Photographer
Kathleen Murtagh
Posts: 89
San Francisco, California, US
After going back and forth repeatedly about what to do about marking photos, I decided upon a small logo that is unobtrusive.
I figure that some stealing can actually be advertising. For example, I know of a lot of people who grab my images and put them on their desktops, or print them out and pin them up somewhere. This is OK with me, because then someone else walks by, sees it, likes it, and can look at the corner of the image and see who made it. Googling my name always comes up with my website - and I do get a lot of hits from people searching my name.
So, in order to ensure this type of advertising maintains itself, I created a logo that was elegant in and of itself. It's just my signature with my name in print under it which is placed just big enough to be readable in a bottom corner just like a normal signature. I figure, doing it this way will prevent someone from going out of their way to remove it, because it fits as part of a peice of art work.
Photographer
- null -
Posts: 4576
MHana wrote:
See Eric MUss Barnes, he knows all about it. Thank you for that fine intorduction.
Yes, ladies and gentleman, good old E-man is here to enlighten you.
Placing a copyright notice DOES legally give you stronger protection from copyright theft. No, it does NOT stop thieves. But it gives you STRONGER LEGAL PROTECTION - meaning, if someone does steal it, you can get more money. Period.
Now if anyone wants to disagree with me, all I can say is - shut your ignorant hole. Read the copyright law. It is stated plain and clear.
Chapter 5, § 506:
(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.
If you place a notice on your images, it increases your rights to statutory damages. Read here:
Chapter 5, § 504:
(c) Statutory Damages. -
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.
Put a copyright notice on your images and you DO have stronger legal footing to stand upon if they get stolen. Plain and simple. Black and white. Clearly stated by law.
If anyone thinks I'm wrong, okay, fine. My images got stolen, and the settlement I got allowed me to move from snowy Ohio to sunny California. My ass was laughing all the way to the bank, bitches......
Photographer
C00P
Posts: 536
Anaheim, California, US
John Jebbia wrote:
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? You can register them as a collection. If you decide later that you have a particular shot that you know will be a high market item, you can register it seperately as well. Could be overkill, but could also make a stronger case in court.
John Jebbia wrote:
2) Do you copyright even the images you don't plan on using.. just in case? I send in a CD every 90 days of everything I've shot. Doing so in 90 day increments covers you under "Must have been registered within 90 days..."
John Jebbia wrote:
4) For those that do TFP & register their images, does this delay the time it takes to get the photos to the model? When you file, keep a copy of your VA form and CD/DVD for reference. That should cover you to give images to models while you wait for the registration to come back from the copyright office.
Photographer
Habenero Photography
Posts: 1444
Mesa, Arizona, US
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?
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? 1 I copyright and register all my artwork.
2 I copyright all the work just incase I find a use for the image later.
3 Registering an image protects you from other people using derivatives of your work. You as copyright holder are able to use your own works in any manner you wish. I register the finished images.
4 I send in my registered files about 4 times a year (depends on how fast the CD is filled). The TFP images are copyrighted from the moment of clicking the shutter I put them into my register folder, copy it to cd and seal and mail a copy of that to myself (registered mail) before I give the model the images. The actual registration sent to the copyright office is done a bit later. It adds about half an hour or less to the time it takes to get photos to the model.
Photographer
00siris
Posts: 19182
New York, New York, US
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? WOW - this is a big one>
I guess there's no real way to stop anyone from stealing images if they wanted to. Internet cache, photoshop, scanning, etc etc etc,
And you're right - the bigger the notice is the more they begin to become proofs more than anything else - I'm on the fence on this issue.
I like to include my copyright information in the metatag intrsuctions built in the image itself (although that too is easily erased).
The best thing you can do is actually get the images copyrighted rather than just say it and if you find an infringement - DO SOMETHING
Model
Josie Nutter
Posts: 5865
Seattle, Washington, US
AustinModelPhotographer wrote:
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. For something to be viewed in person, at a showing or something, sure, that's a problem. I don't watermark versions of my photos for OFFline usage. However, for online usage... it's really THE only real way to help deter theft / copyright infringement. After years of having to deal with various forms of attempted identity theft mostly related to my photos, it's not even something I consider NOT doing any more. For photographers, well, YMMV.
For people who say it doesn't help at all... well, in my case, it really has. Seriously. Anyone who's kept an eye on my blog over the years will have noticed a SERIOUS decline in thieves as soon as I started watermarking in 2001 or so.
Photographer
Scott Aitken
Posts: 3587
Seattle, Washington, US
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. What he said.
I know that putting my copyright notice on the photo won't stop a determined thief. However, it significantly bolsters my case if I ever catch them doing it. Without any mark, it is very easy for them to say "Oops. So sorry. Didn't know it was copyrighted. Heh heh." If they leave my copyright mark on there, they can hardly claim they didn't know they were stealing copyrighted material. And if they actively remove my copyright, it proves even more malicious intent.
And it is a mild passive form of advertising. I get lots of hits on my website that are from people typing in my domain, many of which I'm sure they saw on my photos floating around.
I try for a happy medium. I put my copyright notice on the photo in such a way as to ruin it if they try to remove it, but I attempt to have it subtle enough not to totally ruin the photo. I also never post an image on line that is large enough to print effectively.
|