John Jebbia wrote:
Copyright notices don't do anything to deter thieves. I add copyright notices for really one reason. To promote myself. That's really the only purpose they serve for me.

I'd agree.

I also only put things on the web in sizes I'd expect someone to steal...(ie, not big enough for print or interpolation to print).

AustinModelPhotographer wrote:
What do you think about copyright notices on your photos?

It seems the copyright notices photographers superimpose on their shots are getting bigger all the time, taking up a larger area of the image than a standard one-line notice.  Some look more like advertising than simple photo credits.  Some are very unobtrusive. 

I often worry about how even my simple copyright notice will affect the end result in terms of being in any way distracting from the original composition and feel of the image.

Models/Photographers: What are your feelings on copyright notices? Do you feel that they take away from your shot? 

Photographers:  Copyright notices a necessary evil, or a good way to protect and possibly advertise?

Copyright on photos on the web is only Good for self Promotion.  If someone wants to steal your image, they will as long as it's on the net or published.  I personally put a frame around the image with my name as to not interfere with the image.  When I give copies to models, I do not include the frame and trust in them to give me proper credit.

Eric S. wrote:
Wait until your stolen photos appear on sites like
www.templatemonster.com
your bold embedded copyright may be the only leg you have to stand on when you are in the process of convincing them its yours and they need to remove it.

Quite true.

Eric S. wrote:
Wait until your stolen photos appear on sites like
www.templatemonster.com
your bold embedded copyright may be the only leg you have to stand on when you are in the process of convincing them its yours and they need to remove it.

It's not them I have to convince. They want to play hardball with me, I'll play..

Eric S. wrote:
Wait until your stolen photos appear on sites like
www.templatemonster.com
your bold embedded copyright may be the only leg you have to stand on when you are in the process of convincing them its yours and they need to remove it.

I have the Slides to contest this...
For my Digital Images, I have the RAW files...

Should be enough.

Shyly wrote:
When a photographer gives me images without the copyright notification, I put it on in small type, usually at the bottom.  It just seems to me like the fair and right thing to do.  (Unless they specifically request I don't, of course, in which case I respect their wishes.) 

I know it doesn't deter anyone with ill intentions, but I have found that a lot of people use my images to talk about size issues, and refer to me and my work, or to me as an example of size activism, by using one of my photographs.  They don't take the copyright notice off, because they don't have bad intentions for the photograph.  By having it there, the photographer gets the proper credit due, which might be lost otherwise by simply posting the photograph.

Now, that's a considerate model.  But to address one of the other questions, would you hate it if the photographer put a big 'ol logo that covered, say, about 1/8 of the image space (not the middle, but on the side)?

Vintagevista wrote:
I'll mark all of mine once in a clear manner for the web. AND once in the body of the image in a high transparency form.  Not so much for myself - but for the models that I have worked with.

If anybody would steal an image - they might crop out my normal mark - but I doubt that they would check it with high contrast settings to see my 2nd mark.

But then, I don't expect that my shots would be that highly desirable to steal - Heck, few folks even look at them.

VintageV

That's an awesome idea!

John Jebbia wrote:
Copyright notices don't do anything to deter thieves. I add copyright notices for really one reason. To promote myself. That's really the only purpose they serve for me.

Not true. I used to put a small notice along a border of my web images. Then I had 2 from my website show up in 1-900 ads in the OC Weekly (with the notice cropped out). I'm starting to put my URL on all images where it overlaps the subject enough to make cleanup/removal too much of a pain. (I've just gotten a new logo designed, which will be centered at 5% opacity on all images very shortly). I'm not trying to sell those images, so I don't care if it detracts a bit -- better that than having more models thinking I'm selling their images to phone sex companies.

Wm

John Jebbia wrote:
Copyright notices don't do anything to deter thieves. I add copyright notices for really one reason. To promote myself. That's really the only purpose they serve for me.

No,  the penalty for use it considerably more.

See Eric MUss Barnes,  he knows all about it.

MHana wrote:

No,  the penalty for use it considerably more.

See Eric MUss Barnes,  he knows all about it.

Ah but whether the image has it *on* the image, or *next to* the image makes no difference to the penalty.

The other MAJOR factor in penalty cost for someone stealing copyrighted material is if it's actually been sent in vs, not sent in to the copyright office.

raveneyes wrote:
Ah but whether the image has it *on* the image, or *next to* the image makes no difference to the penalty.

The other MAJOR factor in penalty cost for someone stealing copyrighted material is if it's actually been sent in vs, not sent in to the copyright office.

Regarding the Copyright Office:

1) Do most photographers generally copyright an entire work? Like, lets say you shoot a set of 60 images of a model. Do you copyright each image individually, or do you copyright the entire set?

2) Do you copyright even the images you don't plan on using.. just in case?

3) Does registering your images protect derivative works such as if you were to make modifications to images, or lets say if you were to use portions of images in advertisements, banner ads, etc?

4) For those that do TFP & register their images, does this delay the time it takes to get the photos to the model?

Hamza wrote:

I have the Slides to contest this...
For my Digital Images, I have the RAW files...

Should be enough.

-AMEN

Second Glance wrote:

Not true. I used to put a small notice along a border of my web images. Then I had 2 from my website show up in 1-900 ads in the OC Weekly (with the notice cropped out). I'm starting to put my URL on all images where it overlaps the subject enough to make cleanup/removal too much of a pain. (I've just gotten a new logo designed, which will be centered at 5% opacity on all images very shortly). I'm not trying to sell those images, so I don't care if it detracts a bit -- better that than having more models thinking I'm selling their images to phone sex companies.

Wm

Here also - I've found or have been told of several instances where my images were being used without my authorization/ knowledge.  A digital watermark is easy to do. (new layer- add words - transperancy=10-30 depending on how much it shows and then merge)  Its is not for promotion so much as it is for protection.  Sad to have to do that but there it is.

John Jebbia wrote:

Regarding the Copyright Office:

1) Do most photographers generally copyright an entire work? Like, lets say you shoot a set of 60 images of a model. Do you copyright each image individually, or do you copyright the entire set?

It would be very expensive to copyright each individual image. You can put all the images on a CD and send the entire work in for copyright purposes. As a matter of fact, you can put all your work for a week/month/year (depending on how much you can fit on a CD) and call it PHOTOS JAN 2006 and all the images on there will be copyrighted. They don't have to be of the same subject/model

2) Do you copyright even the images you don't plan on using.. just in case?

It'd be best to.

4) For those that do TFP & register their images, does this delay the time it takes to get the photos to the model?

Why would it delay? They are two independent functions. The images are automatically copyrighted the instant you clicked the shutter. The sending in of the copyright form and images formalizes the process (and provides stronger protection). You can give the model her copies as soon as you're done with the shoot, if that's how you operate.

Timothy M. Hughes wrote:
Putting copyrights on web photos is a very good idea in addition to registering the works with the U.S. Copyright office here: http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html

There are additional fines for copyright infringers who remove a © notice from an image.


-TMH

By registering your copyrighted material, if the courts find that the infringer purposely and willfully used your copyrighted materials, the courts can award you up to $150,000 per incident - That's worth the $30 fee to register a CD full of images.

If the infringer proves the infringement wasn't intentional, the award is usually $200. If you have a copyright notice on the photo and the infringer removed it to use your image, the infringer cannot claim it wasn't intentional.

Eric S. wrote:
Wait until your stolen photos appear on sites like
www.templatemonster.com
your bold embedded copyright may be the only leg you have to stand on when you are in the process of convincing them its yours and they need to remove it.

That actually happened to me. I found a bunch of pics in different layouts on templatemonster.com. And as far as I could see they had sold full rights to the  usage of all pictures included about 67times when I found out. Shame on them.

So, I put a bif fat annoying semi-seethrough credit on all my pics I put online since then. And I usually add a little © on pics I've modelled for unless the photographer prefers me not to.

Oliver Cole wrote:
ALL digital images that I shoot are backed up on a CD in original capture.

I tag my online images with my website, it's the only way for someone who sees my work to get in touch. I provide paying models/clients with digital images WITHOUT photo credit tags/copyrights, as I have an original CD of images for my perminent file.

NOTHING will prevent theives and theft.

Oliver Cole

I had images snatched from this site within 24 hours of posting and then circulated to adult yahoo groups...at that time my watermark was displayed down the side of the image.  It was cropped of before reposting .. so now I tag my images right across the middle for web images.. If someone wants to see the work they can see it but its a heck of a lot of ps work to remove the watermark.  Since going to this format I have not seen my images circulating even though I have posted more appealing images to steal.  So I do think that tagging them will deter some internet thieves but not all.. bottom line if they want it they will take it and do the work to remove what they need to.

ModiX wrote:
That actually happened to me. I found a bunch of pics in different layouts on templatemonster.com. And as far as I could see they had sold full rights to the  usage of all pictures included about 67times when I found out. Shame on them.

So, I put a bif fat annoying semi-seethrough credit on all my pics I put online since then. And I usually add a little © on pics I've modelled for unless the photographer prefers me not to.

Exactly. Its not so much a legal issue, its more of a "pain in the ass" issue. Especially when your polite e-mails are ignored.
Plus folks are less likely to steal your images if you have your copyright on them, plus I don't give a damn what people on the net think anymore, the offended people are lurkers & gawkers, not clients.

Timothy M. Hughes wrote:
Putting copyrights on web photos is a very good idea in addition to registering the works with the U.S. Copyright office here: http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html

There are additional fines for copyright infringers who remove a © notice from an image.
-TMH

Excellent advice Timothy. There is an article in the current ASMP San Diego magazine on this: http://www.asmp-sd.org/documents/Jan200 … letter.pdf. This was written by an attorney specializing in Copyright law.

Wm

Jeff Fiore wrote:
By registering your copyrighted material, if the courts find that the infringer purposely and willfully used your copyrighted materials, the courts can award you up to $150,000 per incident - That's worth the $30 fee to register a CD full of images.

If the infringer proves the infringement wasn't intentional, the award is usually $200. If you have a copyright notice on the photo and the infringer removed it to use your image, the infringer cannot claim it wasn't intentional.

EXACTLY!!!  Removal of a superimposed watermark/notice is not only a lot more work than most thieves want to do, but it quickly negates the "I didn't realize it was copyrighted" arguement!

Although I have to correct your last point. My copyright suit netted $15,000. Certainly not $150k, but a nice award nonetheless.

Wm

AustinModelPhotographer wrote:
Now, that's a considerate model.  But to address one of the other questions, would you hate it if the photographer put a big 'ol logo that covered, say, about 1/8 of the image space (not the middle, but on the side)?

Why thank you!

Normally, for me there is definitely a limit to how much watermark action I think is fair before it turns into a neon billboard and the point of the photograph is lost.  I'm generally not interested in creating images like that - what's the point?  I do this to participate in the creation of art, and to get people talking and thinking about their body assumptions, not because I have an illustrious future career that I'm aiming toward.  For me, the pictures themselves have to be worth it, or the whole thing is a wasted endeavor.

There are, however, some shooters who are just so damn good that I'd reconsider that.  Bruce Talbot, for example - we're going to shoot together the next time we're in the same town.  He is Watermark Man.  His work is just so gloriously glossy (I think of it as really really well done eye candy) that I just can't bring myself to care.

I guess for every rule there is an exception, but you're right, the photographer has to be tremendously skilled before it would be worth it to me for my viewers to have to clamber around a ginormous watermark to see the image.

Second Glance wrote:

EXACTLY!!!  Removal of a superimposed watermark/notice is not only a lot more work than most thieves want to do, but it quickly negates the "I didn't realize it was copyrighted" arguement!

Although I have to correct your last point. My copyright suit netted $15,000. Certainly not $150k, but a nice award nonetheless.

Wm

LOL, I said "up to $150,000" and at the discretion of the courts. Most copyright infringements suits are much less, sometimes as low as $2,500 so you "got a good deal"

Second Glance wrote:
Although I have to correct your last point. My copyright suit netted $15,000.

Hey, everyone! STEAL MY STUFF!!!

It might be a good way to sell your photography. Just sit home and file claims in small claims court at $1999 a pop, when people on the Internet steal your stuff. In most states the defendant has to appear in person in small claims court, or they lose. And you don't need a lawyer.

"What do you do for a living?"
"Uh, I get ripped off."

mjr.