How does one protect one's Image Copyright best?

[Asher Kelman]

This discussion comes up frequently. Images are either not labeled on only on the border of the picture. This discussion started here.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. It is interesting but fails to take my breath away. Suggestions?

Hi Rachel,

............................ For security, having your name on a black background is not the slightest barrier to it being stolen as it's so easy to clone it out! So why put it there?

Make sure your name is in the IPTC file attached to the jpg. Do this in Photoshop under File-Info. At present EXIF data on the shot is faithfully there but no authorship and © claim.


Asher

 

[Wendy Thurman]

Rachel-

..............

As regards Asher's copyright suggestions- what I have taken to doing (when I don't forget) is add the copyright tags to the metadata with Adobe Bridge when making jpegs. I don't know if that can be removed or not...

Wendy

 

[Asher Kelman]

Rachel-

I, too, prefer the diagonal. Perhaps a bit tighter crop?

As regards Asher's copyright suggestions- what I have taken to doing (when I don't forget) is add the copyright tags to the metadata with Adobe Bridge when making jpegs. I don't know if that can be removed or not...

The point is that a corporate user with deep pockets cannot claim that the picture was in the public domain if a search will bring up that image and it's clearly written that your retain the rights. When there is no such statement, the picture might seem like an orphan. If kids take your picture, what can they profit? Not much. However, if it's used in some marketing campaign, then you have rights for compensation more than if they had licensed the image in the first place.

Of course, the image can have the EXIF and IPTC code stripped and given a new title and then it might become no longer searchable. However, it would not be in the public domain, as far as I understand if the image had been properly marked with © in the IPTC file. It would be interesting to know if anyone has information to the contrary.

Asher

 

[Wendy Thurman]

Copyright info

A question to Asher et al- copyright information has been inserted with Adobe Bridge- can this be stripped from an image and if so, should the visual copyright Rachel uses be preferred?

Wendy

Edit by Cem: extracted from this other thread started by Wendy.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

This discussion comes up frequently. Images are either not labeled on only on the border of the picture. This discussion started here.

I certainly agree as to the desirability of putting authorship information and a copyright assertion in the IPTC metadata of the image file (it is not a "file attached to the jpeg").

But it is important that we realize that this (like any other kind of copyright notice application) is neither necessary nor sufficient to the attainment of "protection". It's a useful wind that blows in that direction.

And it is hardly indelible.

 

[ErikJonas]

.................

Copyright.....You can alter any information...Be it in the file or a water mark....The best prof the images is yours is having the original unedited file and never posting a full meg file ANYWHERE...I always post low res web files....What the persons gonna make a 5 by 7 with it?

Or if its used for a ad by some company as has happened that can get the company sued....I'm not sure of the big fuss about the copy right information be it in the file or the water mark on the image both theres ways around but no one but you can have the full meg file if you dont post it anywhere....

 

[fahim mohammed]

For serious users, digimarc, can be used. it is there in ps. the file has an digital imprint and can be
traced at all times to ascertain ownership.

but it costs money!

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Big watermark

Asher,

Frequently when i have posted here you have commented about my huge studio name across the images. As one who has had work stolen from websites - some of my work was for sale in Russia and one was a full wedding stolen from the proof site. I still find that I have work copied and so it's posted with my studio name on it and the site I use has only thumbnail images and small low res files. Until we can find a way to get copyrights respected, they mean little to the thieves.

 

[ErikJonas]

............

Asher,

Frequently when i have posted here you have commented about my huge studio name across the images. As one who has had work stolen from websites - some of my work was for sale in Russia and one was a full wedding stolen from the proof site. I still find that I have work copied and so it's posted with my studio name on it and the site I use has only thumbnail images and small low res files. Until we can find a way to get copyrights respected, they mean little to the thieves.

Kathy....The image/images of yours for sale in Russia if you just post low res web files how is that possible?..I'm not questioning it being for sale or not just how?Your not going to get a decent size print off a web image.

Someone is without doubt using my images and claiming them....However all they have are small web files....No one but me has the full meg version...

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

For serious users, digimarc, can be used. it is there in ps. the file has an digital imprint and can be traced at all times to ascertain ownership.

but it costs money!

The problem with such authentication methods is that being able to claim ownership is one thing (is e.g. Digimarc legally sufficient/accepted ?), but how does one track abuse to begin with? And then how to settle a legal argument with someone from another country or even continent (with a different legal/moral system).

If one spends a lot of money then things may be doable, but that's not a solution for most.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[ErikJonas]

...........

A lot of money being the key point Bart....Look at the music industries battle not just with down loading but with illegal pirate copies of cds etc etc.....They have spent millions...Has it stopped pirate activities?..Maybe among 12 yr olds who want to share music with friends but thats about it. Its not a problem thats really going to be fixed persay. Just like with people stealing models pictures and pretending to be that model which is common on sites like Myspace etc etc....I use to moderate for a site and 4 times a week i'd be deleting accounts that were stolen model pictures, I'd also e-mail the model to let her know about it...

How much time are you going to spend trying to do whats really not something you can prevent?Smartest thing you can do is only post low res web images....

 

[Alain Briot]

Smartest thing you can do is only post low res web images....

Exactly. With your name prominently visible on them ! Few bother to erase it.

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Kathy....The image/images of yours for sale in Russia if you just post low res web files how is that possible?..I'm not questioning it being for sale or not just how?Your not going to get a decent size print off a web image.

Someone is without doubt using my images and claiming them....However all they have are small web files....No one but me has the full meg version...

I learned that hard way and I took down that website....now I low res them via my website.

 

[ErikJonas]

............

I learned that hard way and I took down that website....now I low res them via my website.

awwwwwww Kathy....That really sucks... =( A photographer once said an this was before i was shooting, thet your images are like your own children..I so thought he was a nut when he said that....Now i know what he means.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Note that with respect to US copyright law, according to Circular 3 of the U. S. Copyright Office (edition of January 2008), one of the mandatory components of a copyright notice on a "visually perceptive copy" of the protected work is:

The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a
generally known alternative designation of the owner.

Exactly what alternative name would be considered suitable would of course ultimately be up to a court to decide in the course of ligation regarding rights under the copyright. My guess is that were I to put this copyright notice on one of my works:

Copyright 2009 dakpe.com

whatever benefit the notice would confer would be rather compromised.

The pamphlet itself gives no information on the matter of copyright notices embedded in a digital copy of a work.

The pamphlet is available here:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

Best regards,

Doug

 

[ErikJonas]

.........

About the time this thread was going on, i was watching Jeapordy with my mom one night for a few minutes....They had on there none other then the lawyer who brought the first case of internet copy right violation in dealing with a photographers image....

She said her case was playing out at the same time the music industries case with Napster was going on....She won her case.....I thought it was interesting and was going to post it right away but then forgot to.

Thats the thing though you need a lawyer which means you need a good amount of cash....That or a shot gun.....

I wonder if small claims court would entertain a copy right case....

I saw long ago on Flickr where a small company had taken this guys family shot off Flickr and was using it for a ad....Even with personal snap shots those images are protected and too ever hear of needing a release...Why would anyone open themselves up to a law suit like that....

 

[Alain Briot]

Why would anyone open themselves up to a law suit like that....

Because as you just said the victim needs "a good amount of cash....That or a shot gun....." to defend themselves!

But then if you only put online 600 pixel wide jpegs with your name on them pilferers won't be able to do much with them and you won't need a lawyer to defend yourself. The problem is photographers upload full res files on Flicker. Doing this is telling the pilferers "steal this photo and use it as you please!" which they'll do. Keep em small with your name prominently on the photo and you won't have problems. That's what we do now. I've noticed that even Asher is now pasting his name in the middle of his images. Way to go.

 

[ErikJonas]

.........

I prefer to keep my water mark small....The small images are usless so why have also a big water mark on them,its there...thieves suck....If someone did steal my work there would be a drastic price to pay...Its all i have..If they are going to destroy me like that i'm taking them with me....

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I prefer to keep my water mark small....The small images are usless so why have also a big water mark on them,its there...thieves suck....If someone did steal my work there would be a drastic price to pay...Its all i have..If they are going to destroy me like that i'm taking them with me....

Hi Erik,

In the age of internet, even small images can be repurposed.

As for paying the price, nobody is going to pay anything if the cost of getting them to pay exceeds the price many times. Try getting someone from China (just a random example) to pay for their use of your image ...

Cheers,
Bart