Copyright

Shutter_to_thinkShutter_to_think Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 10 Big grins
edited July 7, 2010 in Mind Your Own Business
Okay, here's a weird question. I searched the threads and could not find this issue exactly. My question is:
Why do I need to copyright my photographs (aside from the fact they stink and no one would want them)?
Here's why I ask. When I take a photo, doesn't the image get embedded information about my camera like model, type and more importantly serial #?
If it came to a legal battle, I can produce a receipt for that specific camera info. Debate is over. It's my camera, my photo. Am I correct?
The only caveat being I understand people can change the info.
And if they use the photo from the web, I can produce an original much larger with an earlier date stamp proving it is mine.
Am I crazy?

Comments

  • crystallizedcrystallized Registered Users Posts: 29 Big grins
    edited July 5, 2010
    Well yes, of course, if it came to a legal battle. However, what if your image is being redistributed with you unaware, as they make profit from your image? If you can prevent it before it happens, it will never happen. There's so many people on the internet (and even some sneaky clients) who will attempt this, much more that you may be aware of. I've had friends whose paintings were being sold on EBAY for thousands of dollars.

    I say, if it's on the web, watermark it and disable right-click. If they really do stink, then you're in luck ;]
  • denisegoldbergdenisegoldberg Administrators Posts: 14,339 moderator
    edited July 5, 2010
    crystallized wrote: »
    ...and disable right-click.
    Keep in mind that disabling right click is just a quick stumbling block; it does not protect your photos. See ORIGINALS = a gateway to free photos, & right click protection is NOT PROTECTION.

    --- Denise
    https://www.denisegoldberg.com ... https://denise.smugmug.com

    Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited July 5, 2010
    Shutter_to_think wrote: »
    ...I searched the threads and could not find this issue exactly...

    you didn't search deeply enough deal.gif


    This exact topic has been discussed before. Additionally, at the top of this forum is a sticky thread titled: Photographer's Resources. There you will find several links dealing with copyright law. Good luck. thumb.gif
    www.angelo.smugmug.com

    Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
  • Shutter_to_thinkShutter_to_think Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 10 Big grins
    edited July 6, 2010
    Angelo, I appreciate your kindness rolleyes1.gif
    Sometimes it's just easier to answer a question than to spend MORE time telling me to search more. Crap!, like I got all day to sift through 87 million threads. I thought it was an easy question. Sorry to bother you.
    And I DID search the sticky and didn't see this exact issue.

    Denise, thanks but the link provided only talks about right click disabling. That's a separate issue.

    crystallized, thanks for the info.
  • AngeloAngelo Super Moderators Posts: 8,937 moderator
    edited July 6, 2010
    Shutter_to_think wrote: »
    Angelo, I appreciate your kindness rolleyes1.gif
    Sometimes it's just easier to answer a question than to spend MORE time telling me to search more. Crap!, like I got all day to sift through 87 million threads. I thought it was an easy question. Sorry to bother you.
    And I DID search the sticky and didn't see this exact issue.

    Denise, thanks but the link provided only talks about right click disabling. That's a separate issue.

    crystallized, thanks for the info.

    snideness aside, I'm glad you appreciate my kindness and the volunteerism and hard work by me and other members to create the referenced resources.

    here's the info you seek and it took just 3, that's THREE, little clicks: http://thecopyrightzone.com/?p=290

    .
    www.angelo.smugmug.com

    Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
  • denisegoldbergdenisegoldberg Administrators Posts: 14,339 moderator
    edited July 6, 2010
    Shutter_to_think wrote: »
    Denise, thanks but the link provided only talks about right click disabling. That's a separate issue.
    Yes, I know. It was in reference to the recommendation in the post above that you turn right click on to protect your images - and that does not provide any form of protection. It's a poorly named feature.

    --- Denise
    https://www.denisegoldberg.com ... https://denise.smugmug.com

    Musings & ramblings at https://denisegoldberg.blogspot.com
  • Photog4ChristPhotog4Christ Registered Users Posts: 716 Major grins
    edited July 6, 2010
    Shutter_to_think wrote: »
    Angelo, I appreciate your kindness rolleyes1.gif
    Sometimes it's just easier to answer a question than to spend MORE time telling me to search more. Crap!, like I got all day to sift through 87 million threads. I thought it was an easy question. Sorry to bother you.
    And I DID search the sticky and didn't see this exact issue.

    Denise, thanks but the link provided only talks about right click disabling. That's a separate issue.

    crystallized, thanks for the info.


    Since you don't care to search the forum for all the discussions we've had regarding copyrights, then why should we bother answering your question?

    Short version:

    An image is copyrighted as soon as the image is created. So, if I take a photo of a flower then it's copyrighted and I can stick "© Copyright 2010 Neal Jacob" on the image, but it still isn't registered until you register it with the USCO (United States Copyright Office).

    Let's say someone rips off my image of the flower and I take them to court. If the image is registered I can collect damages as allowed by US law. If the image is not registered, then I'm SOL.
    <><
    Neal Jacob

    [URL="http://nealjacob.com/twitter"]Twitter[/URL]|[B][URL="http://photos.nealjacob.com"]SmugMug[/URL][/B
  • Shutter_to_thinkShutter_to_think Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 10 Big grins
    edited July 6, 2010
    Wow, your response sure doesn't fit your screen name.
    And if you read my post I said I DID SEARCH!
    It's just that a quick answer saves a person a LOT of time. Sorry you're easily inconvenienced!
  • Shutter_to_thinkShutter_to_think Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 10 Big grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    Angelo wrote: »
    snideness aside, I'm glad you appreciate my kindness and the volunteerism and hard work by me and other members to create the referenced resources.

    here's the info you seek and it took just 3, that's THREE, little clicks: http://thecopyrightzone.com/?p=290

    .

    No, that does not address the issue about camera exif and date stamping. It just tells me like all the other threads to Copyright your photos. I inquired about the necessity because of the very issue I raised. But you guys are just so bent on being flippant about it that you refuse to address it. If you don't want to answer the question or have a discussion about it, then why even bother replying. Let kind people discuss it. It just turns new members like me off. And if you put so much hard work into your reference, you would have known that the link you provided was completely useless regarding the issue. Don't bother answering because I'm not coming back.
  • NicciNicci Registered Users Posts: 436 Major grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    Well, just in case you come back, the reason would be in case you ever need to sue someone for infringing upon your work. Some of the details are in my recent post here:
    http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1417680&postcount=9

    There is a wealth of information on www.asmp.org as well as www.copyright.gov
    Shutter_to_think wrote: »
    No, that does not address the issue about camera exif and date stamping. It just tells me like all the other threads to Copyright your photos. I inquired about the necessity because of the very issue I raised. But you guys are just so bent on being flippant about it that you refuse to address it. If you don't want to answer the question or have a discussion about it, then why even bother replying. Let kind people discuss it. It just turns new members like me off. And if you put so much hard work into your reference, you would have known that the link you provided was completely useless regarding the issue. Don't bother answering because I'm not coming back.
  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    Shutter_to_think wrote: »
    Okay, here's a weird question. I searched the threads and could not find this issue exactly. My question is:
    Why do I need to copyright my photographs (aside from the fact they stink and no one would want them)?
    Here's why I ask. When I take a photo, doesn't the image get embedded information about my camera like model, type and more importantly serial #?
    If it came to a legal battle, I can produce a receipt for that specific camera info. Debate is over. It's my camera, my photo. Am I correct?
    The only caveat being I understand people can change the info.
    And if they use the photo from the web, I can produce an original much larger with an earlier date stamp proving it is mine.
    Am I crazy?
    Yup! :D

    The data to which you refer is commonly referred to as EXIF data. You are correct in that it is embedded in both the RAW files and in the JPG files you may generated from either those RAW files or by the camera at time of capture (assuming you are shooting in JPG mode). And you are also correct in that it's EASY to change that EXIF data without damaging the image data. ANY dexidecimal editor will do the job in nothing flat. And, it's even EASIER to strip it completly from the image.

    Bottom line, this information provides you NO protection except if you should push to a legal confrontation and IF you have the RAW files in hand. Having the JPG files will not provide you any significant advantage as the EXIF data is sooooo easily modified. They could contend that you ripped your copy of the image from their web-site and modified the EXIF to suit your purposes. Having a larger JPG might get you somewhere - but don't count on it.

    Finally, the cost of the legal confrontation would probably be much greater than any damages you might be awarded.
    Scott
    My Photos
    Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
    Equipment List - Check my profile
  • chrisjohnsonchrisjohnson Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    Key in copyright is to be able to prove that you created this before anyone else.

    In the old days people would send registered and sealed post to themselves even, or to a notary. Today there are several institutions who will take your money for a similar service. EXIF data is useless as it can be modified after the event.

    Another opportunity for Smugmug maybe - a neutral registration of copyright claims.
  • Photog4ChristPhotog4Christ Registered Users Posts: 716 Major grins
    edited July 7, 2010
    goldenballs wrote: »
    Key in copyright is to be able to prove that you created this before anyone else.

    In the old days people would send registered and sealed post to themselves even, or to a notary. Today there are several institutions who will take your money for a similar service. EXIF data is useless as it can be modified after the event.

    Another opportunity for Smugmug maybe - a neutral registration of copyright claims.

    A "Poor Man's Copyright" is not a valid way of registration:

    Poor Man's Copyright
    <><
    Neal Jacob

    [URL="http://nealjacob.com/twitter"]Twitter[/URL]|[B][URL="http://photos.nealjacob.com"]SmugMug[/URL][/B
Sign In or Register to comment.