Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

Because I took the photograph and you didn't?

superpijak Loc: Middle TN

Right on the money... :thumbup:

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

The situation is that photographer takes photos at events and then sells prints via online advertising. Are there any legal whizkids present who will comment on whether this business models runs afoul of Mass' Right of Publicity law?

http://rightofpublicity.com/statutes/massachusetts

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If you are not charging for the photos, why take shots of other peoples' kids? Just concentrate on taking shots of your own kids and let other people either photograph their own kids or leave it to a professional who will charge for the shots... or start charging.

The answer to people who don't want to pay for them is:

IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY AND TIME INVESTED TO TAKE PHOTOS... THE IMAGES HAVE VALUE AND SHOULD NOT JUST BE GIVEN AWAY FREELY!

Further, unrelated to the questions of copyright and protection of its ownership, taking photos of other peoples' kids and posting them online you really should have a release signed by an parent or guardian. Some day you may get a "cease and desist" letter (not a big deal, so long as you take down the images immediately, except that all your time and effort were wasted). Or, much worse, there's some risk that your images may be used in an undesirable way and you could possibly become an unintentional party to slander or a crime, and possibly even subject to criminal or civil charges and penalties. I no longer post a kid's image online unless their parent or guardian has signed a release for it. In fact, I generally require adults to sign a release, too.

Back to the subject at hand...

I always watermark or "sign" anything that's going to be displayed online. To provide complete copyright protection, it doesn't need to be the copyright symbol or date (the law about that changed 15 or 20 years ago). It can be any unique identifier... such as a signature or even a symbol (as in "the artist formerly known as Prince" used for a while, at least until he legally changed it back to "Prince" :roll: ).

My watermark is basically an ad: my name and URL to help drive people to my galleries. I figure if someone is going to steal my image, they're also are going to do some advertising for me. I also only post lower resolution images online... 500 to 700 pixels on the long side. Too small to make prints, but big enough to preview the image and share it on Facebook, etc., which is what's done with most "stolen" images.

Removal of a watermark is not impossible, but can be made fairly difficult and impractical for most people at certain skill levels. Removing it without permission also can result in a fine of up to $30,000 per instance (in addition to other awards for copyright infringement).

A watermark doesn't have to "ruin" an image, but tucking one into a corner where it's easily trimmed off is pretty much a waste of time, IMO.

Here's a fairly typical example of my watermark on an image shot for sale purposes:



Here's a "signature" I use with images I'm not really trying to sell:



I may scale the "signature" up and down depending upon usage and final size of the image, and will make it more or less transparent and/or change the color depending upon the image. But often it's simply added to images using essentially the same process as the watermarks.

To add either a the watermark or the signature, I use Lightroom most of the time now. For more finished images, intended for printing, I use Photoshop to add the signature. In the past I've used FastStone Photo Resizer, which can be used to both size images and add a watermark to them (among other things) - rapidly and in batches. FastStone is free. Lightroom isn't, but does a better job because it can automatically scale a watermark to fit the image, while FastStone can't. In the case of FastStone, watermarks or signatures always need to be created first in another program, such as Photoshop (save it as a .png if you want it to be transparent). That's generally the best with Lightroom, too, though it's possible to create very simple text watermarks with LR alone.

The only images I ever send out without any watermark or signature are those purchased for commercial or editorial usage.

All images I display digitally or provide to customers in a digital format also have copyright info and protections embedded in the image's EXIF metadata (never "save for the web" in any program... that usually removes most or all the EXIF). Removing this without my permission also can be penalized up to $30,000 per instance (in addition to any other awards for copyright infringement).

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

Please 30,000 come on.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Yes. "Up to $30,000 per instance". That's what the law says. It's at the discretion of the court (note the "up to" ).

Read it for yourself at the US copyright office.

Copyright infringement of a minor nature rarely goes any farther than a "cease and desist" order. Someone taking one of my images and "sharing" it on Facebook isn't making any money off it, and quite often is a paying customer of mine anyway. I wouldn't even bother with a cease and desist in that case, unless the image were being misused somehow.

Unregistered image copyright infringements only qualify for recovery of "standard usage fees" (which I figure are about 3X what I'd usually charge ;)), so at most are just a small claims court issue, with no added penalties and no recovery of legal expenses.

Registered image infringement suits are heard in federal court, qualify for recovery of standard usage fees, plus recovery of legal expenses, plus further penalties that might include forfeiture of any and all profits related to the misuse, added penalties for deliberate removal of copyright protections and more, at the discretion of the court.

Some awards have run into the hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars (there was a very large case involving misuse of about 50 images of Marilyn Monroe, a few years ago).

In some other intellectual property and patent infringement cases total awards have even run into the billions of dollars (think software and high tech, for example).

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

Excuse me, am sorry, should have said how many 30,000 dollar judgements have been levied, very few if any.

Kuzano

Nooooooooo! I've been told more times than once. Thieves will get what they want without concern. All the watermark programs have been hacked or cracked.

When in banking, a district manager told a group of us at a meeting. "The only reason locks exist is to keep honest people honest."

Waste of time and ugly besides... particularly to the people who ask, "What the Hell is that mark?"

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

jcboy3

What kind of watermark are you putting on the pictures? Name in the bottom corner? Or big banner splatted across the image?

The name in the bottom corner is an attribution, the banner splatted across the image is an eyesore.

In either case, most printers will not print an image with a watermark unless you have a copyright release. They may also check EXIF data for copyright as well.

You say that you are posting for download, but you only sell non-watermarked prints, and for profit as well. So the watermarked downloads are really a teaser for the non-watermarked prints.

Why don't you also sell the non-watermarked images as downloads? Many of the photo websites will allow that as well as prints. Not everyone wants a print, and no one wants a banner watermark.

I know many photographers that shoot sporting events and sell pictures that way. They are in it for money, sometimes just to fund gear, but they are up front about it. But you should keep the charges nominal, or you might run afoul of the school.

At any rate, I wouldn't classify you as a professional because you are doing this ad hoc; without a financial arrangement with the school. Get an agreement with the school to shoot and sell images, sharing the cost with them (to help finance their athletic programs), and then you are on the way to being a professional. I prefer that approach if I'm not shooting a public access event; it will usually get you better access to shooting locations as well.

Finally, don't lose sight of the fact that you are doing this as a favor to the kids. Personally, I would just do it for free. It's your kids school, and the school isn't hiring you to do this.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Plenty, but normally for more than one stolen photo. With images non-timely-registered, it is often not economically-feasible to sue. With images timely-registered, statutory damages can reach $150,000/image and yes, I have seen judgments of that size. In addition, with the timely-registered images, the photographer normally is also awarded his attorney's fees.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Throughout the ages, many artists signed their works. Watermarking images is a statement of ownership and confidence to put your name to it. Let your watermark tell date and place and the copy number: 1 for you and 2 and up for others. How you control this in our age of electronics is another thread.

robirdman

There are several issues raised in this thread. I am a professional and use a large watermark across the image. I am not concerned about it 'ruining' the image, because the purpose is to make interested parties know what is available, if they want images for use in books, or magazines, or they want to order prints. They know that what is ordered, won't have the watermark, and it makes no difference in assessing the image.

robirdman

There are several issues raised in this thread. I am a professional and use a large watermark across the image. I am not concerned about it 'ruining' the image, because the purpose is to make interested parties know what is available, if they want images for use in books, or magazines, or they want to order prints. They know that what is ordered, won't have the watermark, and it makes no difference in assessing the image. I originally had small copyright notices at the bottom of the image, but after my home page image was taken and made into a crude joke with hundreds of shares, with this trimmed, I started adding the large watermark to everything. I had the help of lawyers track down over 80 web sites who used my modified original. I don't think you can easily remove the large watermark in a few seconds.
I know another photographer, who also shoots birds, but shoots kids playing football and makes very good money from selling prints to parents.
It is much harder to make money as a pro now, especially in bird photography because of the plethora of amateurs, who buy expensive equipment and give stuff away free. Quite a few former paying sources now expect free donations, and it is common for people to view my site and tell me about their project that has no budget for photos, though they are the essence of the project.
I think it takes little imagination for someone to judge whether they want to use an image or not without the watermark. An example: http://www.theearlybirder.com/hawks/peregrine/pages/8026726%20Peregrine%20Falcon%20.htm

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

I guess if you're going to put a watermark diagonally across the photo it will make it unappealing and too much hassle to steal