Photographic "copyrights"
Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:37 pm
One can't help but notice on so many pictures that are posted here, the word, "copyright" and the name of the photographer. It's my understanding that this simple statement, in no way, protects your photos UNLESS, you've actually filed for a copyright, for that particular photograph, with the U.S. Copyright Office. I believe you can file for a "generic" copyright that protects all your work both past and future, but you do have to actually make that filing.
I really don't care one way or the other as to whether you make that statement on your photos or not. I just think you shouldn't be surprised if
your photo shows up on an "unauthorized" site. If it does, you have every right to be pi$$ed, but I don't think you have much legal recourse for "cease and desist".
If there are any lawyers here who want to tell me I'm wrong, I'll welcome the education.
Mudge the educable
I really don't care one way or the other as to whether you make that statement on your photos or not. I just think you shouldn't be surprised if
your photo shows up on an "unauthorized" site. If it does, you have every right to be pi$$ed, but I don't think you have much legal recourse for "cease and desist".
If there are any lawyers here who want to tell me I'm wrong, I'll welcome the education.
Mudge the educable
Copyright
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:07 pm
Hi Mudge,
Copyright is automatic from the moment the work is first created (at least in the U.S. , U.K. and
other nations that have signed the Berne Convention).
In the U.S. a copyright notice must contain the
word "copyright" or the copyright symbol (©) the name of
the holder of the copyright, and the year of first publication of the photo.
Since there is a world out there that does not speak English... and doesn't know what the word
"copyright" is for... it may not apply. The symbol (©) should
cover that however.
Best to check the copyright laws of your country.
Berne Conventionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
And you are correct. You may also file with the U.S. Copyright Office http://www.copyright.gov/
Bottom line is: If it is on the web, then someone may use it... like it or not.
Not much that can be done... unless you are friends with the RIAA(Recording Industry Association of America).
Best Regards,
Copyright is automatic from the moment the work is first created (at least in the U.S. , U.K. and
other nations that have signed the Berne Convention).
In the U.S. a copyright notice must contain the
word "copyright" or the copyright symbol (©) the name of
the holder of the copyright, and the year of first publication of the photo.
Since there is a world out there that does not speak English... and doesn't know what the word
"copyright" is for... it may not apply. The symbol (©) should
cover that however.
Best to check the copyright laws of your country.
Berne Conventionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works
And you are correct. You may also file with the U.S. Copyright Office http://www.copyright.gov/
Bottom line is: If it is on the web, then someone may use it... like it or not.
Not much that can be done... unless you are friends with the RIAA(Recording Industry Association of America).
Best Regards,
???
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:09 pm
It's my understanding that this simple statement, in no way, protects your photos UNLESS, you've actually filed for a copyright, for that particular photograph, with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Don't have a clue
Except all Gov't photos are in the public domain. This post from the 12 o'clock high forum is pretty good.
All WW2 photos are FREE DOMAIN, unless the original photographer placed a copyright on the photos and CONTINUED a copyright after death. 10 years (more or less depending on where you live), after the original photographers death if no copyright is placed/renewed, they are FREE DOMAIN, and cannot be copy written again.
Owning an original photo does not and will not give anyone copyright. They would have to be the original photographer, and have a copyright the original negative. In death, the family naturally "inherits" the copyright, but if they do not register the copyright after his death, and 10 years have gone by, it becomes free domain (public domain).
and some else from the USCopyWrite office.....
A work created before 1978, but never published or registered, would be
protected for the lifetime of the author (photographer) plus 70 years. However, Section 105 of the US copyright law provides that copyright protection is not available for any "work of the United States Government", which is defined as "a work prepared by an employee of the government within the scope of his employment." Thus, if the photo was taken by a member of the military services as part of his duties during the war, it would not be protected by copyright.
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:21 pm
All photographs taken after March 1, 1989 are automatically covered by federal copyright protection at the time of creation. The photographs do not have to be marked to have protection. Photographers usually mark their work so that it can not as easily be used in it's original form without displaying the marking. Usually work that is displayed on the internet is at low resolution making it unlikely that someone could produce a quality print of the photograph.
You do not have to have your image registered with the Library of Congress to have it protected. There are certain benefits to doing this such as having a public record of the creation and you need to have the image registered in order to file a civil lawsuit against someone who has infringed upon your copyright.
If a work was published after 1977 copyright protection lasts by default for 70 years after the creator has deceased. All works published before 1923 are public domain. If it was a contracted work then it last between 95 and 120 years from the time of publication. It get s a bit more complicated for unpublished work.
Ryan
You do not have to have your image registered with the Library of Congress to have it protected. There are certain benefits to doing this such as having a public record of the creation and you need to have the image registered in order to file a civil lawsuit against someone who has infringed upon your copyright.
If a work was published after 1977 copyright protection lasts by default for 70 years after the creator has deceased. All works published before 1923 are public domain. If it was a contracted work then it last between 95 and 120 years from the time of publication. It get s a bit more complicated for unpublished work.
Ryan
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:53 pm
Those of us that need to know as part of our professional lives do - or should.
There's a remarkable amount of rubbish out there. Some immediate errors or misunderstandings above -
1. There's no such thing as 'copywrite' it's copyright' i.e. the right to own, charge for and licence the item, not to 'write' or create it.
2. Copyright, within the limitations, which vary from country to country, is extant from the moment of creation, and does not need to be claimed for or stated to protect it; however it is a good idea to do so and assists in a defence / case.
3. I cannot claim 'copyright' on a photograph that I bought or have in my collection [EDIT: Delete 'or commissioned or created by me'], but I can charge for 'reproduction rights', that is a payment for the use of that photo.
4. Copyright varies depending on the media - including film, and music.
5. US law does not apply globally. There are occasions when it's appropriate and occasions when it's not.
6. Many countries have a 'fair use' and 'quotation' exemption, mainly or text and critiques, but in some cases including photos.
7. In the case of photos until a recent change, in certain laws, copyright rests with the person or organisation that commissioned the photo, NOT the photographer.
8. The US is unusual in the public domain concept for effectively copyright free government documents.
9. If someone uses one of your photos without your permission, you are entitled to demand restitution or removal - if you can find them. You can also get onto the ISP if they won't play - again, where possible.
If you want to get it right, see the appropriate country's copyright website or an appropriate legal practitioner.
HTH.
There's a remarkable amount of rubbish out there. Some immediate errors or misunderstandings above -
1. There's no such thing as 'copywrite' it's copyright' i.e. the right to own, charge for and licence the item, not to 'write' or create it.
2. Copyright, within the limitations, which vary from country to country, is extant from the moment of creation, and does not need to be claimed for or stated to protect it; however it is a good idea to do so and assists in a defence / case.
3. I cannot claim 'copyright' on a photograph that I bought or have in my collection [EDIT: Delete 'or commissioned or created by me'], but I can charge for 'reproduction rights', that is a payment for the use of that photo.
4. Copyright varies depending on the media - including film, and music.
5. US law does not apply globally. There are occasions when it's appropriate and occasions when it's not.
6. Many countries have a 'fair use' and 'quotation' exemption, mainly or text and critiques, but in some cases including photos.
7. In the case of photos until a recent change, in certain laws, copyright rests with the person or organisation that commissioned the photo, NOT the photographer.
8. The US is unusual in the public domain concept for effectively copyright free government documents.
9. If someone uses one of your photos without your permission, you are entitled to demand restitution or removal - if you can find them. You can also get onto the ISP if they won't play - again, where possible.
If you want to get it right, see the appropriate country's copyright website or an appropriate legal practitioner.
HTH.
Last edited by JDK on Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:47 pm
A few things, and there is so much more than you would want to know (I am a retired lawyer)......
You can sue without "registering your copyright with the Library of Congress", HOWEVER, you are going to be limited in the amount of damages you can collect.
As stated by someone else, OWNERSHIP of a photo does not give you a copyright on it. You simply own a PICTURE, not any intangible rights.
JDK is WRONG (at least in the United States) that "copyright rests with the person or organisation that commissioned the photo, NOT the photographer. " The photographer has the copyright unless it is "work for hire". Hence when you have a photog take pics of the HS Senior, baby or wedding, THEY OWN THE COPYRIGHT TO THE PIC. You can't scan it or take it to WalMart to have more pics printed.
As stated many times GOVT works are not copyrighted, since the government is basicially comprised of the people and we all own them. BUT GOVT works are not copyrighted when they are made by a govt employee (SFC Snuffy Smith took the pic as a US Army Air Corp Photographer). There are exceptions where work is done for the govt (work for hire) and the copyright rests with the artist or photog. Examples are (I forget his name off hand) the guy that shot all the defense factory pics in WWII, and the Air Force Art Program (most of those copyrights are owned by the artist who has made commercial prints of them).
There is NO further necessity to mark pictures (like mine) with name, (C) 2007, and going a step further contact info. That is simply something that (as noted before) helps to identify improper use of a picture.
Me, I just shrink the size, lower the quality. The original of this P-51 will blow up to 30"X50" (or bigger, my printer stops at 30") without any loss of quality and you can see the slots in the fasteners on the cowl. As posted, an its not thrilling, but will go to 5"X7".
So there is a lot to it, it gets complicated when you start looking at work that has not been offered for sale (or published). For those who wonder, the penalites are really severe, and I will not go into them (if you look at the signs outside the Reno Air Races, there are NO CRIMINAL penalities for taking a picture and selling it, as they would make you think there is.
Mark H
You can sue without "registering your copyright with the Library of Congress", HOWEVER, you are going to be limited in the amount of damages you can collect.
As stated by someone else, OWNERSHIP of a photo does not give you a copyright on it. You simply own a PICTURE, not any intangible rights.
JDK is WRONG (at least in the United States) that "copyright rests with the person or organisation that commissioned the photo, NOT the photographer. " The photographer has the copyright unless it is "work for hire". Hence when you have a photog take pics of the HS Senior, baby or wedding, THEY OWN THE COPYRIGHT TO THE PIC. You can't scan it or take it to WalMart to have more pics printed.
As stated many times GOVT works are not copyrighted, since the government is basicially comprised of the people and we all own them. BUT GOVT works are not copyrighted when they are made by a govt employee (SFC Snuffy Smith took the pic as a US Army Air Corp Photographer). There are exceptions where work is done for the govt (work for hire) and the copyright rests with the artist or photog. Examples are (I forget his name off hand) the guy that shot all the defense factory pics in WWII, and the Air Force Art Program (most of those copyrights are owned by the artist who has made commercial prints of them).
There is NO further necessity to mark pictures (like mine) with name, (C) 2007, and going a step further contact info. That is simply something that (as noted before) helps to identify improper use of a picture.
Me, I just shrink the size, lower the quality. The original of this P-51 will blow up to 30"X50" (or bigger, my printer stops at 30") without any loss of quality and you can see the slots in the fasteners on the cowl. As posted, an its not thrilling, but will go to 5"X7".
So there is a lot to it, it gets complicated when you start looking at work that has not been offered for sale (or published). For those who wonder, the penalites are really severe, and I will not go into them (if you look at the signs outside the Reno Air Races, there are NO CRIMINAL penalities for taking a picture and selling it, as they would make you think there is.
Mark H
Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:03 am
I don't mind posting stuff I've shot recently with my digital camera. But am extremely reluctant to go through my archives and start posting rare stuff I've shot over the years for the reasons stated in this thread. Just can't do it. Some random shots I wouldn't mind.
John
John
Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:13 am
P51Mstg wrote:JDK is WRONG (at least in the United States) that "copyright rests with the person or organisation that commissioned the photo, NOT the photographer. " The photographer has the copyright unless it is "work for hire". Hence when you have a photog take pics of the HS Senior, baby or wedding, THEY OWN THE COPYRIGHT TO THE PIC. You can't scan it or take it to WalMart to have more pics printed.
At least quote me correctly, as I'm neither 'wrong' not incorrect. I actually said (emphasis added):
7. In the case of photos until a recent change, in certain laws, copyright rests with the person or organisation that commissioned the photo, NOT the photographer.
I'd expect better from a lawyer, but then, I'd not paid for the advice.
And if your quote refers to a specific US law, please say so, don't imply it's what I said or meant, neither of which is true. 
If you read what I actually said, you've shown that it is correct in US law, in certain cases.
For the record, I was not referring to US law, nor current law, and, yes, relating to 'work for hire' as mentioned. (As to US law, it's rarely of my direct concern.) There are numerous wrinkles depending on offer of work for hire, commissioned and employees duties etc. Again, for clarity, this may or may not relate to US law; it certainly does in certain cases in English (Scottish law is different again) and Australian law, which I do need to understand.
Careless reference to 'Government' or 'GOVT' on a website with an international readership is poor, and not helpful. Contextually, it's clear this refers to the US Government, and that's true. This is not the case for governments generally, as might be assumed, nor to the applicability of US law in an international context. Hence my point 5, an assumption both active and passive by many readers.
I'm sure Mark and I have better things to do that argue the details of the points, and the original question has been well answered.
The image quality/size issue is another one again. Theft of online images is either for print media, where the high-resolution issue already discussed is relevant, or more common now, the internet. Given the exponential growth of the internet, more and more photos are lifted from one site and presented without proper attribution or agreement on another site. In this case, what's good enough on one page will be good enough on another website. Then it makes sense to have marked or watermarked the image then you have forced the thief / borrower to either leave the image as unuseable, or to actively modify or re-crop the photo. By forcing them to do this, when endeavouring to bring a case, you have strengthened your position by showing they have actively removed a copyright or attribution notice, as against a defence of ignorance. That's all subject to the other points of whose law applies, and where etc., of course.
Cheers,
Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:25 pm
P51Mstg wrote:. . . if you look at the signs outside the Reno Air Races, there are NO CRIMINAL penalities for taking a picture and selling it, as they would make you think there is.
Heh heh ... sounds like the Reno organizers are trying to scare folks, which sometimes works, but tell you what - you want your tushy in a major sling, take pics at any NASCAR event and openly sell them without first clearing it with the head hillbilly ... you don't want to go there.
Seriously, as Mark implies, "For Hire" are the contract's magic words that MUST be in place for the copyright of the photographic or artwork image to be transferred from the creator to the commissioning agent. That's been around for a LONG time (Oops, I'm speaking of here in the US, so sorry!). Otherwise, the contract spells out what the commissioning agent can ONLY do with the image (period; end of conversation). The copyright to said image(s) remains with the artist.
Oh ... seriously, don't mess with those hillbillys ... I live around 'em - they'll f**k you up! They don't need those fast cars to run 'shine no more - now, they sell stuff!
Wade
Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:18 pm
Sorry...didn't mean to start a "dust-up". I stand corrected on a few points and I thank those knowledgeable troops for the info.
Mudge the educable
Mudge the educable
Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:33 pm
No need to apologise Mudge, it were interestingly thingo, as ever, and has to be one of the shorter discussions on the topic I've seen.
I'm no expert on US law, but my understanding is that 'for hire' clause is appropriate where specifically asked to do the job outside of the normal tasking. If you are a photographer for corporation X, or (as already said) the the US Army etc, then they hold rights, not you. In UK law the issue can be if you were asked to work or if you offered to work.
Whatever, litigators in the mirror may prove larger and hairier than you expect...
Chicoartist wrote:Seriously, as Mark implies, "For Hire" are the contract's magic words that MUST be in place for the copyright of the photographic or artwork image to be transferred from the creator to the commissioning agent. That's been around for a LONG time (Oops, I'm speaking of here in the US, so sorry!). Otherwise, the contract spells out what the commissioning agent can ONLY do with the image (period; end of conversation). The copyright to said image(s) remains with the artist.
I'm no expert on US law, but my understanding is that 'for hire' clause is appropriate where specifically asked to do the job outside of the normal tasking. If you are a photographer for corporation X, or (as already said) the the US Army etc, then they hold rights, not you. In UK law the issue can be if you were asked to work or if you offered to work.
Whatever, litigators in the mirror may prove larger and hairier than you expect...
Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:18 am
Mudge, all of the posts above contain errors, but most of the errors do not bear on your original question. All of them are tolerably correct except for Jack's quote from the 12 o'clock high forum, which is totally wrong. I'll confine my comments to your original question about copyright notices.
As the above posters say, you do not need a copyright notice to have copyright protection. The generic personal copyright application for past and future work that you inquired about does not exist and is not needed.
You may choose to put a notice on your pics because it has evidentiary and other value in an infringement litigation, but realistically, like most of us amateurs you may be unlikely to engage in such litigation. There are at least three other reasons to put such a notice on your pics. (1) It helps remind infringers that they are doing something wrong, (2) it degrades the quality of the photograph, like a watermark, and forces an infringer to go to some retouching or cropping effort if he wants to appear not to be infringing, and (3) after your image has been floating around the web for a while, it tells an honest user who runs across it whom to contact if he actually wants permission to use the image, maybe even to purchase a higher-res version. The latter is a good reason to include an email or web address in your notice, although it is not legally required.
As long as you are putting a notice on your pics for these non-legal reasons, you may as well make it legally sufficient. It must include three elements: (1) the © sign (you may use the word "Copyright" in the US, but not all countries recognize it, and you should not use a C in parens "(C)" which is not accepted even in the US); (2) the year of first publication (posting on the web counts as publication); and (3) the name of the copyright owner.
Mark's measure of protecting photos by posting low-resolution images is fine, but there may be times when you want to post (or email, or share a CD of) hi-res, high quality images. Notices can come in handy in such cases, especially if you'll be posting them in a place where infringers are likely to run across them, such as this forum.
August
As the above posters say, you do not need a copyright notice to have copyright protection. The generic personal copyright application for past and future work that you inquired about does not exist and is not needed.
You may choose to put a notice on your pics because it has evidentiary and other value in an infringement litigation, but realistically, like most of us amateurs you may be unlikely to engage in such litigation. There are at least three other reasons to put such a notice on your pics. (1) It helps remind infringers that they are doing something wrong, (2) it degrades the quality of the photograph, like a watermark, and forces an infringer to go to some retouching or cropping effort if he wants to appear not to be infringing, and (3) after your image has been floating around the web for a while, it tells an honest user who runs across it whom to contact if he actually wants permission to use the image, maybe even to purchase a higher-res version. The latter is a good reason to include an email or web address in your notice, although it is not legally required.
As long as you are putting a notice on your pics for these non-legal reasons, you may as well make it legally sufficient. It must include three elements: (1) the © sign (you may use the word "Copyright" in the US, but not all countries recognize it, and you should not use a C in parens "(C)" which is not accepted even in the US); (2) the year of first publication (posting on the web counts as publication); and (3) the name of the copyright owner.
Mark's measure of protecting photos by posting low-resolution images is fine, but there may be times when you want to post (or email, or share a CD of) hi-res, high quality images. Notices can come in handy in such cases, especially if you'll be posting them in a place where infringers are likely to run across them, such as this forum.
August
Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:20 am
Thank you August for the straight forward answer to Mudge's ( and mine also, though unposted) question.
bill word
bill word
Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:32 am
There is also ownership of the object to consider. Just because you take a photo of something, you hold the copyright but you don't have the right to profit from it. In the case of the NASCAR example above, NASCAR not only holds the rights to images from their events but also the team, the driver, the track, all the sponsors present in the image, which includes on the car and any signage in the background. Likewise if I take a photo of a car at a classic car event, I would have to obtain permission from the owner before I could sell the image, and I may have to obtain permission from the manufacturer as the image of a Ford Mustage for example is also protected under copyright laws.
Bill
Bill
????
Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:11 pm
except for Jack's quote from the 12 o'clock high forum, which is totally wrong.
I just cutted and pasted I swear
I assumed the second part supposedly from the US copywrite office
would be correct
Is this not so
I once got a rude email off of ebay after selling a original B-29 nose art photo.
It seems this humaniod also had "THE" original also and I violated their copywrite
by selling "MY" original.
