Posted by Robert Bunch on July 16, 2012 at 7:14 PM
Recently I finally put up a website so the world could see my pictures on the internet. It is an unfinished ongoing process and I will be refining it and adding new photos as I go along. Of course I put a notice on the site that says all content is copyrighted but the photos are not individually marked. A friend told me I should copyright register all of my photos to protect against unauthorized use so I decided to check into it.
I did a little research and found out the details for copyrighting your photos. You have to fill out some paperwork and pay $65 bucks each time you copyright a group of photos. It is recommended that you copyright every three months to keep all your new work protected and up to date. So I am thinking about the pros and cons of the process.
My understanding is that the copyright is mine on creation of the work even if I don’t officially register it but that if I do register my photos I have a much better possibility of recovering substantial damages from the violator, getting my legal fees paid by the violator, etc., etc. than I would have if it is not registered.
If I do register this means that I will have to fill out a bunch of paperwork four times a year and fork over about $260 per year to protect my work and send in a DVD with all the files I am copyrighting on it. Kind of a hassle but I will be better protected.
As it stands now if someone steals one of my photos from the internet they will get a 72 dpi file of no use for any kind of publication or print or a major ad campaign or to illustrate a book cover etc. They will be able to use it on the web though in a blog or on a website. My guess is this potential photo pirate will not be some large company with deep pockets that will be able to pay the $150,000 per copyright violation because a big company has lawyers who aren’t likely to let that happen. It will probably be some yahoo who likes one of my photos and thinks it would look good on his blog or website or someone who prints it out off the screen and tacks it to the wall and I’ll probably never even know that it happened. I suppose it is possible that some really dumb company with deep pockets and bad lawyers would steal one of my duck photos and use it on their website for camo clothing but not very likely to my thinking.
I haven’t really decided what to do one way or the other but it seems like registering is going to a lot of trouble for something that will most likely never happen or if it does happen won’t be a really big deal.
I am interested in what some of the NPN photographers think about it. Do you register or not and why or why not? If you did register have you ever recovered damages from a violator and also have many, or any, of your images been appropriated by copyright pirates? Is this a serious problem for you or not? Any information or experience you have had will be of help to me in deciding what to do.
I register, though I thought it was $35 each time. Plus, you can submit online and don't have to mail anything... at least, that was the case the last time I did it.
I have yet to sue for or recover damages, but I know other photographers that have sued successfully. I think it's worth it, at the very least as back-up ammunition if you somehow end up with a non-paying client or end up in the more common occurrence that something is stolen and used commercially (even if it's only web use).
Anybody who posts images on the web is or will be the victim of image theft. Discovering that someone has taken your image for their use on line or in print somewhere can be difficult. I strongly advise that you put a visible copyright tag on every image you post on your web site or anywhere else. I also advise that you do not strip away the EXIF data from the jpegs you post so that there's a chance your name stays embedded in a stolen image.
You need to decide what is most important to you:
- controlling how your images get used
- keeping others from profiting from your work
- collecting large damages when someone steals your work
Read up on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). I've invoked it a few times to get stolen images taken down from web sites. Having a copyright notice on an image and your name in the EXIF are great ways to show ownership when filing a DMCA notice.
Collecting money will probably require legal assistance. I've not had to go that far yet but it is a regular topic here and I know some people have gone that route.
Never over estimate the intelligence of major corporations, and never under estimate their desire to save a dollar by cutting a corner somewhere.
Note that "a 72 dpi file" is meaningless - what really matters is the size of the image in pixels wide by pixels high.
I've had images stolen by students, teachers, friends, strangers, commercial web sites, and Audubon groups. I recently opened a piece of mail sent to me by a distant Audubon group only to find a card inside using one of my Gila Woodpecker photos. They were sharing it with me as the latest item in their gift shop! I had let them use a couple of my photos on request for their newsletter but never authorized (or was ever asked about) this use.
Posted by Alan Olander on July 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Yes, what is this with the thinking that 72 ppi defines the image size as it seems to come up often. As Richard mentions, ppi is meaningless; it is only meaningful when you print, and it can be changed to vary the print size. A 3000 x 2000 pixel image will make a good quality frameable sized print by changing the ppi to, for example, 300ppi. However, a 600 x 400 pixel image won't ever make a usable print. So, a 600 x 400 pixel image on your website tagged with a ppi of 72 won't be any more or less usable than if it were tagged with a ppi of 300.
This general topic comes up pretty frequently. One quetion I have is how do you become aware if someone is using your work? Do folks spend time looking for their images on line, or do you just happen to stumble across something (like the story in the prior post)?
I am not a professional but do post a lot of my pictures on my web site. I always make them 720 px wide or less figuring that will be mostly useless to most people (ppi is meaningless for web photos). I also always embed my copyright and other information in the EXIF data.
I disable "right click" on my web pages, but I realize an expert can get around this, but it does discourage casual theft. I do not usually place a watermark on the image as I have never designed one I'm happy with although I've made a few tries I really don't think this is too important for me.
I do not know how you would go about finding image theft other than stumbling upon it. I do not plan to spend a lot of time doing searches or anything. At most I think if you found someone using an image you would be able to get the party to cease use, but I doubt you would have the fortitude to go after a big settlement as the court time would be years and the legal fees enormous; so I do not register.
Posted by Robert Bunch on July 18, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Thanks to everyone for the replies and the link. The information supplied will help me make an informed decision whatever I decide to do.
Robert Bunch
Posted by Howard Cheek on July 20, 2012 at 12:34 PM
FYI - I found this on dpreview.com, it follows up on Rich's suggestion concerning the DMCA with regards to web use.
Finding an unauthorized use of your photograph on the web is upsetting. But what can you do about it? You can contact an attorney for assistance. But if you haven’t registered your photo in advance of the infringement, then you won’t be eligible for statutory damages. Attorneys will take such cases on contingency only under certain circumstances. It then will cost a lot to pursue the infringement when paying the attorney an hourly fee. In the alternative, you can send a cease and desist and/or a demand for payment yourself to the infringer. But such letters are often ignored.
Fortunately, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) gives you another option. Enacted in 1998, the DMCA implemented treaties signed at the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Geneva conference. It addresses many issues, one of which affects photographers directly in this situation. The DMCA states that while an Internet Service Provider (ISP) is not liable for transmitting information that may infringe a copyright, the ISP must remove materials from users’ websites that appear to constitute copyright infringement after it receives proper notice. Unlike other copyright infringement remedies, your copyright does not have to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office for you to take advantage of this DMCA provision.
Discussion
9 repliesI did a little research and found out the details for copyrighting your photos. You have to fill out some paperwork and pay $65 bucks each time you copyright a group of photos. It is recommended that you copyright every three months to keep all your new work protected and up to date. So I am thinking about the pros and cons of the process.
My understanding is that the copyright is mine on creation of the work even if I don’t officially register it but that if I do register my photos I have a much better possibility of recovering substantial damages from the violator, getting my legal fees paid by the violator, etc., etc. than I would have if it is not registered.
If I do register this means that I will have to fill out a bunch of paperwork four times a year and fork over about $260 per year to protect my work and send in a DVD with all the files I am copyrighting on it. Kind of a hassle but I will be better protected.
As it stands now if someone steals one of my photos from the internet they will get a 72 dpi file of no use for any kind of publication or print or a major ad campaign or to illustrate a book cover etc. They will be able to use it on the web though in a blog or on a website. My guess is this potential photo pirate will not be some large company with deep pockets that will be able to pay the $150,000 per copyright violation because a big company has lawyers who aren’t likely to let that happen. It will probably be some yahoo who likes one of my photos and thinks it would look good on his blog or website or someone who prints it out off the screen and tacks it to the wall and I’ll probably never even know that it happened. I suppose it is possible that some really dumb company with deep pockets and bad lawyers would steal one of my duck photos and use it on their website for camo clothing but not very likely to my thinking.
I haven’t really decided what to do one way or the other but it seems like registering is going to a lot of trouble for something that will most likely never happen or if it does happen won’t be a really big deal.
I am interested in what some of the NPN photographers think about it. Do you register or not and why or why not? If you did register have you ever recovered damages from a violator and also have many, or any, of your images been appropriated by copyright pirates? Is this a serious problem for you or not? Any information or experience you have had will be of help to me in deciding what to do.
Thanks for your help.
Robert Bunch
www.robertbunchphotography.com
I have yet to sue for or recover damages, but I know other photographers that have sued successfully. I think it's worth it, at the very least as back-up ammunition if you somehow end up with a non-paying client or end up in the more common occurrence that something is stolen and used commercially (even if it's only web use).
Max
You need to decide what is most important to you:
- controlling how your images get used
- keeping others from profiting from your work
- collecting large damages when someone steals your work
Read up on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). I've invoked it a few times to get stolen images taken down from web sites. Having a copyright notice on an image and your name in the EXIF are great ways to show ownership when filing a DMCA notice.
Collecting money will probably require legal assistance. I've not had to go that far yet but it is a regular topic here and I know some people have gone that route.
Never over estimate the intelligence of major corporations, and never under estimate their desire to save a dollar by cutting a corner somewhere.
Note that "a 72 dpi file" is meaningless - what really matters is the size of the image in pixels wide by pixels high.
I've had images stolen by students, teachers, friends, strangers, commercial web sites, and Audubon groups. I recently opened a piece of mail sent to me by a distant Audubon group only to find a card inside using one of my Gila Woodpecker photos. They were sharing it with me as the latest item in their gift shop! I had let them use a couple of my photos on request for their newsletter but never authorized (or was ever asked about) this use.
Thanks. It's a pet peeve of mine, too.
I disable "right click" on my web pages, but I realize an expert can get around this, but it does discourage casual theft. I do not usually place a watermark on the image as I have never designed one I'm happy with although I've made a few tries I really don't think this is too important for me.
I do not know how you would go about finding image theft other than stumbling upon it. I do not plan to spend a lot of time doing searches or anything. At most I think if you found someone using an image you would be able to get the party to cease use, but I doubt you would have the fortitude to go after a big settlement as the court time would be years and the legal fees enormous; so I do not register.
Robert Bunch
Finding an unauthorized use of your photograph on the web is upsetting. But what can you do about it? You can contact an attorney for assistance. But if you haven’t registered your photo in advance of the infringement, then you won’t be eligible for statutory damages. Attorneys will take such cases on contingency only under certain circumstances. It then will cost a lot to pursue the infringement when paying the attorney an hourly fee. In the alternative, you can send a cease and desist and/or a demand for payment yourself to the infringer. But such letters are often ignored.
Fortunately, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) gives you another option. Enacted in 1998, the DMCA implemented treaties signed at the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Geneva conference. It addresses many issues, one of which affects photographers directly in this situation. The DMCA states that while an Internet Service Provider (ISP) is not liable for transmitting information that may infringe a copyright, the ISP must remove materials from users’ websites that appear to constitute copyright infringement after it receives proper notice. Unlike other copyright infringement remedies, your copyright does not have to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office for you to take advantage of this DMCA provision.