Copyright: How do you CYB?

[roncgizmo]

It might be wishful thinking on my part but how do you cover your butt when
you post a photo on a site? what rights do we have once we upload?

It might not just be about the money the credit is just as important.
let's say for example:

You take a great photo of your pets and someone Photoshops it
adding a few words along with his/her John Doe and for some reason
it turns into a popular tag for myspace without anyone knowing it was
your shot.

Or you're in a mall and you walk by a frame shop and see your photo
on the wall.

or perhaps you just start seeing it on the net in places you never put it.

I think you might get the idea. So do we have any right to put a stop to it,
demand credit or payment and how would we prove that our work?

Do we have to add a watermark or a little c on it in order to CYB or is
just being the original owner enough?

Anyone know how this all works without to much legal jargon?

Thanks,

Ron

[JimH]

Straight from the source: U.S. Copyright Office

However, to protect your works with letigous teeth, you are better off to register them before displaying them. (note that there is an online registration in beta right now)

[brian.austin]

Jim gave the legal protection you have.

The reality is that, once posted on the 'net, you lost control of it. How much loss of control is based on what resolution you use, how it's posted, etc.. But the Internet has no delete button. It's there forever after that.

[mcbit]

Brian is right, keep the resolution to a minimum!

He with the biggest resolution wins!

[roncgizmo]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Jim gave the legal protection you have.

The reality is that, once posted on the 'net, you lost control of it. How much loss of control is based on what resolution you use, how it's posted, etc.. But the Internet has no delete button. It's there forever after that.

That makes sense it also answers my question about why the DSLR's have
a dual mode (RAW/JPEG) as a amateur it didn't seem practical to register
every shot I put up on the net.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by roncgizmo

That makes sense it also answers my question about why the DSLR's have
a dual mode (RAW/JPEG) as a amateur it didn't seem practical to register
every shot I put up on the net.

The RAW/JPG isn't really for that. Personally I think it's overkill but many people use the JPG to do the initial cuts and process the RAWs afterward. Or to speed up post work. Or to send images to two cards for redundancy (like with the Canon 1D series).

[Mark McCall]

I was talking to Doug Box a few years about this very topic.

I was surprised to learn you can copyright everything you shoot during a specific time frame, with one form.

If memory serves (it was a short conversation, and I could be wrong), he recommended registering your work once a year.

[JimH]

Link to the eCO FAQ

[Loa]

Hello,

I just found this link on Ken Rockwell's site. Basic info, but interesting.

One thing of note: apparently you can register an image up to 90 days *after* someone "steals" it from you.

Anyway, here's the link: Photoshop Insider » Catch My Exclusive Interview with Attorney Ed Greenberg for the Straight Scoop on Copyright, Model Releases, and Shooting in Public

Loa

[dbphotos]

According to an interview with Intellectual Property Attorney, Edward Greenberg, the following guidelines are necessary to legally protect your copyrights.

In order to sue for the illegal use or infringement of your images, you MUST have registered the images with the U.S. Copyright Office. The good news is that you have 90 days from the date of the infringement to file the copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. If you register within the 90 day limit you can sue for statutory and punitive damages and attorney fees. If you register after the 90 day window then you can only sue for "reasonable" actual losses or damages. The good news is that you can easily and inexpensively register groups of images online with the U.S. Copyright Office for only $35. (http://www.copyright.gov/register/ )

The bottom line is that you can sue for damages if, and only if, you register your images with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Based on this information, my workflow will now include a bulk registration for each event I shoot. I'll upload all my images to the U.S. Copyright Office and pay the $35 and know that I am covered. Once a photographer works this into their workflow, it should become rather simple.

** I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY AND THIS INFORMATION IS FOR EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL USE ONLY. SEE AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ATTORNEY IN YOUR STATE FOR GUIDANCE AND FURTHER DIRECTION. **

Here's another good link: Editorial Photographers - Copyright

[loraksus]

Originally Posted by dbphotos

If you register within the 90 day limit you can sue for statutory and punitive damages and attorney fees.

The kicker here is attorney's fees. Copyright (and patent) attorneys are expensive as hell - figure at least $150/hour more on top of the standard $200-$300/hr).
Also, everything must be done in federal court (which is expensive) - if you try to sue in small claims for infringement, the judge will probably boot it out even if the other guy doesn't show.
That said, if the infringement is part of a contract dispute, it probably can get dealt with on the cheap by you in small claims. Of course, you'd need to clearly show that a contract exists.

And getting back to attorney's fees - if you do it pro se (i.e. yourself), you're not entitled to anything, regardless of how much time you spent on it (and not to scare you, but it can take months or years to resolve). So get a lawyer.

It also helps to have a relationship with a lawyer before trouble happens, as most lawyers are hesitant to take on an infringement case involving a single picture from some joe blow off the street.

[Steve Buchanan]

There is no way to prevent someone from stealing something they really want, be it your car, your plasma tv, or your images. But there are things you can do to make it hard and to really nail them legally if they get caught.

1. Register your works with the copyright office. You can do a group registration of thousands of works. John Harrington has written about this extensively in his book and on his blog (Photo Business News & Forum)

2. Use the meta data options afforded to you to place copyright notices and author information on your photos. Does the average person know how to read meta data? No, but the people who should know better do and if they do infringe on your copyright it makes it a lot harder for them to say "Gee, I didn't know whose it was" BTW, the upcoming Orphan Works changes to the copyright law make this very important.

3. Don't sweat the small stuff. If someone uses one of your photos on their myspace page, be flattered. It's not costing you anything, you're not losing a sale (no 13 year old is going to license your photos) and you've made someone happy for 15 seconds. If someone takes your photo and publishes it in a magazine, call your lawyer.

If you've registered your work within 90 days of creation, it's legally considered registered at creation. Realistically, if an image has been infringed after registration it's worth pursuing, since you can claim attorney's fees and punitive damages as well as compensatory damages.

Bottom line, register your work. Every image you show to anyone (other than your mom) gets registered. If that means every month you register 755 images, so be it. $45 per registration(not per photo) is a small price to pay if you're serious about protecting your work. If that's too much, then why bother?

SB

[dbphotos]

Steve,

I agree with your statement that if someone really wants to steal they will, but I couldn't disagree more with your statement, "Don't sweat the small stuff. If someone uses one of your photos on their myspace page, be flattered."

Why would I be flattered with anyone stealling anything from me? Your logic doesn't fly here. If someone wouldn't pay for a car you had for sale but decided to steal it, should you be flattered? If someone wasn't going to pay for anything I owned but decided to take it anyway, should I be flattered? If that is truly your take on things, you should just make all your images royalty free or license under Creative Commons and let ayone use them for any purpose you want, but I will continue to protect my copyright! I will take infringement seriousely whether it by a major corporation or a kid with a MySpace page. Now I may take this opportunity to educate the kid about copyright laws, but it will not be allowed to continue and NO I will not be flattered.

Sorry, but that part of your statement is just ridiculous, but a more prevalent opinion in today's society than it should be.

[Steve Buchanan]

David,

To certain extent your right. If part of your business is selling rights for people to use in a personal manner like I was describing, then it is a big deal. I come from the commercial side of things where personal use is not usually a factor.

I understand your analogy with the stolen car but remember we're dealing with intellectual property here, not physical commodities. If someone steals my car, I'm prevented from profiting from it's sale, however, if someone uses a photo of mine, I'm not prevented from re-licensing it down the road. But again, that's the nature of my work, perhaps not everyone's.

The over arching point was this, if someone likes your work well enough to use it, it's not costing you a sale, and it's not a gross violation (IE, virgin mobile using a photo off of flickr without paying for it, or even getting a model release) of copyright and privacy laws, then hey, people like me. I got into this because I like making art that people enjoy. The whole point behind art is communication.

Further, I agree that this model sucks and I would like to be paid that $5 usage fee every time someone uses one of my photos on their myspace page but that ain't going to happen. There are lot's of things in this world that suck but still happen. This is one of them. Bill W had it right (Google serenity prayer.) My time is spent better making portfolio images then chasing down minor copyright violations.

SB

PS, if you're in this business solely for the money, get out. It will drive you mad and there are far easier ways to make your money (Plastics)

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Steve Buchanan

David,

To certain extent your right. If part of your business is selling rights for people to use in a personal manner like I was describing, then it is a big deal. I come from the commercial side of things where personal use is not usually a factor.

I understand your analogy with the stolen car but remember we're dealing with intellectual property here, not physical commodities. If someone steals my car, I'm prevented from profiting from it's sale, however, if someone uses a photo of mine, I'm not prevented from re-licensing it down the road. But again, that's the nature of my work, perhaps not everyone's.

The over arching point was this, if someone likes your work well enough to use it, it's not costing you a sale, and it's not a gross violation (IE, virgin mobile using a photo off of flickr without paying for it, or even getting a model release) of copyright and privacy laws, then hey, people like me. I got into this because I like making art that people enjoy. The whole point behind art is communication.

Further, I agree that this model sucks and I would like to be paid that $5 usage fee every time someone uses one of my photos on their myspace page but that ain't going to happen. There are lot's of things in this world that suck but still happen. This is one of them. Bill W had it right (Google serenity prayer.) My time is spent better making portfolio images then chasing down minor copyright violations.

SB

PS, if you're in this business solely for the money, get out. It will drive you mad and there are far easier ways to make your money (Plastics)

I agree that the car (or any personal property) analogy doesn't work with image rights. The image is still in your possession and still available for you to do with as you please.

Your idea that you can still use the image to sell later doesn't work well, though. By allowing it to be used elsewhere, with knowledge or implicit approval (like your words here, for all to see), you've essentially done a few things:

1. Limited editions aren't possible if anyone can copy it to anywhere.
2. You've set a precedent that it's okay to use your images with no permission and at no cost. Why would I ask you for rights of any sort?
3. Your ownership of the image becomes questionable as its control moves further and further away from you.

Most of my work (especially my recent stuff) doesn't see the Internet. Why? I'm selling it. I show prints and a book to local galleries. One of the selling points is that limited editions are TRULY limited editions. There are NO copies on the Internet. Ever. I don't give the digital image away and it's printing is controlled by me through a local reputable lab. I don't even e-mail it to them. I take it down on CD and get it back when it's done!

[roncgizmo]

Brian, You bring up an excellent point here... I was just starting to rethink what I said about myspace and then something you said hit. I could see how someone helping themselves to your work can devalue it and you fast. My thought was if someone liked it and they posted it in a page it might help get a name out and you had to do it again saying one more thing "You've set a precedent" that can really hurt when your work starts to have a market value.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by roncgizmo

Brian, You bring up an excellent point here... I was just starting to rethink what I said about myspace and then something you said hit. I could see how someone helping themselves to your work can devalue it and you fast. My thought was if someone liked it and they posted it in a page it might help get a name out and you had to do it again saying one more thing "You've set a precedent" that can really hurt when your work starts to have a market value.

Exactly. In fact, images wandering through MySpace or wherever would have considerably LESS value due to their widespread publication in an uncontrolled environment.

Thanks for the Special K, btw.

[loraksus]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

Exactly. In fact, images wandering through MySpace or wherever would have considerably LESS value due to their widespread publication in an uncontrolled environment.

Really? Is there some magic picture registration fairy that tracks this sort of thing? Tracks the number of views and tells everyone how badly you're getting screwed by having an image on some emo kid's website visited only by his 5 glue sniffing cutter friends?
If you think that 400x250 pixel images are somehow hurting your picture's value and your pocketbook, you need to wake up to reality. Your work, while it may be good, is not that good.

Besides... if someone is using your image on myspace or whatever, it's trivial to get it taken down. Send a DMCA takedown request to myspace or imageshack and it will be down in 24 hours. Incredibly simple, no debate, no BS and the infringer's site / portion of the site will probably get killed. You're also more than welcome to track the person down and file a suit in federal court against a 12 year old, but most people don't go that route because a.) it would make them look like jerks, b.) it's financially stupid to pay a lawyer money to sue a 12 year old and c.) good luck collecting on your 'win'.

In cases of willful infringement of high res images in a commercial setting by an entity with actual assets, you often end up with people who fight you and make you sue or at least hire a lawyer to get a decent settlement. Very rarely will someone come forth and say "whoops, we screwed up and would like to make it right."

Pretty sure you want to CYA for the latter case, but then again, what do I know. My farts don't smell like roses.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by loraksus

Really? Is there some magic picture registration fairy that tracks this sort of thing? Tracks the number of views and tells everyone how badly you're getting screwed by having an image on some emo kid's website visited only by his 5 glue sniffing cutter friends?
If you think that 400x250 pixel images are somehow hurting your picture's value and your pocketbook, you need to wake up to reality. Your work, while it may be good, is not that good.

LOL...classic. Can't debate based on facts so we go for the wild hyperbole combined with personal insults. Incidentally, you haven't seen most of my work for the last six months or so unless you (a) bought one of my images or (b) sat with me while we went through my portfolio.

First, MySpace is no longer the exclusive domain of "emo's". If you haven't figured that out yet, you're missing out on a big, free marketing opportunity. Read this month's PDN magazine and you'll see several success stories where MySpace was central to their marketing and landed some pretty high end gigs. Heck, more than a few bands have reached radioland BECAUSE of their MySpace popularity (Blue October comes to mind).

Second, the MySpace example was just that: an example. Take the same image and throw it on Flickr as your own. Or iStock. Or entire it in a contest. Just because it's in low-res on MySpace doesn't mean the file sitting on the thief's computer is low-res...or being used elsewhere.

Third, yes, as a matter of fact, there IS a movement out there to start cataloging and tracking stolen images. Check out Tineye for a quick example. I know two photographers who have used Tineye to find stolen images...that were being marketed as someone ELSE'S original work. There are other services that are starting to come online as well. And for more extreme tracking, check out Web Sheriff.

Fourth, the abuse of DMCA takedown notices has actually caused larger sites to go back to their legal departments for more clarification and investigation. It's not just a quick e-mail any longer. Many requests are being sent back to the submitters for proof. This is where my original point about registering your work with the Copyright Office comes in handy, btw.

Fifth and finally, my point was that putting it on the Internet lowers its value IF you want any control over distribution. If you don't care, do what you like. I could care less. The less control you have over distribution of a product, the less the value of the final product.

[HUMMER_MAN]

Guy's I hate to burst your bubble about copyright protection but given the fact that any digital image can be altered thru a simple process of edification to the point that successful litigation is highly doubtful, so DO NOT EXPOSE IT TO THE NET, it is that simple. Furthermore, who are you going to rely upon to inform you that your image has been swiped?? What are the odds that anyone, anywhere on earth will recognize the image as yours?? Bird dogs are just not that savvy & those who might be are cost prohibitive. I have a huge data base (40 years worth) that is stored on a PC that has never been connected to the net. When I post something I kiss it goodbye and hope all viewers enjoy it. International laws are no where near the point where something that will be viewed as trivial as a copyrighted digital image will garner enforcement. Hell we are still struggling with the Geneva Convention & how to humanely treat POW's.

Regards,