 Celeste McWilliams |
How to Copyright I just started researching the process of copyrighting photos. Based on the forms I saw online, it is possible to send one form in to the US Copyright Office for up to 750 photos. However,on this paperwork, it is apparently required to note original publication date and description of photo (plus some other info). I have loads of photos from 2009 that I want to copyright, not all of which were published but which I do want to protect. Is there an easier way to copyright than having to enter all this info for every individual photo? Thanks for your help! :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Thom Schoeller |
Celeste, the micro second your camera/operated by yourself, opened the shutter and recorded the image on film or digitally a copyright was created. And you own the copyright, period. Check out this website for vital information, and forms you can download! www.copyright.gov
|
|
|
|
||
|
R K Stephenson |
Here's a great article by Scott Kelby: http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2010/archives/10041
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
I always question Mr. Kelby as he has a lot of favors to pay. Some of what he says is right, but some of it doesn't really hold. I try to be very realistic about rights, and for the most part, I think concerns are overplayed -- if you handle your images correctly. I wrote up a response to something similar the other day...and it went like this:I think using a multi-prong approach is best for applying copyright and attempting to protect your images... While Kelby suggests protection is the end, it isn't. Say someone (Jack) steals your image -- in fact you see they got a good copy at higher resolution and they are selling prints (i.e., you know they are making money). You contact Jack and tell him you are the copyright holder and that they should cease/desist. They say 'no'... Well, now what... Whether or not you are registered in the copyright office, you own the copyright. But to make a long story which has many variables short, this comes down to litigation. If you want to retain a lawyer to seek damages, it will cost money. It isn't cheap. One instance where I nearly had to cite a publisher with breach-of-contract would have cost me $20,000 for the retainer...and the realistic potential reward was only twice that. That is, the likely result was less than double -- and may have been less than the retainer, or even nothing at all. In the situation where Jack has lifted your image and is making a handsome $100 a week, you likely won't sue him anyway because there may not be enough to collect to make it worthwhile. The $35 you threw at protection is just more money you don't have. ON THE OTHER HAND, if you follow my advice and simply don't make images available in a significant size, you'll never find yourself in that situation. I hope that helps! Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
R K Stephenson |
Hi, Richard, I have a question and a comment about the above: Q: I'm curious what you were referring to when you wrote "I always question Mr. Kelby as he has a lot of favors to pay. Some of what he says is right, but some of it doesn't really hold"? You and Scott seem to be saying much the same thing, albeit with some different emphasis placement. As a general comment, I wanted to point out the "now what" that follows "You contact Jack and tell him you are the copyright holder and that they should cease/desist. They say 'no'... Well, now what..." Assuming one follows the good advice of Richard, Scott, and others, and only post images of 72dpi, the images are not good for much other than reposting on the web. If you discover an image of yours on the web and contact a US-based or European-based ISP they will remove a purloined image. Cheers, RK
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
I think the emphasis is the whole of it, RK. Mr. K suggests you spend money on copyright for the copyright office and for Digimark, which is not free. I suggest not spending money at the copyright office or on digimark...a proprietary mark that you make on your own image may actually be more effective. He also says that by copyrighting you are protected and "Once you’re armed and Copyright – protected, then you can just upload and share to your hearts content! Imagine if a big company -actually- decided to use your image without letting you know.. and you found out….That would be a great day for you indeed!" I think that is not at all true. If you copyright and digimark to protect and think you are beyond lawyer fees and possibly losing the case, you are wrong. Using his scenario, if a company from another country steals something, you are far less likely to get paid even if you pursue and win the suit. What Mr. K suggests is laying false hope on copyright and small additional expenses, that only lead the way to bigger expenses. The government copyright is an expression of attempt to protect rights...it is not directly protection, nor does it guarantee a reward for unintended use. He does not suggest sizing images properly as the primary line of defense -- as I do, because this keeps images from being stolen as they can't really be used. If Jack can't get the source, there is really nothing to steal, and nothing to protect in the first place. Posting at 72ppi is not enough. You want to be sure the images are small in total pixels. If you post a 72ppi image and it is 40 inches, you likely posted source that could potentially be used on the cover of a magazine. The details of what is suggested count. I am not sure what you mean by the whole 'now what' paragraph. My suggestion is that you will want to do something after Jack tells you 'no'. What will that something be? Sue them? On thing Mr.k does not suggest in the slightest is that to cause any amount of legal trouble for Jack, you are going to have to spend lots of money on a lawyer. It is not necessarily a 'happy day' when you see someone using your images without paying for them. I think the generalization you make here about ISPs is unfounded. There may be some that follow that blindly, others that require some proof, and still others that won't care at all as it is not their content. A-top all that, I think concerns for copyright infringement are over-played. As you are a copyright holder upon creation of an image, and the person stealing risks a lawsuit whether or not you have registered in the .gov, it stands to reason that any large distributor would never steal as it is risk without inherent gain -- a horrible business practice, and not terribly smart if you want to remain trusted as a distributor either from the photographer or consumer end. If there are specific images you have that gross a certain amount per year...by all means get a formal copyright to protect them. However, if you are being conscious of what you are distributing and how you are marking those images so people know they are part of a valid claim to copyright, don't bother with the time and expense of additional protection. If Jack is a 'photographer' who spends his time filling client needs by downloading low-resolution images off the internet, he will never garner the type of business that will make his heists come to much. I hope that helps! Richard
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||