Hi all i was wondering how do you copyright your own images do you do it on Photoshop or do you have somebody do it? thanks Lucas
Printable View
Hi all i was wondering how do you copyright your own images do you do it on Photoshop or do you have somebody do it? thanks Lucas
The copyright, as I understand it, is conferred to you simply by snapping the shutter. In order to add it in to the photos metadata, it can depend on the camera you have, but most cameras have the ability for you to enter your name into the camera which automatically enters it into the metadeta. As for photoshop, I think you do it, but I don't know how. Do you have lightroom?
I think he may be talking about a watermark but I am not sure, what exactly are you looking to do?
Sounds like he wants to know how to add a watermark.
Just google "adding copyright watermark to my pictures in photoshop" you will get a ton of links
There is also a way to have your work registered in copyright....and additional level of protection that makes it easier for you to pursue infringement cases. I'll have more details and assistance on this soon.
Phil, as per US Copyright Laws, you are immediately protected as soon as [you] press the shutter, no need to do anything further. However you are welcome to send copies of your images to the US Copyright office for further proof and to make it easier to fight in court, but it is not required!
Yep not to mention it's not free.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzalu
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html
Right and right. :)
but that fee pays for it self 10x over if you ever have a copyright infringement case.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
You have the same case without it. As Manny clearly pointed out. Not to mention the dollar value is so minuscule that any site or person that has stolen your photo will pay immediately without that registration since it's cheaper than getting involved in a copyright case. If you press them. I have had a few stolen and the last one (Sands SP) the guy sent me a check within 48 hours the second he heard that I would press the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric8669
Also don't forget that fee is per photo. So I doubt anyone here will be registering their photos in hopes they recover "10x" if one of their pics are stolen. Since they would need 1 out of every 10 of their pics to get stolen just to break even.
That service is designed for professionals and bigger sport and other venue video shooters I would guess. Not the amateur photog.
Actually, its not per photo. You can send in several images under the same registration.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
Here is a great article on the topic.
http://goingpro2010.com/2010/03/14/r...y-of-congress/
Like I said the service is designed for professionals. If you like to pay 35$ a year and retain a layer that will cost you double to triple what you will recover from a simple email go right ahead but fact is it's unnecessary.Quote:
There’s no excuse not to register your Copyright, especially if you hope to make money from your photographic endeavors
Scott Bourne is a professional and seems to make consistent money which may make it cost effective but something like this is probably more utilized by people like Ron Galella. Who probably sees annual sales in the hundreds of thousands and has to probably fight theives stealing his work constantly since he has shot the most high profile subjects. Not B6 320s on final at JFK. The only person I can see utilizing this is someone like Gerard Isaacson.
Where does it say you need to retain a lawyer, you can consult one if you like, but it is not needed. And as a matter of fact, I have had an image of a B6 320 landing at JFK used without my permission.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
Neither of you are wrong. Registering your copyright is very useful when pursuing infringement. It's just not necessary and it doesn't make your case any less valid if you don't have it. Same with a lawyer...useful and beneficial, but not necessary.
In order to convince an attorney to help you sue to protect your rights, you will either need to pay them traditionally high fees, or provide them with evidence of a Copyright RegistrationQuote:
Where does it say you need to retain a lawyer
Eric you know full well that any photo that yourself or I or anyone with the exception of people like Gerard will see any sort of meager compensation for theft will be done with a simple email and not a lawyer or this registration. Why do you continue to argue? As everyone that has had any experience with this knows it's such a small amount none of this ever takes place.
Neither is the registration. Read your own source. This is designed for "professionals" people like Gerard that make a living simply on their work and that if needed use a lawyer and this service to sue for real damages of theft. Not spotters camping out at JFK that stand to gain probably 50 to 100 bucks at best.Quote:
you can consult one if you like, but it is not needed
So, I had a Maxjet shot stolen from JFK, in fact Phil found it. It was fair use. So what? I had no recourse. Unless the people that stole it used it to make money or for advertising like when my SP shot was stolen you won't get anything. Even with that I only got a check for $400 bucks. No lawyer, no registration required and the shot was taken down after 2 months. What was your B6 shot used for?Quote:
And as a matter of fact, I have had an image of a B6 320 landing at JFK used without my permission.
For the third time. It is up to the individual but if they feel they need to pay $35 for every 750 pics in a calendar year knock yourself out. When uploading to JP or anet does the same thing for free.
All I am saying is that I am in favor of registering. I'm just not talking about Aviation photography, but any photography you do. It is something I am considering doing in the near future. for me personally its something I have been looking into as I am now considered a professional as all my income comes from photography.
Best of luck with it. Unfortunately most of this could be avoided by simply posting samples online instead of files with no watermark. If you do it properly it's not obtrusive but still has your name in huge letters across the center of the pic so it can't be photoshopped out and we should all support the Stop Online Piracy act which I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric8669
Watermarks do not prevent theft, and they are not photoshop-proof.
If done properly and in the middle of the picture they are. Plus the skills needed to do the extensive cloning needed to try to get rid of it without the destroying the pic is too much and thieves will just go on to the next pic without a watermark or one with it on the bottom of the pic which is easily removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Here is a good example. Give this a shot at removing and give us an accurate time it took to do.
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/9368/copyrightc.jpg
But putting a watermark across an image takes away from the viewing experience of the image. If you indeed use a watermark make it so it does not interfere with viewing the image.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric8669
That defeats the purpose of the watermark. A watermark is there to protect the photographer. Not enhance the viewing of the people on the net. People that upload big enough files without a watermark through the subject are who is enabling piracy and honestly all the registering in the world won't help since most of the theft will go undetected. Serious professionals will always watermark in this fashion since the pic is merely a sample and the watermark in my example really doesn't interfere with the viewing of the subject. Or they just disable the scripts so the picture can't be downloaded to the person's HD by right clicking and saving. Still the best ways to protect your work.
Again Nick, I have to disagree, I follow a number of serious professionals who do not watermark.Quote:
Originally Posted by NIKV69
This is what I wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric8669
Serious professionals will always watermark in this fashion since the pic is merely a sample and the watermark in my example really doesn't interfere with the viewing of the subject. Or they just disable the scripts so the picture can't be downloaded to the person's HD by right clicking and saving
The professionals that you follow. Are you able to right click and save the image?
I have no idea, I've never tried.
instead of a watermark, try embedding your information in the metadata. I find the watermarked image you posted very distracting actually.
Only because you need to argue the point with me. In reality it doesn't really take away from the subject and people viewing that shot get the full effect of the subject and realize the photographer has skills. Which is what he is looking for while protecting himself.Quote:
I find the watermarked image you posted very distracting actually.
Sure, at the end of the day things like this, and other thing likeQuote:
instead of a watermark, try embedding your information in the metadata.
1. Doing what Sam Chui does. Upload no bigger than 1000 pixels and at a resolution that nothing can be done with the stolen photo other than web viewage since anet is ground zero for theft and one needs to only pay FC membership to circumvent the watermark.
2. Watermark it properly
3. Disable scripts and other such things preventing downloading pic from page to HD.
Other than that our photos will get stolen, and most (I would venture to say at least half) will never even be detected by us. If you upload big enough files. Unfortunately with web and social media it's reality now.
Watermarks take away from the integrity of the image. It's a shame that photographer's need to sacrifice their work because of rampant theft. THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING! haha
Just make all your images creative commons, then you don't have to worry. I know a number of professionals that do this too.
Basically, the digital revolution had a dark side. Which is why I support the SOPA. I think it will send a message and make a difference. Eric, Phil. Do you support it?Quote:
Watermarks take away from the integrity of the image. It's a shame that photographer's need to sacrifice their work because of rampant theft. THE TERRORISTS ARE WINNING! haha
based on the internet radio podcast I have listened to on this subject, as of right now I do not support SOPA. I have to look at some more information and I'll get back to you.
I do not support it at this time because my research (I could be wrong) indicates that a site can be shut down within hours of a mere claim of infringement...which is not adequate due process in my mind.
Could you post a source of this? I mean the bill gives the DOJ power to seek a court order so they won't have absolute power to shut down sites. The order will not be granted until a judge looks at all facts presented so I can't see site being shut down in "hours"Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
What did you hear that made you feel this way?Quote:
based on the internet radio podcast I have listened to on this subject, as of right now I do not support SOPA. I have to look at some more information and I'll get back to you.
Part of the testimony given about it specifically said the process can take as early as 6 hours. I have no link to the transcripts.
Sounds like smoke to me. I mean here is the bill. The AG has to seek a court order and that is no way can take 6 hours. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
As long as the courts are not circumvented which seems clear here it's not an overreach of power. I mean it took the DOJ 5 years to enforce the UIGEA act and this bill doesn't give them the power to shut the site down since they are outside the us but instructs search engines and payment processors to place in action measures to counteract piracy.
From what I have read seems like a pretty good bill for people who don't want their copyrighted photos, video or other media stolen at will then distributed at a geometric rate electronically.
Smoke as in I'm lying?
No smoke as in the person you are quoting was just making up scenarios because they want to continue to steal copyrighted material at will. Though it is good form to produce sources when making claims or transcripts so we can see what was actually said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
When Google, GoDadday, WikiPedia,Reddit, YouTube, the Heritage Foundation, and the founders of the internet itself have all come out against--many of them like Google and internet founders not merely against but strongly against--perhaps it isn't so great.Quote:
From what I have read seems like a pretty good bill for people who don't want their copyrighted photos, video or other media stolen at will then distributed at a geometric rate electronically.
The only major supporters of this bill are, by and large, Hollywood and the USCC.
An FAQ from respected tech site CNET:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...?tag=mncol;txt
You realize that the people you just quoted as being against the bill are the ones who profit the most from the theft of copyrighted material? The ones you quoted as being for the bill are the victims of the theft?Quote:
Originally Posted by jerslice
This is equal to being a person who sells guns at gun shows which don't have to be subject to the law of background checks and being against passing a law making it a crime to sell guns in this manner. Not caring that you doing so can harm somebody or lead to someone being killed simply because you profit in huge amounts from it. I mean I love youtube but you realize they make a lot of money from stealing copyrighted stuff?
If this bill gets passed as written and government has to get court approval and have evidence copyright theft is occuring it's a total win for the people who create material protected by copyright. If you are against it then you are condoning the theft and easy transmission of this material for profit. So until someone can give me some real proof of their claims that this bill has major flaws or would be harmful in another way besides letting youtube and google make millions from stolen material I am calling major BS here.
When did the Heritage Foundation and the founders of the internet profit in it?
I do realize YouTube makes a lot of money off it, but the onus is placed on the user making the upload, and YouTube currently says the user is responsible for the content uploaded - that they merely provide space.
Two things here bud, first: you don't appear to have read the link I posted, but if you do so you'll see that tech folks bring up more than a handful of reasons why SOPA retains the power to damage the internet, nevermind the concerns over government sponsored censorship. Two: you clearly have your mind made up on SOPA. While I strongly disagree with you I don't see you buying anything an anti-SOPA person would throw your way anyways.Quote:
If this bill gets passed as written and government has to get court approval and have evidence copyright theft is occuring it's a total win for the people who create material protected by copyright. If you are against it then you are condoning the theft and easy transmission of this material for profit. So until someone can give me some real proof of their
claims that this bill has major flaws or would be harmful in another way besides letting youtube and google make millions from stolen material I am calling major BS here.
Phil, the quote on DOJ disabled a website in six hours came from testimony from the DOJ - it was in a WashingtonPost article from somewhere in the neighborhood of November 17th.
That is like saying you own a hall and know that the person you rent it to is auctioning off stolen items in it and you merely provide the space and collecting the money. It's not an excuse. Ebay doesn't allow it why should anyone else?Quote:
and YouTube currently says the user is responsible for the content uploaded - that they merely provide space
It's not censorship. You can't allow someone to upload a movie that is copyright infringement then yell when you can't make the advertising revenue from it and call it censorship. It's not even in the ballpark. Censorship is stopping people from expressing themselves due to things you don't agree with or find objectionable that would otherwise not break the law. This is breaking the law.Quote:
government sponsored censorship
I asked you to provide me with something of substance and I would be open to hear it. So far you have given me a what if and are assuming the government will be censoring us when all they have said is they are going to take court sanctioned action against sites that knowingly reproduce stuff they know is stolen and or breaks copyright law. You are basically telling me that by doing this it's censorship? I mean come on you can't really believe that?Quote:
While I strongly disagree with you I don't see you buying anything an anti-SOPA person would throw your way anyways.
Basically what is happening here is the tech world and regular people hate this law because they are going to have to pony up a couple of bucks to stream a movie instead of watching a free pirated copy on youtube. I mean unless I am missing something it's basically that simple. Now if you can provide something of substance that gives any support to a government overreach and or censorship I am all for it.
A censor free internet means you can post anything you want. Porn, cursing, gore etc. As long as you haven't stolen it. That is not being threatened here. To exploit that notion is really unfair and just a red herring.
The idea that anyone could defend legislation like SOPA is scary to me. Here are a few of my concerns with this and similar bills.
First: They will not accomplish their stated goals of ending piracy. Peer-to-peer filesharing hasn't depended on search engines, blogs, or domain names since... well, it's been a long long time. It is all done via torrents which operate solely by IP address and the torrent files themselves are 1) not illegal so the sites hosting them can't be shut down and 2) easily searchable using tools like BitChe that don't rely on websites or domain names.
Second: They WILL allow the paranoid to the point of idiotic Entertainment Industry to take down pretty much every website that allows user content or user feedback in any form. Today, a website like Facebook or NYCAviation makes users agree to a User Agreement that states the user is responsible for the content of everything they post. If someone posts something they shouldn't, the party who is being harmed can ask NYCAviation to take the material down, they will do so, and that is the end of the story. Under SOPA, if I post a link to something illegal in this forum post, then within just a few hours the entire NYCAviation domain could be turned off and removed from all search engines. Nobody would be able to access this website, nor would it show up as a result in a Google search, until the courts get around to hearing NYCAviation's defense. This could be weeks, months, years, during which time this website might as well never have existed. Users will move elsewhere, search engine rank will be reset to zero, and even if eventually you convince the courts that your website is "clean", your entire business will be starting from scratch when they turn your domain back on.
Third: The Internet is known as the World-Wide Web. Everyone can access everything that's out there, information flows freely. There are a few countries who censor what their citizens can see, but every year they let in a little more, and every year those people are a little closer to enjoying the freedoms we take for granted. If we allow the government to start censoring speech on the Internet, to start punishing website owners who are not even responsible for the content posted by their users, we will kill the Internet. If SOPA passes, the only way for a website owner to be sure their site won't be taken down will be to require an approval process for every piece of user content posted to their site. Can you imagine the cost? How many staff would you need to do that here at NYCAviation? How many hours would it take a post to be approved? Could thoughtful and interesting conversations like this even happen, or would everyone have moved on to the next big story before any of the comments are even visible yet? Can you imagine an Internet with no comments, no blogs, no links, all out of fear of the U.S. Government and our entertainment industry?
Fourth: There are more reasons, many more, but this one will be my last today... We have a country in economic crisis, we have a war ongoing in Afghanistan, we have new unknown regimes sprouting around the globe as dictators fall (thanks Internet!), we have tax laws that need to be rewritten, we have TSA groping grandmothers, we have countless serious national issues... and yet Congress, BOTH HOUSES, are screwing around with legislation like SOPA?!?! Are you fracking kidding me? Teens downloading movies instead of going to the theater or buying the DVD which is supposedly hurting sales (but nobody can point to any statistics that PROVE that of course).... That's our big issue? That's what our Representatives are going to vote on? C'mon, let's get real. A lot of those problems Congress can't do anything about (or shouldn't) but those it can do something about aren't going to go away if we ignore them. Let's throw away this useless, scary legislation and move on to something IMPORTANT.
-Liz