Copyright

Guscat

pixel 41 wrote:

the photographer retains copyright it not about stealing its about building a group of photoblogs that are irish in nature besides you can watermark your work, if you are fearful or better still join and see.

I was just wondering the best way to copyright your images?

B0rG

well... if your main objective is to avoid somebody using your images without paying you loyalties there are to ways:

1. never show them to anyone
2. develop your distinct style (i.e. Ansel Adams) so the style of your work becomes a copyright statement

mikeanywhere

Put your name on the picture too

mervifwdc

Definitly put the name on the picture, but if your serious about it, put it in the middle. I've had people tell me they have printed some of my web shots very small, then cut off the copyright. And these are folks who know me! Sheesh!

Merv.

rymus

Merv, I'd club their bones if I were you.

Defo in the middle if you want max protection. Great big honking copyright going straight across the image.

Dimy

Personally I couldn't care less, I consider my photo's as freeware. I'm not making a living from it, neither do I feel I'm talented enough to ever make a living from it in the future. If people want to use my pictures I don't mind, neither would I mind if they'd give me something for it by their own free will
If you don't want people to use them, don't post them! Or ruin them with a big fat watermark through the middle as suggested....

JMcL

As far as copyrighting your images is concerned, you don't actually have to do anything. You automatically will have copyright in them as the photographer, though you may choose to assign a creative commons license or similar. In the absence of such a license, if somebody uses an image without your permission, then they're in breach of copyright.

I guess things get a bit stickier if you've got other trademarks in the image, eg a MacDonalds or Guinness sign. In France, even taking photos of architecture can land you in hot water (though in practice only really if you want to profit from the photo) as the architect retains copyright.

ambro25

JMcL wrote:

(...) as the architect retains copyright

...in the building (I thought I'd add this little nugget to complete the picture ).

JMcL is right, copyright exists ('arises') automatically as you take the shot. Whatever you do with it is your prerogative: publish, sell, give away, etc.

What copyright is, is that a right to prevent other from doing things with your photograph without your consent (first and foremost, copying it - then secondary infringement acts, such as dealings in it).

Even if you post your pixies online without a copyright notice, unauthorised reproduction = infringement.

However, copyright of itself is meaningless, unless you're prepared to enforce it in a court of law: you can scream that you own copyright in a photo until you're blue in the face - but if you're not going to sue, then so what?

As for the contents of the actual photograph (refer. MacD logo and what not), irrespective of whether you infringe someone else's rights with those, you still own copyright in the photograph. Example - take a pix of a Warhol painting: you own copyright in the photo, he still owns copyright in the painting - and can stop you publishing you pix because it is a copy of his painting (your own copyright notwithstanding).

Clear as mud? It gets worse (especially, as alluded to with the building above, when you consider how many different types of copyrights exist, and who owns which/where/etc.).

Xios

I think it gets really messed up when you gotta prove it's your image, that's easy enough with film, you've still got the negatives somewhere, that's proof enough, but with digital, i'd say it's a lot harder to prove, that's why i upload my images to deviantart, they copyright all your images and work for you, and will help you prove it in court, but ya gotta pay them for that

mervifwdc

Ah,

The "give away for free" thing. I hate that. I give stuff for free for clubs I'm a member of, or for a cause I want to support. That's donating something of value to a cause. Ok.

But, giving it away for free? This is fine as an individual, but it hurts the professional that's trying to make a living. i.e. if the paper always got free photo's, why would they ever employ any photogs? I'm not talking about the casual snap with a point and shoot that turns out brill, I'm more talking about semi-pro guys that give stuff away. Makes it hard for folks wanting to turn pro and get paid in cash instead of photo credits and goodwill (which are hard to exchange for pints I find!).

Sorry.
Just a little rant. Not targeted at anyone in particular!

Merv.

Fajitas!

Merv has a good point.

It makes it really hard to charge for gigs, because there's always someone else willing to take sh*te shots for nothing.

If a band dosn't want to pay for photos...ask them: Would you play a gig for free?

And leave them think about it.

JMcL

Xios wrote:

I think it gets really messed up when you gotta prove it's your image, that's easy enough with film, you've still got the negatives somewhere, that's proof enough, but with digital, i'd say it's a lot harder to prove, that's why i upload my images to deviantart, they copyright all your images and work for you, and will help you prove it in court, but ya gotta pay them for that

Well, at the most basic level the serial number of the camera is embedded into the EXIF data on JPEGs (out of Canons anyway) This is of course changeable for anybody with a bit of a clue.

More practically, if you shoot raw, it's unlikely that that file's going to be in the wild, so if you're in a position to produce that, I'd say it's pretty much the same as producing a neg.

There is software that will produce a digital watermark/signature. I don't know very much about it, but I think you have to pay on an ongoing basis, which is probably what DeviantArt do.

Lastly, I think Nikon put the funtionality into their higher end cameras to watermark the photos in camera, for evidence purposes to prove no tampering has taken place. Canon also have a kit for signing photos, I think it only applies to 1Dxyz Mk3.123 or whatever easily memorable handle they have this week, and is PC based, ie. you sign after the fact. At any rate, it seems they're aimed at the pro market, which I guess makes sense.