 BetterPhoto Member |
Copyright - Protecting Your Images I am preparing a disk of images for copyright registration. They are organized in an easily retrievable format. I have prepared medium resolution jpeg's so that I could fit a large volume of work on a single disk. Is this acceptable for copyright registration, or is it necessary to send the higher resolution parent or raw image?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
I don't think you really need to register any artwork for copyright, do you? Any photo that you take and at least if you still have the original file or negative, you already have a copyright. That's why if you try to right click on any image from a gallery it will say that the image is under copyright, it also says that when you look at the larger version of an image after clicking the thumbnail. It's copyright material from the moment you press the shutter I believe.
|
|
|
|
||
|
A C |
If you want to prove that those images are yours, you can Digimarc them. In Photoshop, you go to Filters > Other > Digimarc. This imprints a code or name that cannot be seen with the human eye but can be read with software. You cannot remove the Digimarc from a photo or even re-mark it. Does this help?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kip T. Berger |
Digital and visual watermarking are only deterrents. The same with Java code to disable right-mouse clicking. One way to try and deter is to put translucent gif before your image, which you set as a background. Another is to insert exclude them from image search engines, such as Google's. To do this, create a plain text file called robots.txt at the root level of your Web site. Almost all Web-search robots look for this file when they index your site and they obey instructions contained within it. To prevent your site's images from appearing in a Google image search, add these two lines to your robots.txt file: User-agent: Googlebot-Image Disallow: / Digimarc has been known to be compromised. Even adding noise, then despeckling the noise, will make a Digimark Unreadable. Keep proof of your original work, and limit the size and image quality of your work online.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David Earls |
Why not use sidecar files? They cannot prevent anyone from reproducing your files, but they are irrefutable proof that you are the author of the image. They record the time and date of capture, the camera model, and a huge amount of exposure data. In Photoshop, you can create a small template that will add copyright notice, any limitations you place on reproduction, your name and address, etc. I'd bet that just about any image editor permits the creation of a template to personalize the sidecar file. This is the way the good stock photo agencies do it, by the way.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kip T. Berger |
Hi David, It's still an issue then with needing to send the xmp file with every picture. Also there's a need for camera manufacturers and software companies to use a set metadata convention. Adobe DNG is also another route being opted for. Right now , think until the standard is set, both have their positive and negative benefits. Again these are working with RAW files. Doing any work and saving a .jpg already loses your exif info header for those not using RAW. Hopefully a set standard will be chosen.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Yes, you need to file your images with the US Copyright office to actually have a copyright. You can use thumbnails. That's good enough proof. You send them in with the fee and application, and that's it. You should do this as often as needed. I do it about every 3 months. This copyright ensures that if someone steals an image from you, that it is yours. And, you can sue for infringement. This is becoming more important as access to online images is available. Snapping the photo isn't enough. But, don't believe me, go directly to the US Copyright office's Web site and read all about it. Yes, there is a law that a photographer owns the copyright when they snap the photo. But, good luck with that in court. The first question will be: Is it registered with the copyright office? If you are ever going against someone with money, like a magazine, or a sleezy Web company, you will be glad you did this. And, if you belong to an organization, like maybe PPA, they will back you up if it's registered because it's easier to fight and win when you have an image that is registered. Again, don't take my word for it at all. Do your own research. http://www.copyright.gov<
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Forgot to tell you that on the website, it tells you the size requirements and all that.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David Earls |
Hi Kip, don't you think that adopting the habit of updating and sending sidecar files constitutes "best practice"? If copyright is the author's concern, what better way to establish authorship? After all, the camera does most of the work for you... I don't convert my images to JPEGs, so I'm not fully informed on what happens to sidecar files. I do know that every time I download even a lo-res comp from Adobe Stock Images, I get the sidecar.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
You take you images, and convert to small thumbnail JPEG's and send those in on a DVD. This insures your copyright protection. Anything else isn't really copyright protection.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Keep in mind that thye don't have to be pretty, wiuth perfect WB and saturation. Just a reasonable likeness is all.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kip T. Berger |
Hi David, I agree that XMP files can show copyright info, as will DNG. But when you have numerous image files, all requiring a seperate XMP file to be sent along with the image, then you chance losing or placing the wrong file to send. You'll still have the RAW data, but adjustments made to the original RAW file will be lost to whoever you sent the image to, changing who you wished the image to appear. More a workflow issue. My feelings are that there should be a unified practice supported by both the software companies & the camera manufacturers.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||