Copyright
- Thread starter johnj167
- Start date
John - the link below might point you in the right direction.
http://nikonites.com/photography-business/22182-copyright-infringement-questions.html?highlight=copy+right#axzz3B06Gpj8b
Adding copyright info to the EXIF data doesn't create a legal copyright. Neither does a watermark. Nor does having the original file. At least not in the US.
The ONLY way to create a copyright that will hold up in court is to register the image with the US Copyright Office. And the only way to enforce it once it's granted is to sue in federal court. There is no 'small claims court' for copyright infringement.
The ONLY way to create a copyright that will hold up in court is to register the image with the US Copyright Office. And the only way to enforce it once it's granted is to sue in federal court. There is no 'small claims court' for copyright infringement.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
I've been thinking about eliminating my copyright notice on my images. I mean, if someone were to use one of my images I could still sue them with or without the c on it. Right? The only thing it really does is make it harder to use your image because they would have to go through the trouble to get rid of the copyright embedded.
Having it in EXIF simply makes the legal process easier. Especially if the infringer is unaware of metadata and doesn't know to remove it. There have been cases of infringers hauled into court for using images that still have the copyright owner's EXIF data intact. Sure makes proving the case much easier.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
you've got a point there!
I embed copyright info in the camera, so it's automatic.
My scheme is to not worry about copyright on posted images. I'm not too concerned if someone that isn't making money on the image uses something I post. If an image I post gets picked up and goes viral (LOL), then someone will find me.
If the use of the infringed image doesn't make much money, going after the infringer would also not make much money.
If the use of the infringed image makes a pile of cash, then the copyright attorney's will be lined up to take my case.
Think the idea of having the name or website in a corner is fine, but watermarks across an image are just non-photographic.
If the use of the infringed image doesn't make much money, going after the infringer would also not make much money.
If the use of the infringed image makes a pile of cash, then the copyright attorney's will be lined up to take my case.
Think the idea of having the name or website in a corner is fine, but watermarks across an image are just non-photographic.
This attitude merely makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.
This is why a small watermark is so important. I've been contacted by buyers who would never have found me if I hadn't put a watermark on the image. Between using a watermark and only posting low res images on the internet, I have no worries about copyright infringement since there is very little one can do with a low res image.
SkvLTD
Senior Member
Honestly, I only watermark in case my pics end up being shared/etc, mostly so viewers know where they came from. Especially on FB. Real question becomes how hard do you want to mark. Faint, full-image ones are best but definitely excessive for misc. kinda photos. Smaller ones can be cropped and people do that a lot, so either placement or reasonable yet big enough size could be a solution.
Certainly not. There have been cases in court where the infringer is unaware that EXIF even exists, and uses the stolen images with the copyright owner information still attached. Makes prosecuting the case a piece of cake, I'm sure!