Copyright Practices
#1
Thread Starter
Suzuka Master
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,679
Likes: 12
From: New York, USA
Copyright Practices
So I spent a few hours reading the copyright website trying to make sense of it all. Basically from what I gather, I need to send in a CD-ROM with all my pictures, the forms, and the fee. I need to do this EACH time I want to copyright my pictures? They never really said of any restrictions on how much, so can I send in a bunch of CDs with like 1,000 photos a few times a year to get away from paying the $45 all the time? What do you guys do?
#2
This is weird. I was going to solicit the exact same topic here this morning. Thanx for bringing it up.
On another note, and by no means do I wish to hijack this thread but its kinda related, what is the easiest way to add a watermark to photos. Is there something that can be done via batch processing?
On another note, and by no means do I wish to hijack this thread but its kinda related, what is the easiest way to add a watermark to photos. Is there something that can be done via batch processing?
#3
Firstly, your pictures are always automatically copyrighted by you unless you explicitly make them available. You don't need to do anything.
What sending your pics to a service does is it keeps them on file with a nuetral third party. Later if somebody is using your pic and you sue them for it, you can prove it was yours because you sent off a copy of that image.
Having said that, I would just not hand out the full version of your images or post them online.
As for watermark programs, a quick search on google came up with a bunch of small programs that seem to do it automatically.
What sending your pics to a service does is it keeps them on file with a nuetral third party. Later if somebody is using your pic and you sue them for it, you can prove it was yours because you sent off a copy of that image.
Having said that, I would just not hand out the full version of your images or post them online.
As for watermark programs, a quick search on google came up with a bunch of small programs that seem to do it automatically.
#5
I was reading this... So... if I saw your picture and then I went to the same place to take a "similar" picture. That would not be considered copying... would it not?
"B. Reverse engineering
Copyrighted software ordinarily contains both copyrighted
and unprotected or functional elements. Sega Enters. Ltd. v.
Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1520 (9th Cir. 1993) (amended
opinion); see 17 U.S.C. S 102(b) (Copyright protection does
not extend to any "idea, procedure, process, system, method
of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" embodied in
the copyrighted work.). Software engineers designing a prod-
uct that must be compatible with a copyrighted product fre-
quently must "reverse engineer" the copyrighted product to
gain access to the functional elements of the copyrighted
product. See Andrew Johnson-Laird, Software Reverse Engi-
neering in the Real World, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 843, 845-46
(1994)."
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newo...2?OpenDocument
"B. Reverse engineering
Copyrighted software ordinarily contains both copyrighted
and unprotected or functional elements. Sega Enters. Ltd. v.
Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1520 (9th Cir. 1993) (amended
opinion); see 17 U.S.C. S 102(b) (Copyright protection does
not extend to any "idea, procedure, process, system, method
of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" embodied in
the copyrighted work.). Software engineers designing a prod-
uct that must be compatible with a copyrighted product fre-
quently must "reverse engineer" the copyrighted product to
gain access to the functional elements of the copyrighted
product. See Andrew Johnson-Laird, Software Reverse Engi-
neering in the Real World, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 843, 845-46
(1994)."
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newo...2?OpenDocument
#6
Originally Posted by CleanCL
Well that's exactly it. I will be posting these pictures online. They will be going on a website, so I suppose if I copyright the website, then that would include all content on the website too.
The same goes for a website. You do not have to put down on the bottom "This material Copyright XXXX 2007" because it is assumed and automatic.
However, having said this, registering the material will make it easier for you to prove your claim is valid if there is a need to fight it out in court.
You could easily retain the raw files or the full size images and put smaller sizes on the web. That way, nobody can get a size large enough to do anything except view on a monitor. And if they did make money off of your picture (turned it into a poster or something), you can show the court your large files and/or raw files.
Trending Topics
#8
As already stated, images are automatically protected under copyright the instant you click the shutter. You're also automatically protected from your house being burglarized. Guess what though, if you have no proof that you ever owned the stolen items and no proof that someone actually broke in, then there really isn't a whole lot the legal system can do for you is there?
The same train of thought can be applied to copyright. There are practical considerations which you need to be personally responsible for that are above and beyond the automatic legal protection.
First, you need to provide notice on your images that they belong to you and that you are exercising your copyright on them. To do this you must include the copyright symbol, your name, and the date of the image (which can just be a year).
Second, you need to register your work with the Copyright Office. This is almost certainly what CleanCL was referring to when he talked about filling out forms and mailing in a CD.
From the information I've gathered, legal disputes over photographic copyright can basically be broken down into three tiers that correspond to the above actions.
1) You don't register your images and you don't include any copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for that the infringing action ceases and even that is shaky.
2) You don't register your images but you did include copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for that the infringing action ceases and you recover a "normal" licensing fee appropriate to the publication/distribution of the image. I hate to break it to you folks, but talk to some pros and you’ll find out that image licensing fees usually aren’t a whole lot of money.
3) You registered your images with the Copyright Office and you did included copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for is the same as above with one key addition. Depending on how egregious the infringement is, you may now have solid legal legs to press for punitive damages.
---Disclaimer---
I am not a lawyer, but I've read a fair amount on photographic copyright issues and I've discussed them with a friend who is an intellectual property attorney.
---Disclaimer---
The same train of thought can be applied to copyright. There are practical considerations which you need to be personally responsible for that are above and beyond the automatic legal protection.
First, you need to provide notice on your images that they belong to you and that you are exercising your copyright on them. To do this you must include the copyright symbol, your name, and the date of the image (which can just be a year).
Second, you need to register your work with the Copyright Office. This is almost certainly what CleanCL was referring to when he talked about filling out forms and mailing in a CD.
From the information I've gathered, legal disputes over photographic copyright can basically be broken down into three tiers that correspond to the above actions.
1) You don't register your images and you don't include any copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for that the infringing action ceases and even that is shaky.
2) You don't register your images but you did include copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for that the infringing action ceases and you recover a "normal" licensing fee appropriate to the publication/distribution of the image. I hate to break it to you folks, but talk to some pros and you’ll find out that image licensing fees usually aren’t a whole lot of money.
3) You registered your images with the Copyright Office and you did included copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for is the same as above with one key addition. Depending on how egregious the infringement is, you may now have solid legal legs to press for punitive damages.
---Disclaimer---
I am not a lawyer, but I've read a fair amount on photographic copyright issues and I've discussed them with a friend who is an intellectual property attorney.
---Disclaimer---
#10
Best advice.....poster beware.
Here's an example
I have plenty of photos that "look good" and only 1 ( in my opinion ) that's worth getting a formal copyright for, which I did. Still, I always reduce the size and pick a pixel in the same spot to manipulate. This is no guarantee, but it helps give me piece of mind.
Here's an example
I have plenty of photos that "look good" and only 1 ( in my opinion ) that's worth getting a formal copyright for, which I did. Still, I always reduce the size and pick a pixel in the same spot to manipulate. This is no guarantee, but it helps give me piece of mind.
#11
Originally Posted by Billiam
As already stated, images are automatically protected under copyright the instant you click the shutter. You're also automatically protected from your house being burglarized. Guess what though, if you have no proof that you ever owned the stolen items and no proof that someone actually broke in, then there really isn't a whole lot the legal system can do for you is there?
The same train of thought can be applied to copyright. There are practical considerations which you need to be personally responsible for that are above and beyond the automatic legal protection.
First, you need to provide notice on your images that they belong to you and that you are exercising your copyright on them. To do this you must include the copyright symbol, your name, and the date of the image (which can just be a year).
Second, you need to register your work with the Copyright Office. This is almost certainly what CleanCL was referring to when he talked about filling out forms and mailing in a CD.
From the information I've gathered, legal disputes over photographic copyright can basically be broken down into three tiers that correspond to the above actions.
1) You don't register your images and you don't include any copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for that the infringing action ceases and even that is shaky.
2) You don't register your images but you did include copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for that the infringing action ceases and you recover a "normal" licensing fee appropriate to the publication/distribution of the image. I hate to break it to you folks, but talk to some pros and you’ll find out that image licensing fees usually aren’t a whole lot of money.
3) You registered your images with the Copyright Office and you did included copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for is the same as above with one key addition. Depending on how egregious the infringement is, you may now have solid legal legs to press for punitive damages.
---Disclaimer---
I am not a lawyer, but I've read a fair amount on photographic copyright issues and I've discussed them with a friend who is an intellectual property attorney.
---Disclaimer---
The same train of thought can be applied to copyright. There are practical considerations which you need to be personally responsible for that are above and beyond the automatic legal protection.
First, you need to provide notice on your images that they belong to you and that you are exercising your copyright on them. To do this you must include the copyright symbol, your name, and the date of the image (which can just be a year).
Second, you need to register your work with the Copyright Office. This is almost certainly what CleanCL was referring to when he talked about filling out forms and mailing in a CD.
From the information I've gathered, legal disputes over photographic copyright can basically be broken down into three tiers that correspond to the above actions.
1) You don't register your images and you don't include any copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for that the infringing action ceases and even that is shaky.
2) You don't register your images but you did include copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for that the infringing action ceases and you recover a "normal" licensing fee appropriate to the publication/distribution of the image. I hate to break it to you folks, but talk to some pros and you’ll find out that image licensing fees usually aren’t a whole lot of money.
3) You registered your images with the Copyright Office and you did included copyright notices with them. The best outcome you can likely hope for is the same as above with one key addition. Depending on how egregious the infringement is, you may now have solid legal legs to press for punitive damages.
---Disclaimer---
I am not a lawyer, but I've read a fair amount on photographic copyright issues and I've discussed them with a friend who is an intellectual property attorney.
---Disclaimer---
If you registered BEFORE the infringement (or within a short time of making them available) AND you include a legally sufficient notice you can get STATUTORY damages (not punitive) PLUS attorney's fees. The damages can be from hundreds to thousands, but the attorney's fees means you can actually afford to sue.
There are other subtleties, but you should certainly register up front if you want to be able to sue.
Oh, and you'd have to be nuts not to include a copyright notice.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Yumcha
Automotive News
1
09-25-2015 06:14 PM