Copyright - did you know ...

[clupica]

From the US government copyright website copyright.gov

QUOTE

Section 506(b) imposes criminal liability on "any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work."

By placing a visible copyright mark on your images it increases the stakes for anyone taking them and removing the copyright. It may have no impact but if you can prove they took the images and altered them so they could pass the images off as their own there are both civil and criminal consequences.

From the US copyright code:
QUOTE

Evidentiary Weight of Notice.  If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504©(2).

According to the code a legally formed copyright notice must contain

• the copyright symbol, © or the word copyright.
• The year of first publication
• the name of the owner of the copyright

The rights claimed are optional

[Ads]

PhotoForum.com is a leading Photography Forum, Registered users do not see these ads. Register, it's free!

[KimR]

From the US government copyright website copyright.gov

QUOTE

Section 506(b) imposes criminal liability on "any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work."

By placing a visible copyright mark on your images it increases the stakes for anyone taking them and removing the copyright. It may have no impact but if you can prove they took the images and altered them so they could pass the images off as their own there are both civil and criminal consequences.

From the US copyright code:
QUOTE

Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of section 504©(2).

• A legally formed copyright notice the copyright symbol © or the word copyright.
• The year of first publication
• the name of the owner of the copyright

[/quote]

Interesting topic Charles I am please you posted it.

Yes Charles, I did know of Sec. 506(b) & that it said that. I also know the Copyright Laws are much more complex then at couple of Sections of the Code. For instance you can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" and many do but to my knowledge and as I understand it the "©" has never been given legal force & you can not sue for copyright infringements in small claims court or maybe I would be more accurate in saying if your do sue for copyright infringement in small claims court if the judge or opposing attorney has a single brain cell the suit will be thrown out. See the law and the Copyright suit will be in Federal Court - 28 USC Sec. 1338(a). Charles you have quoted a section of a Criminal code & as a principle of criminal law there is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" or as common "Innocent until proven guilty". However Copyright law is mostly civil law & if you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. Copyright suites don't apply as criminal law does, but in copyright suites it is before a judge and jury & which side with their set of evidence will they believe more. The rules vary depending upon what type of infringement there is and strangely in civil proceeding one can even be forced to testify against their own interests. Civil proceedings are something that can also turn upon you if you file such a suite as there is always the possibility the you can be held responsible for huge legal fees or be subject to a counter suite that may be in an amount of much more then you may have filed suite for. (I had the experience of filing a civil suite for fifteen hundred dollar once and was counter-sued for one million two hundred fifty thousand one hundred and fifty dollar and I looked at that counter-suit and said to myself ~ "Where am I going to get the fifty dollars?!") Placing the stamp on the image will allow one to get different damages if and here is the stickler, if you can prove they took the images and altered them to attempt to pass off as their own. In the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. I will repeat that the copyright does not come with the placing of a stamp upon an image, copyright exist before that and without registration/licensing on your image at the Copyright Office you don't have much to stand on in getting any legal compensation or recourse. The stamps are not necessary and are often incorrectly used. Of course those who wish to use them may do so but I will suggest from a business stand point that they probably should at least weight the benefits of feeling more secure against the other responses and consequences of defacing their images. As I said in another thread~ QUOTE

Making it easier for your real customers to get excited about your images seems to be more important than trying to prevent unwanted usage from a few non-customers by making your images less attractive.

Our image can be stolen and just given away and it is still in violation of Copyright laws, if money is exchanged that is what is going to be a greater determination of damages and compensation awarded if any are to be collected or awared. It was not at all as simple as placing a stamp on an image or not, and in 1998 along came the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that put legal strength behind copy-protection systems, making programs illegal and reducing the reality of fair use rights. The DMCA has not been used as Congress envisioned and has done nothing to prevent internet piracy and yet the DMCA has impeded both innovation and competition, hindered scientific research, put a damper on free expression and it has interfered with laws made for the purpose of thwarting internet intrusion.
Viacom v. YouTube
RealNetworks v. DVD-CCA (RealDVD case)
Marvel v. NCSoft
No not as simple as putting a Copyright Stamp on something. It is to bad it isn't that simple but...
those who choose to deface their images with such stamps across them for whatever reason are fee to do so. If it makes them feel in someway more secure then it is probably a good thing. Feeling secure is a good feeling for me anyway but I just don't need such a stamp to feel good.

[clupica]

KimR,

As you say, some people find a touch of security in a copyright and a watermark. While it may or may not be of value, I think you'll find that most professional photographers feel better if the images have a noticeable watermark and / or copyright statement. You should hear the wailing and whinging that goes on on stock sites if the watermarks aren't working for half a day.

I will continue to put a copyright on my images you can continue to consider it defacing the image. I will consider that the lack of a copyright is an invitation to steal and use an image (which I won't do). If the owner doesn't care enough to mark the image, then they must not care how or where it gets used. To me, it's not as much of a deterrent as it is a statement to tell people, "I care about this image. If I find you using it, I will take action".

If you don't want to see watermarks and copyrights don't look at any image I post.

I guess you'll continue to tell people it doesn't matter and I'll continue to say it might. Unless you and I are reading different things, the criminal code (yes it's the criminal code because stealing is a crime), says that the removal of copyright information (in the prescribed form) prevents the use of an "accidental infringement" defense.

I have to be honest and say I don't really care if someone seeing my images on an internet forum or on my website think I've defaced them by putting a copyright and / or watermark on my images. If it deters one person form stealing one image it's worth it to me to deface the image.

The only real alternative I can see (myopic perhaps) is to make the images so small at at such a high jpg compression as to be just plain unusable. I think people looking at my images will over look the copyright notice sooner than they'll over look a crappy jpg image.

You may not care about your images but I care about mine and I want to protect them in any way I can.

Peace
Charles

[Mulewings~]

For me, I don't mind if there is a copyright symbol on it or a watermark. I am able to look past that and appreciate the why it is there.

I know that people have yanked my stuff off the internet...big sigh.
I do think it is a deterrent for those who want to simply download it and use it. A watermark is tough to edit around [isn't it?]

Most of my work that gets published does have a signature on it or some sort of marking.

[BlackDog's]

Thank you Charles for this information. Just curious but are you on the photographer registry? It’s free and helps cut down on copyright infringement by making you easier to find should someone want to reproduce one of your photographs. http://www.photographerregistry.com/index.php

I think this argument might be as old as digital cameras! LOL.

Personally I am of the school of thought that you should mark your photographs. I know sometimes I get lazy and don’t do it but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t do it. I think every copyright website I’ve seen says that this is the proper way to protect your photographs. It doesn’t matter if people can remove it or not. If you want them protected, you should mark them.

I agree, it’s easy to look past someone’s watermark/copyright and see and appreciate the photograph. Most watermarks/copyrights I see these days are pretty tastefully done and not huge and intrusive.