Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Copyright - How do you do it?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 8:53:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Since there are numerous regulars here who at least publish on the web, if
not in other ways, I thought that I would ask for some ideas about how you
handle copyright. Do you just enter your name in the EXIF data, do you use
invisible watermarks, other methods, nothing at all? I assume, but maybe I'm
wrong, that not many actually pay the money and wait the several months for
a registered copyright?
I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my photos for
their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting published I
would like to be able to establish some proof of ownership.
Chuck

More about : copyright

Anonymous
January 10, 2005 8:53:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright wrote:

> Since there are numerous regulars here who at least publish on the web, if
> not in other ways, I thought that I would ask for some ideas about how you
> handle copyright. Do you just enter your name in the EXIF data, do you use
> invisible watermarks, other methods, nothing at all? I assume, but maybe I'm
> wrong, that not many actually pay the money and wait the several months for
> a registered copyright?
> I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my photos for
> their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting published I
> would like to be able to establish some proof of ownership.
> Chuck

Your imges are copyrighted the instant you take them. There is no need
to pay anyone for the service. The copyright applies worldwide as most
countries abide by an international agreement.

The only thing to be concerned with is proof of ownership.

As Ken mentioned, cropping a small amount from the boundary before posting
an image will serve as a 'key' to show you did take the image. Placing a
tasteful copyright image on the photo will work as well. It can be edited
out, but if someone alters it, the image will look different than the original.
January 10, 2005 8:53:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright wrote:
> Since there are numerous regulars here who at least publish on the web, if
> not in other ways, I thought that I would ask for some ideas about how you
> handle copyright. Do you just enter your name in the EXIF data, do you use
> invisible watermarks, other methods, nothing at all? I assume, but maybe I'm
> wrong, that not many actually pay the money and wait the several months for
> a registered copyright?
> I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my photos for
> their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting published I
> would like to be able to establish some proof of ownership.
> Chuck
>
>
You own the copyright as soon as you take the picture. That doesn't itself stop anyone from copying your photos. Nobody
will enforce copyright for you. You have to track down the offendors and take action, which usually means hiting a lawyer.

I never put the full resolution photo online; it would been too big on thre screen anyway. If it would become necessary to
prove that a photo was mine, having the full-resolution photo would be evidence.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 8:53:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:

> If you take a picture, and fix it in a "permanent medium" (disk or
print) it
> is copyright protected under current law.

The law gives you the right to defend your "intellectual property". It
does not 'protect' your property per se. There are no "IP police
officers" with guns actively looking for and prosecuting offenders on
your behalf.

> As has been pointed out, its easier (but NOT required) to enforce the

> copright if you register.

If you can't afford attorney's fees to defend your copyright -- a
situation that may well cover most people reading this -- then you
effectively have no copyright. In light of this, dickering about
regristration seems rather silly, don't you think?

Even if you do register, pony up the money for your lawyers, you can
safely expect a ruling like this:

"And in conclusion, it is the inevitable ruling of this court that
indeed the plaintiff's images of her pet pomeranian were appropriated
without permission by the defendent.

Thankfully, the plaintiff's foresightful registration of these works
allow me to award attorney's fees and statutory damages in addition to
general damages. From submissions, supra, the quality and perceived
value of the copyrighted works, the actions of the defendent and the
phase of the moon while I ate dinner last night, this court orders the
following payments to be made by the defendent to the plaintiff:

attorney fees $652,221.12
statutory damages $30.00
general damages $0.00

SO ORDERED, [...]"
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 9:10:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright wrote:
> Since there are numerous regulars here who at least publish on the web, if
> not in other ways, I thought that I would ask for some ideas about how you
> handle copyright. Do you just enter your name in the EXIF data, do you use
> invisible watermarks, other methods, nothing at all? I assume, but maybe I'm
> wrong, that not many actually pay the money and wait the several months for
> a registered copyright?
> I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my photos for
> their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting published I
> would like to be able to establish some proof of ownership.
> Chuck


Hi Chuck...

One idea perhaps worth your consideration, if I may?

Crop your photos a little before releasing them.

Naturally you save and backup both the cropped and
uncropped versions.

If the situation were ever to develop where you were
obligated to prove your ownership, only you would have
a perfectly overlayable (is that a word? :)  copy.

Take care.

Ken
January 10, 2005 9:17:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright wrote:

> Do you just enter your name in the EXIF data

Use the IPTC data.


> I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my photos for
> their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting published I
> would like to be able to establish some proof of ownership.


Here's what I understand:

If you have the original full size that's enough proof. Copyright is
automatic, extra measures are just to remind people and scare their
lawyers. In fact you probably couldn't argue a case in court even if you
paid a lawyer unless they made obscene amounts of money from your
picture you could only claim the loss of income to you which is nil.


I use the following on my web site. It's not been reviewed by any lawers
but it's there if anyone cares to wonder what my thoughts are about
using images:

All rights reserved, copyright 1988-2005 Paul Furman, www.edgehill.net

All pictures are free for looking at and enjoying but if you are using
them for making money I want some too! Just send me an email & I might
have something better since nowhere near all my photos are posted on the
web site.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 9:51:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <10u5j8544g4ite6@news.supernews.com>,
Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:

> Your imges are copyrighted the instant you take them. There is no need
> to pay anyone for the service. The copyright applies worldwide as most
> countries abide by an international agreement.
>
> The only thing to be concerned with is proof of ownership.

Unless you have registered the imagery with the Copyright office certain
damage claims are harder to get compensated for. Additionally someone
can take your idea(s) and use it unless its nailed down.
January 10, 2005 9:51:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What ever you do dont use the word" Monster "
Read more

http://insidebayarea.com/businessnews/ci_2509361


"Inaccessible" <pandemonium@pitchedpipes.com> wrote in message
news:p andemonium-4F3335.13560110012005@news.verizon.net...
> In article <10u5j8544g4ite6@news.supernews.com>,
> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
>
> > Your imges are copyrighted the instant you take them. There is no need
> > to pay anyone for the service. The copyright applies worldwide as most
> > countries abide by an international agreement.
> >
> > The only thing to be concerned with is proof of ownership.
>
> Unless you have registered the imagery with the Copyright office certain
> damage claims are harder to get compensated for. Additionally someone
> can take your idea(s) and use it unless its nailed down.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 9:51:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Inaccessible wrote:

> In article <10u5j8544g4ite6@news.supernews.com>,
> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
>
>> Your imges are copyrighted the instant you take them. There is no need
>> to pay anyone for the service. The copyright applies worldwide as most
>> countries abide by an international agreement.
>>
>> The only thing to be concerned with is proof of ownership.
>
> Unless you have registered the imagery with the Copyright office certain
> damage claims are harder to get compensated for. Additionally someone
> can take your idea(s) and use it unless its nailed down.

That's true.. It works for trademarks (Like McDonald's 'Golden Arches').

But the cost involved in registering every image one takes would be
astronomical... Especially for the home/hobby shooter.

Even if you get an image registered, how do you go about claiming damages
from someone in another city or even another country without breaking the bank ?

If one doesn't want their images stolen, the best bet is not to
display them electronically..
January 10, 2005 9:51:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In terms of someone else printing them up in a hard copy or other
off-line commercial source it might make sense to simply publish web
photos in low res that make it hard to print. Programs like PE Elements
also preserve data on settings, camera used, etc. I would simply keep
the original images backed up before any editing.

/r

Jim Townsend wrote:
> Inaccessible wrote:
>
>
>>In article <10u5j8544g4ite6@news.supernews.com>,
>> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Your imges are copyrighted the instant you take them. There is no need
>>>to pay anyone for the service. The copyright applies worldwide as most
>>>countries abide by an international agreement.
>>>
>>>The only thing to be concerned with is proof of ownership.
>>
>>Unless you have registered the imagery with the Copyright office certain
>>damage claims are harder to get compensated for. Additionally someone
>>can take your idea(s) and use it unless its nailed down.
>
>
> That's true.. It works for trademarks (Like McDonald's 'Golden Arches').
>
> But the cost involved in registering every image one takes would be
> astronomical... Especially for the home/hobby shooter.
>
> Even if you get an image registered, how do you go about claiming damages
> from someone in another city or even another country without breaking the bank ?
>
> If one doesn't want their images stolen, the best bet is not to
> display them electronically..
>
>
>
>
January 10, 2005 9:51:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <10u5ortt1djdnf0@news.supernews.com>, not@real.address says...
> If one doesn't want their images stolen, the best bet is not to
> display them electronically..
>

I heartily agree!

I have been taking and selling photos for a long time, and I have YET to put
any image I care about on the web for any reason.

I have had customers ask why I dont have a web-site, and I just tell 'em, I
dont like having my work "up for grabs" at any size or any resolution.

I have posted some pictures to Photo News Groups, from time to time, but
NEVER an image that I intended to maintain ownership of.




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 9:51:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:
> Inaccessible wrote:
>
>> In article <10u5j8544g4ite6@news.supernews.com>,
>> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
>>
>>> Your imges are copyrighted the instant you take them. There is no
>>> need
>>> to pay anyone for the service. The copyright applies worldwide as
>>> most countries abide by an international agreement.
>>>
>>> The only thing to be concerned with is proof of ownership.
>>
>> Unless you have registered the imagery with the Copyright office
>> certain damage claims are harder to get compensated for.
>> Additionally someone
>> can take your idea(s) and use it unless its nailed down.
>
> That's true.. It works for trademarks (Like McDonald's 'Golden
> Arches').
>
> But the cost involved in registering every image one takes would be
> astronomical... Especially for the home/hobby shooter.
>
> Even if you get an image registered, how do you go about claiming
> damages
> from someone in another city or even another country without breaking
> the bank ?
>
> If one doesn't want their images stolen, the best bet is not to
> display them electronically..

There are ways of "Batch" registering as many photos as you can squeeze
into a batch, for $30.00 US per BATCH. "Photos, 2004-11-01 through
2004-12-31".

You learn this kind of stuff (You can NOT copyright an IDEA, just an
implementation of an idea) from legitimate organizations like Editorial
Photographers,
http://www.editorialphoto.com/
NOT from your casual Web observer who heard a rumor and said to
him/herself "Duh, that sounds pretty good. I think I will adopt and
propogate it."

Some things just do not yield to thought, however sophisticated or
ingenious, in the absence of essential facts.

ALWAYS check for sources close to the battle: Intellectual Property
lawyers are in the business, and you are better off if they are on your
side.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 9:51:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bub" <Bub@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RZudnaYsOrx-Tn_cRVn-oA@comcast.com...
> What ever you do dont use the word" Monster "
> Read more
>
> http://insidebayarea.com/businessnews/ci_2509361

Of course, what you do is find some pre-1979 commercial use of the word
"monster," buy the rights to it, and send Monster.com a letter demanding
$1,000 a year plus 1% of their gross, plus they have to give up all rights
to the word, "monster."
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 11:43:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Watermarking is only able to 'brand' an image if people read the watermarks.
Photoshop's "save for web" feature removes the EXIF data. The only way to be
absolutely certain you have clearly copyrighted the image is to put the ©
Copyright notice on the picture itself.

My Dad never displays any photos on the Internet he would not otherwise give
away and every poster print he sells has the copyright notice in the lower,
right corner. If there is no copyright notice on the image, it can legally
be presumed to be in the Public Domain.

Kiah
--------------

"C Wright" <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
news:BE081D1D.1403B%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com...
> Since there are numerous regulars here who at least publish on the web, if
> not in other ways, I thought that I would ask for some ideas about how you
> handle copyright. Do you just enter your name in the EXIF data, do you use
> invisible watermarks, other methods, nothing at all? I assume, but maybe
I'm
> wrong, that not many actually pay the money and wait the several months
for
> a registered copyright?
> I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my photos for
> their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting published I
> would like to be able to establish some proof of ownership.
> Chuck
>
>
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 11:43:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"One Million Pictures" <million_pics@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3OBEd.113370$K7.58277@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Watermarking is only able to 'brand' an image if people read the
> watermarks.
> Photoshop's "save for web" feature removes the EXIF data. The only way to
> be
> absolutely certain you have clearly copyrighted the image is to put the ©
> Copyright notice on the picture itself.
>
> My Dad never displays any photos on the Internet he would not otherwise
> give
> away and every poster print he sells has the copyright notice in the
> lower,
> right corner. If there is no copyright notice on the image, it can legally
> be presumed to be in the Public Domain.
>
That's wrong. The notice requirement in the US was eliminated when the US
subscribed to the Berne Copyright Convention. Copyright protection accrues
upon the moment of fixation in a tangible medium; neither registration nor
notice is required.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 12:42:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in
news:BE081D1D.1403B%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com:

> Since there are numerous regulars here who at least publish on the
> web, if not in other ways, I thought that I would ask for some ideas
> about how you handle copyright. Do you just enter your name in the
> EXIF data, do you use invisible watermarks, other methods, nothing at
> all? I assume, but maybe I'm wrong, that not many actually pay the
> money and wait the several months for a registered copyright?
> I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my photos
> for their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting
> published I would like to be able to establish some proof of
> ownership. Chuck

You don't have to do a thing. All pictures you take are
copyrighted, even those that are totally black and
the one where the camera went off when you dropped it
on the lawn.

So - just sit back and feel comfortable that everything
you do (and also don't really do but just happens with
your camera) is copyrighted and protected.

NOT!

Copyright is just a bluff. And it is going to be a bluff
as long as the owner of the picture does not have to
actively protect his property. The billions of totally
uninteresting pictures that are taken by millions of
photograpers all over the globe cannot all be copyrighted.
This International Berne Copyright Convention is useless.
No law enforcement system on this planet can be used to
enforce all those copyrights.

So - if you say that someone has stolen a picture from
you, it will not be easy to prove it and it will not
be easy to show that you have been damaged in any way,
even if you can prove that it was you that originaly
took the photo. Thats life. And it is reasonable.

I know that it is wise to register a copyright for those
pictures you want to protect. Legally this does not matter.
But it is a good practice and the courts are right when
they think it matters IMHO.

Copyrigt should, just like patents, be applied for. No one
shall have any automatic copyright to anything. If you get
automatic copyright for photos - then you shall also get
automatic copyright to everything else you make. And this
is absurd.


/Roland
January 11, 2005 12:42:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95DAE711F22CEklotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com says...
> C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in
> news:BE081D1D.1403B%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com:
>
> > Since there are numerous regulars here who at least publish on the
> > web, if not in other ways, I thought that I would ask for some ideas
> > about how you handle copyright. Do you just enter your name in the
> > EXIF data, do you use invisible watermarks, other methods, nothing at
> > all? I assume, but maybe I'm wrong, that not many actually pay the
> > money and wait the several months for a registered copyright?
> > I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my photos
> > for their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting
> > published I would like to be able to establish some proof of
> > ownership. Chuck
>
> You don't have to do a thing. All pictures you take are
> copyrighted, even those that are totally black and
> the one where the camera went off when you dropped it
> on the lawn.
>
> So - just sit back and feel comfortable that everything
> you do (and also don't really do but just happens with
> your camera) is copyrighted and protected.
>
> NOT!
>
> Copyright is just a bluff. And it is going to be a bluff
> as long as the owner of the picture does not have to
> actively protect his property. The billions of totally
> uninteresting pictures that are taken by millions of
> photograpers all over the globe cannot all be copyrighted.
> This International Berne Copyright Convention is useless.
> No law enforcement system on this planet can be used to
> enforce all those copyrights.
>
> So - if you say that someone has stolen a picture from
> you, it will not be easy to prove it and it will not
> be easy to show that you have been damaged in any way,
> even if you can prove that it was you that originaly
> took the photo. Thats life. And it is reasonable.
>
> I know that it is wise to register a copyright for those
> pictures you want to protect. Legally this does not matter.
> But it is a good practice and the courts are right when
> they think it matters IMHO.
>
> Copyrigt should, just like patents, be applied for. No one
> shall have any automatic copyright to anything. If you get
> automatic copyright for photos - then you shall also get
> automatic copyright to everything else you make. And this
> is absurd.

As absurd as it sounds, the law is in no way in contention.

It is exactly as has been quoted here.

If you take a picture, and fix it in a "permanent medium" (disk or print) it
is copyright protected under current law.

As has been pointed out, its easier (but NOT required) to enforce the
copright if you register.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 1:32:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright wrote:
> Since there are numerous regulars here who at least publish on the web, if
> not in other ways, I thought that I would ask for some ideas about how you
> handle copyright. Do you just enter your name in the EXIF data, do you use
> invisible watermarks, other methods, nothing at all? I assume, but maybe I'm
> wrong, that not many actually pay the money and wait the several months for
> a registered copyright?
> I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my photos for
> their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting published I
> would like to be able to establish some proof of ownership.
> Chuck
>
>
I reduce all my pictures to a max of 640x480 before using
them on my website. In the UK we do not have to register
copyright, it is automatic when we press the button. I
don't know US law.

A few years ago a friend of mine had a picture ripped off
and used in a magazine. It had actually been scanned from
another magazine who were using it legitimately. He
telephoned the offending magazine and requested payment for
its use. He got £250 for a very mundane picture.

Robin
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 1:47:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in
news:MPG.1c4cc39da06389509898ab@news.comcast.giganews.com:

> As absurd as it sounds, the law is in no way in contention.

Yepp

> It is exactly as has been quoted here.

Yepp

> If you take a picture, and fix it in a "permanent medium" (disk or
> print) it is copyright protected under current law.

Yepp

> As has been pointed out, its easier (but NOT required) to enforce the
> copright if you register.

Yepp

And the last one is the _only_ one that makes any
sense at all IMHO.

Copyright is a strange law where some (but not all)
things you do is not allowed to copy as soon as you
have made them, i.e. put them on a permanent medium
(whatever that is).

It is also somewhat undefined what a copy is.

A picture of a picture? A drawing of a picture?
A picture of a drawing? A picture of text? Text describing
a picture? A manipulated picture of a picture? A manipulated
copy of a picture? A picture that contains a picture? A
picture that contains a drawing? Some music describing a picture?

It is also rather diffuse what the protection really means.

If I take a picture of your picture, what is supposed to happen?
Shall I pay you something - and why? What happens if I sell
this picture? Is that hurting you? And what about the buyer?
Do he have to pay you also? And can he keep the picture?
What happens if I copy your picture and puts it on the web and
million of people downloads it? Does that hurt you? If I tell
that it is yours and you get famous and you get a big well
paid jobb? Does that hurt you? Can you then, apart from making
lots of money on the effect of the picture, also sue me for more
money? What happens if you personally give me a picture via
an email? Is this copy mine? And what happens at my operator
where there is a copy in the mail server? Or at may job if
you sent it there? At least in Sweden, the employer has
right to make copies of all mails that are sent from/to
the employees. Therefore - my pictures are also my employers
pictures. Or?

Copyright as we know it sux. Big time!

You shall always be prepared to protect your copyright
in some way IMHO. The most sensible seem to be to register
the pictures you want to protect - or to hide them from
the possibility to be copied. Just like for inventions -
you can either patent it or keep it secret - or anyone can
copy it. Your choice.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 1:47:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in
> news:MPG.1c4cc39da06389509898ab@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
>> As absurd as it sounds, the law is in no way in contention.
>
> Yepp
>

<snipp>

>
>> As has been pointed out, its easier (but NOT required) to enforce the
>> copright if you register.
>
> Yepp
>
> And the last one is the _only_ one that makes any
> sense at all IMHO.
>
> Copyright is a strange law where some (but not all)
> things you do is not allowed to copy as soon as you
> have made them, i.e. put them on a permanent medium
> (whatever that is).
>
> It is also somewhat undefined what a copy is.
>
> A picture of a picture? A drawing of a picture?
> A picture of a drawing? A picture of text? Text describing
> a picture? A manipulated picture of a picture? A manipulated
> copy of a picture? A picture that contains a picture? A
> picture that contains a drawing? Some music describing a picture?
>
> It is also rather diffuse what the protection really means.
>
> If I take a picture of your picture, what is supposed to happen?
> Shall I pay you something - and why? What happens if I sell
> this picture? Is that hurting you? And what about the buyer?
> Do he have to pay you also? And can he keep the picture?
> What happens if I copy your picture and puts it on the web and
> million of people downloads it? Does that hurt you? If I tell
> that it is yours and you get famous and you get a big well
> paid jobb? Does that hurt you? Can you then, apart from making
> lots of money on the effect of the picture, also sue me for more
> money? What happens if you personally give me a picture via
> an email? Is this copy mine? And what happens at my operator
> where there is a copy in the mail server? Or at may job if
> you sent it there? At least in Sweden, the employer has
> right to make copies of all mails that are sent from/to
> the employees. Therefore - my pictures are also my employers
> pictures. Or?
>
> Copyright as we know it sux. Big time!
>
> You shall always be prepared to protect your copyright
> in some way IMHO. The most sensible seem to be to register
> the pictures you want to protect - or to hide them from
> the possibility to be copied. Just like for inventions -
> you can either patent it or keep it secret - or anyone can
> copy it. Your choice.
>

The thing of it is, in many if not most juridictions much if not all of
the imaginitive "points" you are trying to build on *are* fixed in a
reproducible medium: either black-letter law or case law. Anyone can
make up a thoughtful opinion and run with it, meandering in and around
the fringes of reality to his/her heart's content; however, the links
among facts, acts, and useful information are likely tenuous. Unless a
"think-specialist" has at hand the recent decisions and opinions (of
duly constituted Courts), what he puts forth are at best opinions
once-removed from reality, at least public self-stroking, at worst
irresponsible misinformation.

My opinion is: you must protect the (natural-born) copyrights you value,
the best way you can. If/when you find an infringement, it is not likely
you will recover enough to make the effort worthwhile unless your
copyrights are registered with the appropriate agency. My understanding
is that in the US of A registration with the appropriate agency, in
addition to a potential for supporting ownership, allows Federal Courts
to order punitive damages, many times significantly in excess of actual
damages otherwise available.


A couple weeks ago I received my copy of the colorful 16-page monthly
newsletter from a special-interest organization I have supported by cash
donations over the past few years. Lo! and behold, there on the back
cover, in all its quarter-page glory, is one of my images. Looks good,
and fits the theme (upcoming exhibit of the subject) perfectly. The
picture was at some time lifted from one of the albums I use to show my
work to people who have interests similar to mine. The album carries a
copyright notice at the top of the thumbnail page. None of the names on
the Newsletter masthead was a direct recipient of the URL. As far as I
have been able to determine, no one ever asked for or received
permission to use the photograph, which is not registered.

I wrote to the editor of the newsletter, noting that I had found I was
an unknowing donor. She wrote back: "I'll try to remember to give you
credit in the next issue." You'd think an *editor* would be cognizant
and careful of copyright issues. We will negotiate.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:04:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote in news:1105396883.101883.139110
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> If you can't afford attorney's fees to defend your copyright -- a
> situation that may well cover most people reading this -- then you
> effectively have no copyright. In light of this, dickering about
> regristration seems rather silly, don't you think?
>
> Even if you do register, pony up the money for your lawyers, you can
> safely expect a ruling like this:
>
> "And in conclusion, it is the inevitable ruling of this court that
> indeed the plaintiff's images of her pet pomeranian were appropriated
> without permission by the defendent.
>
> Thankfully, the plaintiff's foresightful registration of these works
> allow me to award attorney's fees and statutory damages in addition to
> general damages. From submissions, supra, the quality and perceived
> value of the copyrighted works, the actions of the defendent and the
> phase of the moon while I ate dinner last night, this court orders the
> following payments to be made by the defendent to the plaintiff:
>
> attorney fees $652,221.12
> statutory damages $30.00
> general damages $0.00
>
> SO ORDERED, [...]"

There is much truth i this - but only if you as an ordinary private
person wants to get economical compensation for any damage. A
situation that is (and the above example shows) absurd. Private
persons are not economically damaged by unauthorized copies.

But there are two much more interesting cases.

1. A professional photographer wants to protect his pictures.
The damage can well be much larger than $30 and if he can
prove that they are his pictures, it is worth registring.
And if the justice system can even put the copier in jail
it might have strong a preventive effect. Hmmm .. maybe a
copy insurance should work instead ...

2. A private person, that does not make money from his pictures,
is interested in the claim to a picture. He made it and he is
proud. He would not like someone else to claim to have made
the picture. So he register it. And when he see someone else
that claims to have taken the picture he have a proof. Depending
on the different justice systems in different countries he
might even have a case where the one making the faulty claim
is enforced to stop doing that.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:08:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robin Brooker <pixrobin@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:41e30292$0$14586
$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net:

> A few years ago a friend of mine had a picture ripped off
> and used in a magazine. It had actually been scanned from
> another magazine who were using it legitimately. He
> telephoned the offending magazine and requested payment for
> its use. He got œ250 for a very mundane picture.

Nice story! Yes - in practice almost no one is hurt
by his pictures being published. On the contrary. It
is flattering and you might even get compensation.


/Roland
January 11, 2005 2:08:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns95DB1622D743klotjohan@130.133.1.4>,
roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com says...
> Nice story! Yes - in practice almost no one is hurt
> by his pictures being published. On the contrary. It
> is flattering and you might even get compensation.
>
>
> /Roland
>


I have NEVER refused to let a picture of mine be published!!!! (as long as my
logo is on it) The second BEST advertising is FREE advertising.

The first is word of mouth.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 7:14:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:
> C Wright wrote:
>
>
>>Since there are numerous regulars here who at least publish on the web, if
>>not in other ways, I thought that I would ask for some ideas about how you
>>handle copyright. Do you just enter your name in the EXIF data, do you use
>>invisible watermarks, other methods, nothing at all? I assume, but maybe I'm
>>wrong, that not many actually pay the money and wait the several months for
>>a registered copyright?
>>I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my photos for
>>their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting published I
>>would like to be able to establish some proof of ownership.
>>Chuck
>
>
> Your imges are copyrighted the instant you take them. There is no need
> to pay anyone for the service. The copyright applies worldwide as most
> countries abide by an international agreement.
>
> The only thing to be concerned with is proof of ownership.
>
> As Ken mentioned, cropping a small amount from the boundary before posting
> an image will serve as a 'key' to show you did take the image. Placing a
> tasteful copyright image on the photo will work as well. It can be edited
> out, but if someone alters it, the image will look different than the original.
>
>
>
I think you are right about the copyright, but not the
ownership. The cropped photo is a great idea, but it will
only proof that you have an earlier edition, not that you
own the copyright. Publishing, and that includes putting it
on the internet, always establishes copyright (whoever is
first owns the copyright) unless the person has a document
signed by the first publisher assigning him or her the
copyright.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 7:19:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Inaccessible wrote:
> In article <10u5j8544g4ite6@news.supernews.com>,
> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
>
>
>>Your imges are copyrighted the instant you take them. There is no need
>>to pay anyone for the service. The copyright applies worldwide as most
>>countries abide by an international agreement.
>>
>>The only thing to be concerned with is proof of ownership.
>
>
> Unless you have registered the imagery with the Copyright office certain
> damage claims are harder to get compensated for. Additionally someone
> can take your idea(s) and use it unless its nailed down.

Good point, but when it comes to photos, most aren't unique,
e.g. taking a landscape picture from exactly the same
angle (assuming public access) wouldn't likely be a
copyright violation. As another person points out, you
better have a lot of money, if you want to prosecute or
collect damages from a copyright violator.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 8:13:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
>
>>If you take a picture, and fix it in a "permanent medium" (disk or
>
> print) it
>
>>is copyright protected under current law.
>
>
> The law gives you the right to defend your "intellectual property". It
> does not 'protect' your property per se. There are no "IP police
> officers" with guns actively looking for and prosecuting offenders on
> your behalf.
>
>
>>As has been pointed out, its easier (but NOT required) to enforce the
>
>
>>copright if you register.
>
>
> If you can't afford attorney's fees to defend your copyright -- a
> situation that may well cover most people reading this -- then you
> effectively have no copyright. In light of this, dickering about
> regristration seems rather silly, don't you think?
>
> Even if you do register, pony up the money for your lawyers, you can
> safely expect a ruling like this:
>
> "And in conclusion, it is the inevitable ruling of this court that
> indeed the plaintiff's images of her pet pomeranian were appropriated
> without permission by the defendent.
>
> Thankfully, the plaintiff's foresightful registration of these works
> allow me to award attorney's fees and statutory damages in addition to
> general damages. From submissions, supra, the quality and perceived
> value of the copyrighted works, the actions of the defendent and the
> phase of the moon while I ate dinner last night, this court orders the
> following payments to be made by the defendent to the plaintiff:
>
> attorney fees $652,221.12
> statutory damages $30.00
> general damages $0.00
>
> SO ORDERED, [...]"
>

No. What you do is take them to small claims court. Prove
it. Get a ruling. They don't pay. You threaten to release
to the press, or somewhere that would embarrass them. They
pay. Or they don't pay, you get the cops to enforce, they
still don't pay, you release the embarrassing information
and tell them you not only want the court award but a bunch
more. And maybe they pay, maybe they don't. Doesn't cost
you much.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 9:27:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote in
> news:MPG.1c4cc39da06389509898ab@news.comcast.giganews.com:
>
>
>>As absurd as it sounds, the law is in no way in contention.
>
>
> Yepp
>
>
>>It is exactly as has been quoted here.
>
>
> Yepp
>
>
>>If you take a picture, and fix it in a "permanent medium" (disk or
>>print) it is copyright protected under current law.
>
>
> Yepp
>
>
>>As has been pointed out, its easier (but NOT required) to enforce the
>>copright if you register.
>
>
> Yepp
>
> And the last one is the _only_ one that makes any
> sense at all IMHO.
>
> Copyright is a strange law where some (but not all)
> things you do is not allowed to copy as soon as you
> have made them, i.e. put them on a permanent medium
> (whatever that is).
>
> It is also somewhat undefined what a copy is.
>
> A picture of a picture? A drawing of a picture?
> A picture of a drawing? A picture of text? Text describing
> a picture? A manipulated picture of a picture? A manipulated
> copy of a picture? A picture that contains a picture? A
> picture that contains a drawing? Some music describing a picture?
>
> It is also rather diffuse what the protection really means.
>
> If I take a picture of your picture, what is supposed to happen?
> Shall I pay you something - and why? What happens if I sell
> this picture? Is that hurting you? And what about the buyer?
> Do he have to pay you also? And can he keep the picture?
> What happens if I copy your picture and puts it on the web and
> million of people downloads it? Does that hurt you? If I tell
> that it is yours and you get famous and you get a big well
> paid jobb? Does that hurt you? Can you then, apart from making
> lots of money on the effect of the picture, also sue me for more
> money? What happens if you personally give me a picture via
> an email? Is this copy mine? And what happens at my operator
> where there is a copy in the mail server? Or at may job if
> you sent it there? At least in Sweden, the employer has
> right to make copies of all mails that are sent from/to
> the employees. Therefore - my pictures are also my employers
> pictures. Or?
>
> Copyright as we know it sux. Big time!
>
> You shall always be prepared to protect your copyright
> in some way IMHO. The most sensible seem to be to register
> the pictures you want to protect - or to hide them from
> the possibility to be copied. Just like for inventions -
> you can either patent it or keep it secret - or anyone can
> copy it. Your choice.
>
>
> /Roland
I don't know about where you come from but in the U.S. most
of those questions are easily answered. I suggest that you
read the U.S. law. Copyright law doesn't deny you having a
copy of something copyrighted. It all depends on what you
use it for.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 12:19:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright wrote:
> Since there are numerous regulars here who at least publish on the
web, if
> not in other ways, I thought that I would ask for some ideas about
how you
> handle copyright. Do you just enter your name in the EXIF data, do
you use
> invisible watermarks, other methods, nothing at all? I assume, but
maybe I'm
> wrong, that not many actually pay the money and wait the several
months for
> a registered copyright?
> I'm not really concerned about others potentially displaying my
photos for
> their personal use but if one of my photos wound up getting published
I
> would like to be able to establish some proof of ownership.
> Chuck


I put the following statement on my website:

All images are Copyright © 2000-2004 by Jim Swenson All Rights
Reserved


and this one on the order form:

Purchase of a print is solely for display in your home or office. No
reproduction rights are released. This means that photographic,
electronic, offset publishing, or any other means of production are
strictly prohibited without written consent of Jim Swenson the
photographer and the sole owner of copyright for images.

and then don't worry about it.



*----------------------------------------------------------------*
* Check out my website at: http://SwensonStudio.com *
* travel and landscape photography featuring beautiful sunsets *
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 1:33:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

George E. Cawthon wrote:

> No. What you do is take them to small claims court.

The system is rigged against you, and you don't even know it.

http://www.starvingartistslaw.com/disputes/small_claims...

"[...] you will not be able to sue for copyright infringement
because that is a federal law and there is no such thing
as a federal small claims court."

http://www.gigalaw.com/archives/0110/gigalaw-discuss-01...

"The problem you have is that you can't bring a copyright
related claim in small claims court, unless you have a
contract that's breached and can claim a contract violation
rather than a copyright infringement. In addition to giving
exclusive jurisdiction over copyright disputes to the federal
courts (BTW, this is a somewhat unusual provision: most federal
causes of action can be brought in state court, even though
the defendant has the option to "remove" or transfer them
to federal court), federal copyright law "pre-empts"
related state causes of action."

Many other citations available at www.google.com. Similar situations
probably apply in other jurisdictions, where small claims courts are
intended to deal with "petty" contract disputes.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 1:35:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105468433.805515.64510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>
>> No. What you do is take them to small claims court.
>
> The system is rigged against you, and you don't even know it.
>
> http://www.starvingartistslaw.com/disputes/small_claims...
>
> "[...] you will not be able to sue for copyright infringement
> because that is a federal law and there is no such thing
> as a federal small claims court."
>
> http://www.gigalaw.com/archives/0110/gigalaw-discuss-01...
>
> "The problem you have is that you can't bring a copyright
> related claim in small claims court, unless you have a
> contract that's breached and can claim a contract violation
> rather than a copyright infringement. In addition to giving
> exclusive jurisdiction over copyright disputes to the federal
> courts (BTW, this is a somewhat unusual provision: most federal
> causes of action can be brought in state court, even though
> the defendant has the option to "remove" or transfer them
> to federal court), federal copyright law "pre-empts"
> related state causes of action."
>
> Many other citations available at www.google.com. Similar situations
> probably apply in other jurisdictions, where small claims courts are
> intended to deal with "petty" contract disputes.

Small claims aren't limited to contract disputes, though they usually have a
jurisdictional limit with respect to damages sought. Copyright can't be
limited in small claims court because federal courts have exclusive
jurisdiction for copyright claims.

>
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:09:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34ikj8F4aqm4nU1@individual.net...
>
> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105468433.805515.64510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> George E. Cawthon wrote:
>>
>>> No. What you do is take them to small claims court.
>>
>> The system is rigged against you, and you don't even know it.
>>
>> http://www.starvingartistslaw.com/disputes/small_claims...
>>
>> "[...] you will not be able to sue for copyright infringement
>> because that is a federal law and there is no such thing
>> as a federal small claims court."
>>
>> http://www.gigalaw.com/archives/0110/gigalaw-discuss-01...
>>
>> "The problem you have is that you can't bring a copyright
>> related claim in small claims court, unless you have a
>> contract that's breached and can claim a contract violation
>> rather than a copyright infringement. In addition to giving
>> exclusive jurisdiction over copyright disputes to the federal
>> courts (BTW, this is a somewhat unusual provision: most federal
>> causes of action can be brought in state court, even though
>> the defendant has the option to "remove" or transfer them
>> to federal court), federal copyright law "pre-empts"
>> related state causes of action."
>>
>> Many other citations available at www.google.com. Similar situations
>> probably apply in other jurisdictions, where small claims courts are
>> intended to deal with "petty" contract disputes.
>
> Small claims aren't limited to contract disputes, though they usually have
> a jurisdictional limit with respect to damages sought. Copyright can't be
> limited in small claims court because federal courts have exclusive
> jurisdiction for copyright claims.
Aaaargh -- too many typos.

Small claims COURTS have a jurisdictional limit, and copyright can't be
LITIGATED anywhere except in federal court.


>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:19:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:50:09 -0800, "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>That's wrong. The notice requirement in the US was eliminated when the US
>subscribed to the Berne Copyright Convention. Copyright protection accrues
>upon the moment of fixation in a tangible medium; neither registration nor
>notice is required.
>

If "tangible medium" is the official phrase used, does anyone _know_
whether legally this covers any or all of memory cards, hard disks,
web-servers, image on a computer monitor? All of these could, arguably, be
considered non-tangible.

If a more explicit definition of "tangible image" isn't spelt out in the
original act/statue, and hasn't been defined by case-law (I genuinely don't
know one way or the other), then I suppose it _could_ be argued that a
digital image that has never been printed has never been fixed in a
"tangible medium", and that the first person to print a web-hosted image is
the first to "fix" it, and possibly therefore can claim copyright?

Intuitively, one would think/hope this isn't the case, otherwise anyone
could wreak havoc using File|Print in a web-browser.

(Of course this isn't an issue for film, since you have a "tangible medium"
[the negative] from the moment you click the shutter).

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:19:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Graham Holden" <look@bottom.of.post> wrote in message
news:mmc7u0lp7mf4o6ob0dg68el8dq33tho2fg@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:50:09 -0800, "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>That's wrong. The notice requirement in the US was eliminated when the US
>>subscribed to the Berne Copyright Convention. Copyright protection
>>accrues
>>upon the moment of fixation in a tangible medium; neither registration nor
>>notice is required.
>>
>
> If "tangible medium" is the official phrase used,

"Tangible medium" is the term of art.

> does anyone _know_
> whether legally this covers any or all of memory cards, hard disks,
> web-servers, image on a computer monitor? All of these could, arguably,
> be
> considered non-tangible.

Hard drives, memory cards, yes, monitors, no.


>
> If a more explicit definition of "tangible image" isn't spelt out in the
> original act/statue, and hasn't been defined by case-law (I genuinely
> don't
> know one way or the other),

It's been defined in case law.

> then I suppose it _could_ be argued that a
> digital image that has never been printed has never been fixed in a
> "tangible medium", and that the first person to print a web-hosted image
> is
> the first to "fix" it, and possibly therefore can claim copyright?
>
> Intuitively, one would think/hope this isn't the case,

It isn't.

> otherwise anyone
> could wreak havoc using File|Print in a web-browser.
>
> (Of course this isn't an issue for film, since you have a "tangible
> medium"
> [the negative] from the moment you click the shutter).
>
> Regards,
> Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
> --
> There are 10 types of people in the world;
> those that understand binary and those that don't.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:32:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:44:17 -0600, Jim Townsend <not@real.address>
wrote:

>Your imges are copyrighted the instant you take them. There is no need
>to pay anyone for the service. The copyright applies worldwide as most
>countries abide by an international agreement.

Not according to what I've read. I've read that in Canada, for
example, my images are copyrighted by default (as you say). However,
this doesn't hold true internationally, unless you have officially
registered a copyright.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:29:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in news:34ici0F4bdj7hU1
@individual.net:

> Hard drives, memory cards, yes, monitors, no.

How about RAM memory?

If I have a camera with only RAM memory (and a battery)
to temporarily keep the picture. Is it Copyrighted
when I download it to my hard disk then or earlier?


/Roland
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:29:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DBE4D2268E7klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in news:34ici0F4bdj7hU1
> @individual.net:
>
>> Hard drives, memory cards, yes, monitors, no.
>
> How about RAM memory?

I'm not sure about that. Non-volatile ram, certainly, but dynamic ram
possibly not.


>
> If I have a camera with only RAM memory (and a battery)
> to temporarily keep the picture. Is it Copyrighted
> when I download it to my hard disk then or earlier?

Certainly when you download it to your hard disk. Possibly when you take
it.

>
>
> /Roland
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:33:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:rlKEd.99791$uM5.61671@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> Copyright law doesn't deny you having a
> copy of something copyrighted. It all depends on what you
> use it for.

Hmmm ... are you sure?


/Roland
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:33:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Copyright law doesn't deny you having a
>> copy of something copyrighted. It all depends on what you
>> use it for.
>
> Hmmm ... are you sure?

Yes, it's known as "fair use". http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:33:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:To6dnY823tpe2nncRVn-oQ@speakeasy.net...
>
> "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>> "George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Copyright law doesn't deny you having a
>>> copy of something copyrighted. It all depends on what you
>>> use it for.
>>
>> Hmmm ... are you sure?
>
> Yes, it's known as "fair use". http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Umm, no, it's not. Fair use provides that certain activities which would
otherwise constitute illegal copyright infringement will not result in
liability. Merely possessing an illegal copy is not, in itself, a violation
of copyright law. The Copyright Act specifies which rights are reserved to
the copyright owner, specifically, the right to make copies, the right to
prepare derivative works, the right to distribute and several others.

>
>
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:33:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> Copyright law doesn't deny you having a
>>>> copy of something copyrighted. It all depends on what you
>>>> use it for.
>>>
>>> Hmmm ... are you sure?
>>
>> Yes, it's known as "fair use". http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>
> Umm, no, it's not. Fair use provides that certain activities which would
> otherwise constitute illegal copyright infringement will not result in
> liability. Merely possessing an illegal copy is not, in itself, a
> violation of copyright law. The Copyright Act specifies which rights are
> reserved to the copyright owner, specifically, the right to make copies,
> the right to prepare derivative works, the right to distribute and several
> others.

Well...I was replying to the "depends on what you use it for" sentence. The
problem with the term "fair use" is that we have so many willfully obtuse
people online now who will reprint an entire article and just put "reprinted
under the fair use doctrine" at the end of it, as if that makes it OK.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:43:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in
news:To6dnY823tpe2nncRVn-oQ@speakeasy.net:

>>> Copyright law doesn't deny you having a
>>> copy of something copyrighted. It all depends on what you
>>> use it for.
>>
>> Hmmm ... are you sure?
>
> Yes, it's known as "fair use". http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

If I remember correctly from earlier discussions here,
fair use is assumed to be not all that useful. The
courts do not care about the term.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:43:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DBE728365F1klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "Cynicor" <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote in
> news:To6dnY823tpe2nncRVn-oQ@speakeasy.net:
>
>>>> Copyright law doesn't deny you having a
>>>> copy of something copyrighted. It all depends on what you
>>>> use it for.
>>>
>>> Hmmm ... are you sure?
>>
>> Yes, it's known as "fair use". http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
>
> If I remember correctly from earlier discussions here,
> fair use is assumed to be not all that useful. The
> courts do not care about the term.

Where are people getting this stuff.

Fair Use is an equitable doctrine that has been codified in the Copyright
Act. Courts most certainly do care about the term.


>
>
> /Roland
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:54:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:34ivp7F4d0cloU1@individual.net:

>> If I have a camera with only RAM memory (and a battery)
>> to temporarily keep the picture. Is it Copyrighted
>> when I download it to my hard disk then or earlier?
>
> Certainly when you download it to your hard disk. Possibly when you
> take it.

But - if I take the picture - you steal the camera -
and you download it to your disk? Is the Copyright mine
or yours?

OK - I am trying to be difficult :) 

And thats because I think it is almost impossible to
define the moment when the Copyright takes place.

Another thought.

When you use film you get a latent picture. The picture
is not really all that tangible until you develop and
fix the picture.

Does that mean that the photo lab hold all my Copyrights
for my film photos.



/Roland
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:57:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in news:34ivtdF4bnsafU1
@individual.net:

> Merely possessing an illegal copy is not, in itself, a violation
> of copyright law.

Hmmm ... is that so?

So -- if someone finds lots of Copyrighted pictures on
my computer - all is fine?


/Roland
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 1:12:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:00:04 -0500, "Cynicor"
<j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote:

>The
>problem with the term "fair use" is that we have so many willfully obtuse
>people online now who will reprint an entire article and just put "reprinted
>under the fair use doctrine" at the end of it, as if that makes it OK.

We do?

Quick google finds that statement on only 13,600 of the 8,000,000,000
web pages google knows about.

Compared to "Rabid Monkey", which gets 74,000 hits, I'd say your
concerns are unfounded.

If you want to worry about something, 18,200 web pages have the word
'spinach' miss-spelled as 'spinich'.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 1:12:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mkj8u09rcc3f15mcjbtc5jueh2t54qb7o3@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:00:04 -0500, "Cynicor"
> <j.t.r.u..p.i..n...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>The
>>problem with the term "fair use" is that we have so many willfully obtuse
>>people online now who will reprint an entire article and just put
>>"reprinted
>>under the fair use doctrine" at the end of it, as if that makes it OK.
>
> We do?
>
> Quick google finds that statement on only 13,600 of the 8,000,000,000
> web pages google knows about.
>
> Compared to "Rabid Monkey", which gets 74,000 hits, I'd say your
> concerns are unfounded.
>
> If you want to worry about something, 18,200 web pages have the word
> 'spinach' miss-spelled as 'spinich'.

Now wait a minute. Did I ever say that rabid monkeys WEREN'T a serious
problem?
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 2:00:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DBE909FC8E3klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:34ivp7F4d0cloU1@individual.net:
>
>>> If I have a camera with only RAM memory (and a battery)
>>> to temporarily keep the picture. Is it Copyrighted
>>> when I download it to my hard disk then or earlier?
>>
>> Certainly when you download it to your hard disk. Possibly when you
>> take it.
>
> But - if I take the picture - you steal the camera -
> and you download it to your disk? Is the Copyright mine
> or yours?

The copyright belongs to the author, i.e. you.


>
> OK - I am trying to be difficult :) 
>
> And thats because I think it is almost impossible to
> define the moment when the Copyright takes place.

Copyright protection occurs at the moment of fixation (by the author) in a
tangible medium.


>
> Another thought.
>
> When you use film you get a latent picture. The picture
> is not really all that tangible until you develop and
> fix the picture.
>
> Does that mean that the photo lab hold all my Copyrights
> for my film photos.

No. The picture is fixed when the shutter is pushed. However, even if it
weren't, you're still the author of the picture, not the lab.

>
>
>
> /Roland
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 2:02:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DBE983EFB65klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet@yahoo.com> wrote in news:34ivtdF4bnsafU1
> @individual.net:
>
>> Merely possessing an illegal copy is not, in itself, a violation
>> of copyright law.
>
> Hmmm ... is that so?
>
> So -- if someone finds lots of Copyrighted pictures on
> my computer - all is fine?

Not necessarily. For the pictures to be on your computer, an unauthorized
copy had to have been made. There is, therefore, circumstantial evidence
that you made illegal copies. Circumstantial evidence is admissible.


>
>
> /Roland
January 12, 2005 2:28:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:13:37 -0600, "Bub" <Bub@comcast.net> wrote:

>What ever you do dont use the word" Monster "
>Read more
>
>http://insidebayarea.com/businessnews/ci_2509361
>

That refers to a trade mark, not copyright. Copyright (c) is an inherent right
of the creator of work. A registered trade mark (R) is something you pay for.
You can also have an unregistered trademark (tm). AFAIK in the USA you can also
register a copyright. Presumable in either case formal registration makes
defense somewhat easier.

My understanding of trademark law, both here in Australia and in the US, is that
you cannot register a trademark on a word that is in the dictionary, i.e. exists
in common usage. In fact, if a trademarked word gets adopted into common usage
its validity as a trademark is extinguished. Which apparently is why the Coca
Cola company most vigorously persues anyone who uses the word Coke in print
without declaring its ownership.

This of course makes it extremely strange that the word "windows" has been
sucessfully registered and defended as a trademark. The recent victory of
Micro$oft over Lindows is case in point. Imagine getting a judgement in your
favour because someone uses a made up name that sounds like a dictionary word!

Justice is what's left after the money runs out.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 2:28:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:28:17 +1100, DJ <dontemail@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:13:37 -0600, "Bub" <Bub@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>What ever you do dont use the word" Monster "
>>Read more
>>
>>http://insidebayarea.com/businessnews/ci_2509361
>>
>
>That refers to a trade mark, not copyright. Copyright (c) is an inherent right
>of the creator of work. A registered trade mark (R) is something you pay for.
>You can also have an unregistered trademark (tm). AFAIK in the USA you can also
>register a copyright. Presumable in either case formal registration makes
>defense somewhat easier.
>
>My understanding of trademark law, both here in Australia and in the US, is that
>you cannot register a trademark on a word that is in the dictionary, i.e. exists
>in common usage. In fact, if a trademarked word gets adopted into common usage
>its validity as a trademark is extinguished. Which apparently is why the Coca
>Cola company most vigorously persues anyone who uses the word Coke in print
>without declaring its ownership.
>
>This of course makes it extremely strange that the word "windows" has been
>sucessfully registered and defended as a trademark. The recent victory of
>Micro$oft over Lindows is case in point. Imagine getting a judgement in your
>favour because someone uses a made up name that sounds like a dictionary word!
>
>Justice is what's left after the money runs out.

The whole scene is annoying. In the next revolution the lawyers will
be the first against the wall.

(Of course by saying that, I've probably just infringed Douglas Adam's
copyright).

I'm proposing the next amendment to the US constitution should be just
two words: BE REASONABLE.

Then, this sort of bullshit can be ruled unconstitutional.

--
Owamanga!
!