Warren D
Well-known member
One of the many tasks for the new year, time to update the date in the copyright of your camera(s). (If you don't use this function, I guess you won't need to!)
Time to Update Copyright Info
- Thread starter Warren D
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
DsD
Well-known member
Thanx for the reminder Warren!
Anthony
Active member
thanks. For those more knowledge than I am about copyrights, do it help to say "all rights reserved". Does it matter if the year proceeds my name or I just need something that is claar
From the document at the link above:
“Copyright notice is a statement placed on copies or phonorecords of a work to inform the public that a copyright owner is claiming ownership of it.2 A notice consists of three elements that generally appear as a single continuous statement:
• The copyright symbol © (or for phono records, the symbol ℗ ); the word “copyright”; or the abbreviation “copr.”;
• The year of first publication of the work; and
• The name of the copyright owner.
Example: © 2017 John Doe
Copyright notice is optional for unpublished works, foreign works, or works published on or after March 1, 1989. When notice is optional, copyright owners can use any form of notice they wish. How-ever, works first published after March 1, 1989, may need to comply with statutory formalities to prevent a defendant from invoking an innocent infringement defense in a copyright infringement action.”
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Is there a reason to put the copyright in the camera, versus doing it on Lightroom import? Obviously if the card with the images goes missing before you get them transferred, there is no copyright on those images, but otherwise?
John Navitsky
Well-known member
and i'll just say, JUST DO IT. use this function. unless you're a spy or something, you benefit from having your copyright stamped in every photo you take.
Anthony
Active member
Copyright exists whether or not there is a copyright notice, and whether or not the image is registered. In the USA, registration provides certain additional benefits in enforcing copyright. A copyright notice may have some benefits, as noted in the link above.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Appreciate the comment, but not totally clear on how it pertains to my question about doing the copyright in LR versus in-camera.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
just less likely to accidentally have stuff slip by
i also suspect when the CAI stuff hits it will validate your image with the copyright included, probably making it marginally better
but sure, if you 100% add it with lr, it’s just the same result
i also suspect when the CAI stuff hits it will validate your image with the copyright included, probably making it marginally better
but sure, if you 100% add it with lr, it’s just the same result
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Right, if it is done in camera, well, it's done.
But I do always use LR, from four different cameras - two Nikons, an Olympus waterproof camera, and I sometimes shoot RAW mode on the iphone and import and process those as well. Kinda simpler to do things in one place.
However, I am not familiar enough with CAI to have an opinion on whether it materially affects the copyright situation, thanks for mentioning that.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
since there's only one camera out that supports it right now, i think most of us don't and i haven't bothered to dig into it too much.
but CAI features are likely to hit most major brands this year and i _expect_ it will allow you to include other things in the authenticated image, like copyright, time and location.
that said, i would also expect the CAI tool-chain features to allow you to add it later and that new image would also be authenticated
Anthony
Active member
It is irrelevant. Either way you own the copyright.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Right, so you are saying there is no real advantage in adding the copyright, yes?
John Navitsky
Well-known member
I think Anthony is responding to your earlier comment and pointing out you do not lose copyright if you don't mark them.
But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to mark them.
Archibald
Well-known member
I don't believe there is any practical benefit to adding a copyright notice. There is a downside, though, if it contains your real name and you wish privacy.
Copyright law is draconian, but is hardly ever enforced.
If you post an image online, there is a good chance your image will be used without your permission at some point. You will probably have no recourse except to politely ask for it to be taken down, or to ask to receive credit.
I put a watermark on all posted photos. That might offer a small amount of protection but I don't expect much.
Copyright law is draconian, but is hardly ever enforced.
If you post an image online, there is a good chance your image will be used without your permission at some point. You will probably have no recourse except to politely ask for it to be taken down, or to ask to receive credit.
I put a watermark on all posted photos. That might offer a small amount of protection but I don't expect much.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
most people don’t even know it’s there and if someone strips it, it shows intent.
as far as privacy, it’s your name. the dark web already knows i exist.
(and i suspect it knows you exist as well
)
as far as privacy, it’s your name. the dark web already knows i exist.
(and i suspect it knows you exist as well
)
Last edited:
Archibald
Well-known member
FB always strips the EXIF, but not the watermark.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
that is no longer true. they stopped stripping the copyright years ago. i tested it personally
Archibald
Well-known member
OH - I see, didn't know that. I will check next time I post there. 
EDIT: I checked and you're right.
EDIT: I checked and you're right.
Last edited:
When delivering digitals to a customer, The copyright is giving them headaches down the road. Walmart, etc, would not print it without a release letter from our studio. The customer doesn’t always have the letter in their pockets, and more then once we were asked to email directly permission to print.
On the other hand though, people find us by looking at the picture properties.
WHCC prints the copyright in back of each print.
On the other hand though, people find us by looking at the picture properties.
WHCC prints the copyright in back of each print.
Anthony
Active member
Thanks, yes.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
It's not clear to me the specific situations where it would be of real advantage to have the copyright in ... yes I read the linked pdf but I don't have a feel for what happens in the "real world" for photos with and without explicit copyright protection. Probably be interesting to know how often the "innocent infringement defense" is abused.
Also, if one is trying to generally maintain anonymity, as another poster mentions, then putting a copyright in things I post here sorta defeats that purpose! (Wonder if a copyright of a screen name is sufficient to add any protections ...)
Archibald
Well-known member
OK, I'm not an expert, but I think nothing really happens with copyright infringement unless there are sufficient dollars involved to interest the lawyers.
In other words, if someone steals your image but the damages to you are not significant, then nothing legal will get done.
In other words, if someone steals your image but the damages to you are not significant, then nothing legal will get done.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
it varies a lot.
i have some friends that are pretty successful getting payments from infringers, but i also know that often it's almost impossible and a waste of effort.
welcome to our legal system, i guess