Like Blacktop, I don't like watermarks on photos either, but only the ones plastered right in the middle of the shot. That just ruins it for me, and I won't even bother commenting or even looking at it for the second it takes to scroll past it. I don't mind so much a discreet watermark out of line of sight of the photo.
Copyright Infringement - Questions
- Thread starter sonicbuffalo_RIP
- Start date
There is no time limit to register copyright, 90 days otherwise. If you might ever want to go to court or collect damages, registering is necessary. It is important to be the first to register your work.
The US Copyright office is at U.S. Copyright Office
The upper left corner menu has both Copyright Basics, and Frequently Asked Questions. Both are very plainly written, and will be the best education about US copyright.
I've got a good money-maker right here.
Bidding starts at $10,000.
Yeah...like that.
Well, consider that images here can show up in a Google search within just a couple of hours of posting and other people linking to it. If my images are going to end up in cyberspace, then I want people to know who took them, mainly because I'm developing this as a profession. You would be surprised at how easily images can end up in obscure advertising, Ebay, etc. for people too lazy to pay a stock agency for an image and just lift one from the web without any copyright mark on it. It is for protection, because proving you took the image is the other thing if you want to approach someone to take the image down from their site. How do you prove it? By telling them that you have the original WITHOUT the watermark. Even for a hobbyist, if your work is VERY good, then I would recommend a subtle, small, partially transparent watermark identifying you as the photographer.
That will be 100% ineffective. It will never be admitted in court. That procedure is not written into copyright law. How do you even argue the so-called original is actually the original?
What you want to tell the offender is that you have registered it, and which should easily eliminate any problem. Copyright court will be very expensive, but winner can claim damages to cover their part, plus even punitive damages. They will be NOT willing to risk this, unless they are in the right, and you are the offender, and they have the early copyright.
So you have a photo image, or a written novel. And someone else also has a copy of same. How do you prove you created it? You really can't. It is all you said, they said. Normally it is simply not feasible to argue these details in court, because there is no hard evidence, it is always you said, they said. Such arguments are not accepted into court. However, copyright law provides the solution. You register your work - send a form and a copy to the Library of Congress, who keeps records when they got your claim of creation. And without registered copyright, the courts will not consider the case.
Now the argument is: Who registered it first? And the Library of Congress provides obvious evidence of that proof.
You hope they did not register your work before you did (they easily could have). But you had easy first opportunity that only the creator has. The court argument may come down to is it the same work (which experts probably could decide an opinion), but there is is no dispute who registered it first.
That is how the system works. Any other copyright nonsense heard on the internet should be disregarded. If it is important, register it, NOW.
See US Copyright office
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf (copyright basics)
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ (frequently asked questions)
Last edited:
You can drag out an original raw file, SOOC, and if the infringer is good enough, so will they.
Claiming to have the original is 'pert near meaningless. That's why you register the image.
If I find a good image on the 'net, I can electronically alter it so it will appear that I took the image. If it's not registered, I can register it and use it as I wish. Then if the real author of the image finds out, tries to register it and sues me, who do you think is gonna win?
Me. It's going to appear that he took my image and tried to register it after I did.
Yep. I do it all the time. TIFFs, PNGs, JPEGs, .........
Firstly I never said that was a legal procedure, I stated it as a simple means of deterrence. Secondly, they won't know if you registered it or not, and it is not incumbent upon you to tell them. It is enough to tell them that it is your image and then they can decide whether they will take the risk of being sued. Thirdly, if there is copyright on it, then if they infringe, and the mark is there, it is willful, meaning $150k instead of $200 in damages if it was not willful (of course assuming it was registered).
Thirdly, if you have CMI on the image, then you can still recover damages without registering the work. It is illegal to remove CMI from an image. Check section 1202 of the US Copyright Act.
You make it sound like copyright has no teeth if you don't register. If that was the case then what is the point of even putting copyright notice on a work? There is inherent protection there already from the moment of creation. Yes, registering does as you say make it possible to identify the work and recover damages, but there are ways of proving the image is yours apart from that, like CMI. You can send a DCMA, or a simple cease and desist. Those complaints are made in good faith under penalty of perjury. But honestly, who would be willing to fight that and risk paying damages/legal fees when they know themselves they are not the rightful owners of the copyright? Most of the time it will be settled by a simple C&D.
By the way, Leonard won without registering:
Photographer Awarded $1.6 Million Dollars in Copyright Infringement Lawsuit | Photo Attorney
So it's possible. But yes, registering would be the best protection if you intend to sue someone for infringement.
Five years?
I hope they can collect to repay that effort. I am not a lawyer, but I can read the Copyright Office Basics (the link above):
Copyright Registration
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copy right. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:
• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.
• If made before or within five years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
• If registration is made within three months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
Their wording about "Advantages" just means they could not come right out and say that if your work is important, you would be stupid not to register copyright. $35 will register a CD full of images.
Sorry, I did misspeak before, it does mention three months time limits of registration.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
I guess if you have taken a masterpiece of work, then register it....before posting it....and otherwise post it in low resolution.
SkvLTD
Senior Member
Well, it makes you look more professional and helps advertize you if the images make their rounds around the web.
But in reality, IF you take such an image that may well bring you big bucks and would be worth protecting online, you're much more likely to sell it first and not care as much about any further misuse (ex. submitting to a paper or magazine and getting it approved/published).
