One of my photos got picked up yesterday and scattered around the net!

Airedrifter

I saw it on The Raw Story and someone else saw it with an AP story.

I was passing through Blacksburg and this sign disturbed me.

I didn't get a lot of time to compse and shoot as the cops were stopped behind me and wondering what I was up to! I was looking straight into the sun and couldn't rearrange anything.

Anyway, as one comment said about the photo, "a picture is worth a thousand words."

Marc Muench

You do need to include a "©name" on all images that appear on the web, for this reason, unless you really don't mind it becoming public domain Just placing it in the metadata is not sufficient.

slapshot

Marc Muench wrote:

You do need to include a "©name" on all images that appear on the web, for this reason, unless you really don't mind it becoming public domain Just placing it in the metadata is not sufficient.

Placing a copyright mark in the image does not provide you any more or less protection by law. The absence of a copyright mark does not put the image in the public domain.

As a practical matter though, it may make someone think twice about using your image without permission.

wxwax

slapshot wrote:

Placing a copyright mark in the image does not provide you any more or less protection by law. The absence of a copyright mark does not put the image in the public domain.

As a practical matter though, it may make someone think twice about using your image without permission.

Even more practically, it may screw-up the image enough that folks won't ant to use it.

You're right on the legal issue, of course.

dogwood

slapshot wrote:

Placing a copyright mark in the image does not provide you any more or less protection by law. The absence of a copyright mark does not put the image in the public domain.

As a practical matter though, it may make someone think twice about using your image without permission.

My two-cents-- at least if it does get used with a copyright mark (and presumably your name), you get a little bit of publicity.

I may be wrong about this, but isn't there an additional penalty for removing a copyright mark from an image prior to using it? Like I say, I may be way off on this. I mean, I'm not an attorney and I don't even play one on t.v.!

Airedrifter

Actually, I am an attorney, but not an intellectual property attorney.
The funny thing is that I posted this as just a small brag.
I really don't care about the copyright issue. I was just happy that it got used. I would have liked it if they had given me a photo credit...

Of course legally, it doesn't matter if it was marked or not. But in this case, it doesn't matter at all.

Now, back to something else.

Sawyer

W.W. Webster

Airedrifter wrote:

The funny thing is that I posted this as just a small brag.
I really don't care about the copyright issue. I was just happy that it got used.

So you are publicly stating that you are hereby renouncing your ownership rights in the images in your SmugMug site?

Is that wise?

Airedrifter

W.W. Webster wrote:

So you are publicly stating that you are hereby renouncing your ownership rights in the images in your SmugMug site?

Is that wise?

On that particular shot, that particular shot.

For you to read otherwise is interesting.