can anyone categorically say what one needs to do to place copyright protection on a photographic image (or any piece or type of ones own work for that matter)?
For example, is it enough just to state that it's your own work and print the copyright notice under or on itlike you often see on photographic work? Or is there also some behind the scenes paperwork, registrations and fees paid etc behind the scenes?
To my knowledge, you don't even need the notice on the pic.
By taking it, you by default own the copyright.
That is absolutely correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by copyright.org.au
"You do not need to publish your work, put a copyright notice on it, or do
anything else before your work is covered by copyright - the protection is free and
automatic, from the time a work is first written down or recorded in some way."
That is a good question Paul, and thanks for posting it.
( and also thanks for the answers)
Now I'm of to google " how do I put a watermark on my pic in PS".
Not that I really have to I guess.......Thanks Gary
Cheers
Bartman
That is a good question Paul, and thanks for posting it.
( and also thanks for the answers)
Now I'm of to google " how do I put a watermark on my pic in PS".
Not that I really have to I guess.......Thanks Gary
Cheers
Bartman
If you want it all over the image, duplicate it, turn duplicate black, type in a slightly lighter than black whatever you want, copy paste back into original and blend by screen .
To my knowledge, you don't even need the notice on the pic.
By taking it, you by default own the copyright.
Yes this,and what H mentions is correct.
I've had a little experience in these areas,I have taken
a few images in the last year that have used in many
publications etc.Some people tried to steal them and claim
them as their's.But soon got found out.
One thing I do,if I have taken a good image-and think it
might be a valuable one,is post it on IIS or similar image
section-that way-as it becomes more in vogue and used
by advertising agencies around the world.If some one needs
verfiy you took it-trhey can follow the web to where it all began.
Also,if I'm in a shoot and the images are likely to go somewhere
I'll take some 'insitu' images-even crappy ones will look good to buyers.
When i was doing Motorsports Photog it was always an issue being ripped off. Watermark it, keep the resolution low (800x 600) or so and on my website at the time I could protect the image from being downloaded. They could do a screen grab but that makes for a poor pic anyway. www.snapfiles.com has got some free watermarking software which I would ALWAYS advise people to place on their pix. I used to put it in some awkward spot, radiator, bonnet etc so it was difficult to clone or crop out. Got ripped off by a Rally driver over here who used my image on his promotional brochure and never paid up.
My advice is to watermark everything, just in case.
The only country where you opt to register a copyright is the USA. This doesn't really grant you any more rights or alter your copyrights - it just allows you to sue for more damages if someone infringes your copyright than if you haven't registered the work.
Copyright is established when an idea is expressed materially for the first time by a maker. ie if you take an image the copyright is yours. I don't worry about putting makes on my images. If someone wants to steal it and call it theirs they are only fooling themselves. I don't take the images to make money, I take them to get satisfaction of doing the task.
If you post stuff on the web you are asking some person out there in cyberland to lift your image eventually. Many countries do not follow copyright related ideas. China being one. So if you don't want someone to lift your image and use it for themselves, DON'T POST ON THE INTERNET. It will be 100% safe right from the start then. Putting marks on images is just going to invite cropping or use of the heal tool or many other functions to remove your mark.
You can if you like put something in the data file to signify it is yours. You can always prove something is yours anyway, you should always keep all your subs or originals out of the camera. That is proof positive that something is yours. Good luck.
Been discussed many times on photography forums. you take you own it. If you can provide proof you took it.
Photogs in the US have made small fortunes suing over copyright theft.
There are some situations where making a fuss is pointless and you need to be aware putting an image on a public site you open yourself to theft.
Best way to stop theft is to place large ugly watermarks on images or reduce down quality to point they are unusable on any media other than small phone screens
I'm a commercial photographer by trade and the simple answer is you take it you own it. The only variation with this is if you are taking an image of a person (model) you may need them to sign a "model release" giving you the rights to use their image for profit. An interesting story for you - I was teaching Advertising Graphics students at TAFE in the early 2000's and my students submited me work to be marked. All of them had used images "stolen" from websites to create their work and about 50% had stolen images from my website to use in their work I failed the lot of them and they all complained that all their other lectures encouraged them to "steal" images. Moral of the story - people are lazy and too cheap to pay commercial photographers for their work and will steal images if they think they can get away with it - Watermarking is the only real protection you have if you put high res images on the web
I'm a commercial photographer by trade and the simple answer is you take it you own it. The only variation with this is if you are taking an image of a person (model) you may need them to sign a "model release" giving you the rights to use their image for profit.
Not entirely correct. You need the model release for "commercial use." Merely selling a copy of the image doesn't not constitute commercial use and thus does not require a release.
This reminded of the famous monkey selfie with the copyright issue going to court;
From theguardian.com:
If an animal steals your camera and takes a photo that subsequently becomes world-famous, there’s bad news: the US Copyright Office has ruled that the picture can’t be copyrighted - so anyone can use it for free.
That means that a row between the British photographer David Slater and Techdirt, a blog that focusses on copyright issues, over who - if anyone - owns the copyright to a “monkey selfie” is settled for now: it’s not Slater.
In new guidance the USCO has ruled that only works created by a human can be copyrighted under US law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention. http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-say-us-and-uk
So Craig - if its worth peanuts - the monkey wins !!
The issue of intellectual property protection can often boil down to not what is right or wrong but how much time money and effort you want to spend in legal costs protecting your interests.
Luckily a photographic copyright infringement tends to be relatively easy to verify that it was misused and a well written letter is enough to curb most people in your own country and at least some professionally run hosting and social media sites tend to support the general concept of copyright if you complain.
I failed the lot of them and they all complained that all their other lectures encouraged them to "steal" images. Moral of the story - people are lazy and too cheap to pay commercial photographers for their work and will steal images if they think they can get away with it - Watermarking is the only real protection you have if you put high res images on the web
