Copyright statements on websites

[Chuck_P]

Been doing a lot of looking at folks' websites and seeing the various Copyright statements. Is this statement simply put there by the owner of the website and that's it, the site content is now copyrighted? Or, is there some requirement to be met with the government before it is to be taken seriously by potential violators (not that I have stuff that anyone would want to steal, but ya never know, I guess)?

Thanks in advance.
Chuck

 

[removed account4]

chuck

typicaly for a copyright to hold any water
the photographer has to register the "content" and
images with the copyright office. just putting the "©"
doesn't really mean anything unless there are documents
to back it up ( registration with the copyright office ).

john

 

[MikeSeb]

An image is "copyrighted" from the moment you fix it in tangible form. However, unless you register the image with the Copyright Office according to their procedures, you are severely limited in your available legal remedies in case of infringement.

By registering, you vastly increase the possible amounts you can recover from infringers, and thereby make it more likely that an attorney would even bother to take your case.

The Copyright Office website has all the information you need to register. You can register one image or ten trillion for the same registration fee. It is easier to do this before the images are published (some controversy over what constitutes "publication"--mere display on a website may not count as "publication") but can be done after publication, best within 90 days.

I just registered around 12,000 images.

 

[Justin Cormack]

In most countries it is no longer required to register copyright, or even put a copyright notice on. This used to be the case.

On the internet potential or actual violaters are unlikely to take any notice of the law. Even on forums like this people assume that anything on the internet has no copyright. Effectively it doesnt - you wont be able to stop other people taking stuff.

 

[arigram]

My associates informed me of the possibility of a devastating accident that might happen to anyone caught messing with my photos.

 

[removed account4]

in the states, if someone violates your copyright (publishes you without you saying it is OK )
most lawyers won't even touch your case if you don't have the copyright registration form.
i can't speak for other places, or the fact that it is understood that when you make your exposure,
but from experience i can tell you, if you don't register, forget about the $$$.

ari

 

[Ray Heath]

in the states, if someone violates your copyright (publishes you without you saying it is OK )
most lawyers won't even touch your case if you don't have the copyright registration form.
i can't speak for other places, or the fact that it is understood that when you make your exposure,
but from experience i can tell you, if you don't register, forget about the $$$.

ari

hang on, that's not in all countries

i'd suggest you check with your local authorities

 

[removed account4]

hang on, that's not in all countries

i'd suggest you check with your local authorities

exactly !

 

[Chuck_P]

I checked the website provided by Mike and found this http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html. Check out the headings: When is my work protected? and Do I have to register to be protected? John's correct according to what I can tell. There's a section on copyrighting a website, seems convoluted, but I gather that all individual photos still need to be registered to bring any lawsuit in court.

 

[snallan]

... but I gather that all individual photos still need to be registered to bring any lawsuit in court.

All individual published photos must be registered to get the statutory protections, but a collection of photos can be registered together as a Group Registration for a single fee.

 

[removed account4]

"gang registration" is cheep, something like $35.
you just needs to fill out the form, and send in
scans/proofsheets of all the images / work to be protected.
it is painless, and gives you good piece of mind ...

 

[Struan Gray]

A related question: is it worth foreigners registering copyright with the US Library of Congress?

In Sweden, and I know for sure, the UK, and I think the rest of the EU, I am covered provided that I can prove I created the work (and I have the negs, which makes that relatively easy). Only in the US does it seem you either have to register the copyright formally, or to prove actual damages if you want to recover more than a nominal slap on the wrist from the infringer.

I wonder if that makes it worthwhile for me to register with L.O.C., just in case I want to sue a US person or company in US courts. Can I even do this?

 

[catem]

That's something I've wondered aswell - whether you are covered by the laws of the country you create the work in/reside in, or whether the law of the land of the person who infringes that (local) copyright is what stands.

As for web images, though, I think the answer is to be reassured that their use would (hopefully) be very limited.

A related question: is it worth foreigners registering copyright with the US Library of Congress?

In Sweden, and I know for sure, the UK, and I think the rest of the EU, I am covered provided that I can prove I created the work (and I have the negs, which makes that relatively easy). Only in the US does it seem you either have to register the copyright formally, or to prove actual damages if you want to recover more than a nominal slap on the wrist from the infringer.

I wonder if that makes it worthwhile for me to register with L.O.C., just in case I want to sue a US person or company in US courts. Can I even do this?

 

[Chuck_P]

"gang registration" is cheep, something like $35.
you just needs to fill out the form, and send in
scans/proofsheets of all the images / work to be protected.
it is painless, and gives you good piece of mind ...

John,

So if you register a bunch of photographs at one time, then only those are protected, but if you add new photos at a later time they won't be protected until you "gang" register again? It can be a repeating process it seems.

Chuck

 

[snallan]

Hi Chuck, there is a link in my previous post (#10) describing group registration for photographs, which includes links to the forms to be used.

 

[Chuck_P]

Thanks for all the responses everybody.

Chuck

 

[removed account4]

hi chuck

basically what happens is you fill out the VA form
( downloaded from steve's link )
it is pretty painless to fill out.
it asks for a brief description of the images you are submitting,
and a cd rom or contact sheets of the images.

later submissions are not ammendments to the previous one(s)
but are registered at that (later) time.

good luck!

john

 

[Photographica]

Copyright Enforcment

Having your work protected is one thing. Enforcing the protection is another.

The owner in reality has to come forth and enforce the law. Even then, there are only a couple of things that may happen. One, you might be able to get an injunction against the offender using the photo. Two, you might get a monetary award if you can show damages occurred by the illegal use of your property -- after you have established property ownership. Proper marking and registration help in the establishment of proper ownership.

Bottom line is that you will have to make all this happen and the reality is that even in cases of obvious copyright infringement, you will have to show that you are being harmed by its use, and that it's being used illegally (there are legal uses of your work), and that you actually own it. All this will cost you $$$ up front.

 

[RobC]

It's mine all mine and it's worth thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands. So much in fact that I'm going to plaster my web site with copyright notices and threats of suing and I'l get you if you touch my shitty little low resolution and no use for anything except web viewing jpeg...

Nice message you're giving to your potential clients. You'll go far...

 

[RobC]

And another thing.

If you google:

Art
photo
photos

and total up the potential result pages, you get around 5 billion possibilities which will contain images from all the great past and present photographers and artists. Now what is so special about your web jpegs that they are going to be targetted in preference to all those other jpegs. Of course those numbers don't include all the websites using non latin languages such as china or india who may have singled out your web jpegs for theft.

It's nice to know that you will be spending the rest of your life browsing all those web pages just in case someone has stolen your low res jpeg, so that you can sue them.

 

[removed account4]

rob

i think professonal clients are used to seeing copyright notices
on photographs and websites.
you seem to have copyright/all rights reserved on your webpages...

digimark embeds watermarks and allows
people to track where their digital images are being published
on the internet. it takes a few seconds, if you subscribe to
their service, not a lifetime as you suggest.

john

 

[Edwardv]

My associates informed me of the possibility of a devastating accident that might happen to anyone caught messing with my photos.

I guess that would be Mr. Morgan and Shadow Associates.

 

[RobC]

rob
i think professonal clients are used to seeing copyright notices
on photographs and websites.
you seem to have copyright/all rights reserved on your webpages...
digimark embeds watermarks and allows
people to track where their digital images are being published
on the internet. it takes a few seconds, if you subscribe to
their service, not a lifetime as you suggest.
john

yeah I put one, but reflecting on it, I'd say it was done more out of doing what everyone else seemed to be doing. But as I think I've pointed out, the jpeg or gif is worthless to anyone else so its really not worth worrying about too much.
As for digital watermarking. Most of them can be removed so they prove nothing. Of course if you are of a nervous disposition and have been brainwashed into believing that your jpeg is going to be stolen, then it's a nice little earner for someone somewhere who's selling you a useless comfort blanket.

 

[catem]

I put copyright notices on my site not because I'm paranoid about other people using those small files - as I said, the use would be pretty limited anyway. I did it because there is a growing climate whereby photographers' copyrights are being eroded, and images on the internet are seen - sometimes purely out of ignorance - as being available for everyone. When they are not. A few discreet notices, does not harm I think, and reminds those who might be viewing a single page ( as opposed to the whole site ) that the image is not an 'orphan' but is somebody else's work. It can also serve to put the person viewing in touch in you, if they are seriously interested in your work.

 

[removed account4]

http://www.digimarc.com/comm/apps_pop.asp
http://www.digimarc.com/tech/dwm.asp

john