court, provide sufficient protection of that property to enable its owners to trade it in ways that promote economic growth.

    Photographers require the same practical levels of property protection and access to deterrent and punitive sanctions as other property owners. In this we are not asking for any special treatment.

    • type of sanction: criminal / civil / injunctive relief
    Based on the results of the British Photographic Council's survey, current legal sanctions can be regarded as ineffective. They are particularly ineffective in redressing the most common infringements, those of low value, because they are rarely cost-effective to pursue. A negative result of that is to encourage the assumption by the infringer that such infringements are of little value, represent little economic threat to them from legal action and can be continued with impunity. The business model of the National Press is based upon such assumptions (1), (2), (3). A second result is that infringers come to believe that they have not in fact, infringed. Direct evidence of these statements is presented in the Appendix.

    • use of mediation or other alternative dispute resolution
    In the UK, mediation of any kind is rarely used at present in disputes over the low-value infringement of rights in photographs. In the form of out-of-court settlement of higher-value infringements, no-win-no-fee intermediaries working on behalf of rights holders in low-risk cases can be useful.

    As a consequence of "Fair Use" doctrine, the legal uncertainty it engenders and the plethora of litigation necessary to adjudicate each case, in the USA arbitration in Intellectual Property disputes has become an industry featuring large arbitration companies. Unfortunately the industry appears to be falling into disrepute as a result of these companies tending to treat their large corporate clients as their 'customers' and concentrating on securing desirable outcomes for them.

    • adjustments in commercial terms, e.g. pricing
    We find that users will very often prefer to steal rather than pay any price if they believe that they can do so with impunity. Consequently, downwards adjustment in pricing by photographers is usually ineffective in preventing infringement. We find that we can't go lower than free.

    • education
    We have heard it repeatedly asserted that improvements will result from education. This can be split into two categories:

    1. Educating clients, commissioners and users about copyright law
    2. Educating the public.

    In practice we find that in most cases, attempts to "educate" ignorant clients, commissioners and users about copyright law, rights, licenses and usages fail and sour the business relationship. They usually assume that they have "bought the photograph" in the same way that they buy physical objects, and having "bought" it object to any suggestion that there might be restrictions on its use.

    The level of ignorance varies by photographic market.

    How are we to educate the public, who appear to believe that everything they find on the Internet is "in the public domain", "free" and theirs to use? By way of Government Information Films? How even are we to educate the Daily Mail newspaper, which appears to believe that it is possible for a photograph to be "© Internet"?
    Infringers frequently assert that publishing images on the Internet places them in the public domain, confusing it with "the public eye". My front garden is in the public eye; it certainly is not in the public domain.

    Stop43 believes that the only effective way of educating users is by intervening at the point of potential infringement. The Picscout ImageIRC system can enable this, but as presently implemented can be a costly protection for photographers. We advocate the establishment of a free-to-use implementation of such a system in our main proposal.

    • technological protection measures
    Image search software such as Tineye and Picscout has proved its efficacy in tracking down infringing uses of digital images. Software such as this, accessing the machine-readable online metadata repository for all suitable kinds of cultural digital intellectual property that we propose, represents the obvious and appropriate (indeed, only practicable) way of policing the IP rights of digital image rights-holders.

    Further, the Picscout ImageIRC system represents a way in which rights can be more easily monetised by removing "friction" from the licensing process. Implemented in the way we propose, this system would act as a platform for increasing economic activity, innovation, growth and HM Government tax receipts, not only by simplifying the licensing process but also by bringing informal cash transactions involving amateur-originated IP into the white economy.

    The digital image file formats in wide use, with an installed base of many billions, are JPEG, TIFF and BMP. Their metadata can easily be altered or removed and cannot be protected by technological measures. Even if it could, such measures are largely ineffective. All workable copy protection mechanisms can be defeated.

    LINKS

    http://www.british-photographic-council.org/file_download/5/bpc-2010surveyresults.pdf
    http://www.jeremynicholl.com/blog/2010/12/13/uk-daily-mail-faces-million-dollar-us-copyright-suit-from-mavrix-photo/
    http://www.jeremynicholl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DM_COMPLAINT.pdf
    http://www.thelawyer.com/permission-before-you-publish/78733.article
    http://www.ipprotection.net/
    http://www.alternet.org/economy/141468/wall_street%27s_vast_private_judicial_system_exposed_as_fraud_/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336141/Rhiya-Malin-2-died-heart-attack-getting-head-stuck-window.html
    http://www.picscout.com/imageirc.html
    http://www.tineye.com/
    http://www.picscout.com/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP_file_format
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata#Photographs
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_protection
  • 5. To what extent is cost of litigation a factor in the effectiveness of civil remedies?
    • evidence on litigation insurance
    • effect of different civil fora: High Court / County Court / IPO Tribunal
    For the most common infringement value of £50 - £350 litigation is rarely cost-effective. It becomes more so as the value of the infringement increases, but given that damages awarded do not exceed the value of the license for that infringing use, the rights-holder always ends up suffering a net loss as a result of the expense and disruption of pursuing the infringement. This loss represents a significant burden on their businesses, loss of revenue, loss of business confidence and consequent reduction in overall economic activity, growth and HM Government tax receipts - the time spent gaining redress would have been better spent on creating and licensing new work.

    Moreover, when the infringer is a well-funded organisation and the infringement itself not absolutely clear, in other words when there is a real risk that the rights-holder might lose the case, then the possibility of significant financial liabilities can prevent the rights-holder from pursuing his rights:

    “It is important to stress that intimidation need not involve explicit threats. Awareness of the financial discrepancy between itself and a party with which it is in dispute, will generally be enough to cause the weaker party to avoid litigation”. - Professor William Kingston, "Enforcing Small Firms Patent Rights", Cordis

    "The average US copyright case costs $1m in legal fees." Alison Wenham, chairman and chief executive, Association of Independent Music, speaking at the IP for Innovation and Growth Event at the RSA on March 2nd 2011.

    "Fighting the Google Book Settlement cost the American publishing industry $30m in legal fees". Simon Juden, head of public policy, Pearson Plc, speaking at the IP for Innovation and Growth Event at the RSA on March 2nd 2011.

    • evidence on litigation insurance
    Stop43 know of no UK photographers who have it. Instead, as best practice some UK photographers register their work with the US Copyright Office in order to be eligible for punitive damages should their work be infringed in the USA. Clearly while better than nothing this is less than optimal.

    • effect of different civil fora: High Court / County Court / IPO Tribunal
    When it was possible to pursue claims in the Small Claims Court many photographers did so when they judged it to be potentially worth the cost, effort and disruption to do so. The transfer of copyright infringement cases to the Patents County Court has had a chilling effect on the pursuit of infringements by most photographers. We usually cannot afford the costs, time and potential liabilities. For us, the net effect of this transfer has been negative.

    For this reason, it is hugely important to us that Lord Justice Sir Rupert Jackson's recommendation for a 'small claims' procedure for intellectual property disputes valued at less than £5,000, based partly on the results of a survey undertaken by SABIP and published after SABIP's dissolution, be implemented as soon as possible.

    The National Union of Journalists have made a similar recommendation which they included in their evidence to the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property.

    LINKS

    http://www.british-photographic-council.org/file_download/5/bpc-2010surveyresults.pdf
    ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/innovation-policy/studies/studies_enforcing_firms_patent_rights.pdf
    http://www.thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2011/ip-for-innovation-and-growth
    http://www.copyright.gov/eco/
    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/jackson-final-report-140110.pdf
    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/county-court/patents-county-court#headingAnchor4
    http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresearch-ipenforcement-201010.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabip
    http://www.londonfreelance.org/ar/gowers.html#court
    http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/0118404830/0118404830.pdf
  • 6. To what extent, if any, does the enforcement of IP rights operate as a trade barrier, particularly for UK companies attempting to expand overseas? Are there particular issues with particular countries?
    • are foreign enforcement systems accessible to UK rights holders?
    • does the digital/online environment affect enforcement abroad?
    Historically it has often been difficult to secure payment from non-UK clients. Consequently, many photographers are reluctant to supply non-UK clients for fear of never being paid.

    It can be very difficult to gain redress for infringements in other jurisdictions. The shining exception is the USA, where infringements of IP registered with the US Copyright Office can be subject to punitive damages of up to $150,000 per infringement. An increasing number of UK photographers now take the precaution of registering all of their work with the US Copyright Office for this very reason. It is somehow absurd that UK photographers must pay to register their work in a foreign jurisdiction in order to gain practical protection for it.

    We find that photographers are not the only ones to suffer in this way.

    LINKS

    http://www.copyright.gov/eco/
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/12382747
  • 7. To what extent would international courts, or similar bodies, make a difference to enforcement of rights and hence the UK economy?

    e.g. the proposed EU Patent Court

    Such courts would in all probability make a vanishingly small difference to photographers. In what way will it be practicable for a UK-based photographer to use the proposed EU Patents Court successfully to pursue an infringement in Italy that would have been licensed at between £50 and £350, and actually be paid the damages?

    Unless such a system could be low-cost, simple, straightforward to use and online, and guarantee payment of damages, to UK-based photographers it would be utterly pointless.