cindo51

It's about time start copyrighting my photographs... but I haven't the slightest idea of where to begin? I googled the topic and the page started with a link to 'legal zoom'. But there are many other listings as well. Any suggestions? Thanks!

scallihan Loc: Tigard, OR

It's a good idea to copyright your images if you are selling or showing them. But in all practicality, once an image is "out there" on any digital forum, it's impossible to protect it. Anyone can (not legally) copy it and paste it elsewhere, and you probably will never know.

There have been a couple of times when I have been so enamored of a Hogger's photo that I have PM'd him, asking if I could copy it for personal use. I would never lift another's work without asking, and certainly not for any commercial purpose. But if I did (to use on a brochure for a product, for example), he/she would likely never know. That's just the reality of our age of digitalization of everything.

13 Loc: I am only responsible to what I say..not what

Contact a trade-mark, copyright attorney. It may cost around $1,000.00 or more now.

ELNikkor

The lawyers will probably profit more from you, than you will from your photos, sad reality these days.

Bill_de Loc: US

Here's what UHH members have already come up with. For legal advice you can't find a better source.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/search-topic-list?q=copyright&sectnum=0&username=

---

IHH61 Loc: Homestead Fl

I think what you are referring to is registering your copyright. Your copyright exists as soon as you take a picture. Registration with the US Copyright Office gives you the ability to sue for infringement. Check out The Copyright Zone blog and the Copyright Office website.

Hugh

CliffMcKenzie Loc: Lake Athens Texas

Cindo51, Hugh above has you on the correct path, but it is not clear to the level you wish to take this. Is your question as simple as how to set up copyright in your camera and processing software?

Wasabi

You may be able to register yourself. Check with the Copyright office. May be a fee.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

And the most pertinent part of the UHH collected Bill_De posted is

https://petapixel.com/how-to-copyright-photos/

Unless they changed the law again you can register a bunch of your photos together as a Collected Work for one fee. That is what usually is done for portfolios or collected photo books. You don't have to have an attorney but the right one will know all the choices and procedures. Good luck.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Good points.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

So true.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I say yes, to all three points.

Dwiggy Loc: Dunedin, FL

I have registered copyrights before for written material but never for a photo. Am I correct that you don't need to register a copyrighted photo unless you want rights in case of infringement? You can put your name on a photo, but I believe the ©️ before the name shows it is registered. Am I correct in this? I've wondered about this for a long time.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First of all, you don't "copyright" your images.

"Copyright" is a noun, not a verb.

Copyright is the ownership of intellectual property, such as a work of art, in this case a photograph.

If you take the image, the copyright is automatically yours (except for some specific instances, such as when employed as a staff photographer).

You actually don't need to do anything. If someone uses your image without your permission, infringes upon your copyright, you can ask them to cease and desist and/or try to charge them a little for the usage.

But there are things you can do to enhance the protection of your copyright:

- Add copyright ownership information to the EXIF data embedded in your images. Many cameras can be set up to do this in a basic way. It also can be added via much image editing software (I.e., I have Lightroom to add info automatically to all my images during the initial Import.) More on this later.

- Add a watermark to your images. Some people don't like them, but they are there for a reason. More on this later.

- Keep your images displayed online relatively small. Personally I make most of my images no more than 700 or 800 pixels on the long side. That's large enough to see the image, but too small to make much of a print.

- Register your copyright. This is done at the government copyright office. It can be done in batches by putting a large number of image thumbnails onto digital media and sending it in with a payment. The images are then added to a searchable database where would-be users are expected to check before using an image. Registration of your copyright(s) greatly enhances protection, which I'll describe in more detail below.

Here's how it works...

You already own your copyright and can pursue someone who misuses your images. You don't need to do anything, but your recourse is limited. You don't need to mark the image in any way, but can put a watermark or "signature" on it to enhance protection. Do not remove the EXIF data and add copyright ownership info there, if you wish.

No. For several decades now it has NOT been necessary to put the copyright symbol © or the word "copyright" or the year on the image. When you see those on an image originating in the US, it's probably old... taken before 1989 (the year the US finally joined the international Berne Convention of 1886/revised 1971, which does not require these marks). Any unique signature or "mark" will do. And even that may not be necessary... the uniqueness of the photo can stand on its own. But I do advise at least putting a small signature on your images (more on why below). If you plan to sell your images as stock photography, I discourage putting the year on them. Some would-be buyers might skip over a perfectly good image that they perceive as "old" because of a date imprinted on it (with digital the date is in the EXIF anyway).

When you do no more than that, you can ask people to discontinue any unapproved, misuse of your images and ask for "standard compensation" for how they are using the image (some uses have no monetary value, while other "commercial" use may be quite valuable). If they fail to comply you can sue in your local small claims court. Any court decision is enforced by local law enforcement and since any monetary claim will be small, it will be very low priority. If the infringer is local you may be able to get a judgment against their income, if they refuse to pay. You have to self-represent in small claims court and will NOT be compensated for any legal or court costs. Any lawyer you consult will be paid out of your own pocket.

However, if you properly REGISTER your copyright you will have much more potential. First, you can bring suit against any infringement in FEDERAL court. Further, in addition to "standard compensation" the court can award you with various penalties over and above that amount. You also can be compensated for legal and court costs. As a result, an intellectual property attorney is more likely to take your case on a "contingency" basis, where you don't need to pay up front out of your pocket. An example of added penalties, last time I checked the court could levy $30,000 fine per instance for "removal of copyright protections", such as Photoshopping out a watermark or signature, or removal of EXIF information. When you hear about people receiving huge awards in copyright cases, you can rest assured those are registered copyrights.

If in the US more information is available and registration is done at https://www.copyright.gov/. Other countries, if that's where you're located, have similar.

FWIW, I ain't a lawyer by any means... I'm just a photographer who has had to deal with a few issues. You should consult an actual intellectual property attorney rather than taking my word for anything.

Finally, not every copyright infringement is worth pursuing. For example, someone reposting one of my watermarked images on Facebook or Instagram or wherever is getting no monetary benefit themselves and are actually doing me a favor with a form of "free advertising" (my watermark is the URL of my online photo galleries, although they are currently inactive... I have actually encouraged reposting on the various social media and provided links for people to use). There was a case a couple years ago where the winner of a photo contest had actually submitted someone else's image, representing it as their own. There was a modest monetary prize (that was rescinded by the contest organizer), but even as reprehensible as this misuse was, it would not be worth pursuing in court. But some other misuses are certainly worth going after.

Bob Jackson was photographer I worked with years ago. He took the photo of Jack Ruby shooting JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of the Dallas police station. I'm sure you've seen that image. Bob was a staff photographer at the Dallas Morning News at the time, so the newspaper owned the copyright. But when he retired they gifted him the copyright of the image, which he and his estate have resold any number of times... probably earning them something in the seven figure range over the years. Editorial use isn't high paying... maybe $25 or $50 or $100, depending upon circulation, size and prominence of the image (maybe more if used as a cover shot). But it adds up when an image is used thousands of times!

Another photographer I knew specialized in commercial and travel work. I'm sure you would recognize some of his work, too. He has shot many advertising images that were used world wide. Some of his jobs cost upwards of $100,000... but he also always retained the copyright and sold his images as stock photography. In fact, he was one of the top five stock photographers in the world (based on annual income, some $6 to $8 million a year in his case). He had two full time staffers handling just the stock "sideline" of his studio. Some of his images sold over and over. One that he took while hanging out the sunroof of a car in Paris, after a few too many glasses of wine earned him over $150,000 in usage fees in ten years. Needless to say, he was pretty careful about registering and protecting his copyright!

Years ago photographer George Lepp made some images for Kodak, which they used on billboards all over the world, paying him $20,000 US in usage fees. The same image was used inside a textbook with a relatively small printing of around 10,000 copies, where usage fees were $250.

cindo51

Ha! I am sure you are right!