Copyrighting photos: As I understand it, watermarking a photo or adding a copyright mark to photos does not protect a photographer from theft unless the photo has been registered with...

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

As I understand it, watermarking a photo or adding a copyright mark to photos does not protect a photographer from theft unless the photo has been registered with the copyright office. The photographer may recover if he can prove the image was his, but only actual damages and not punitive damage. I also understand that a photographer may register a single image or a "body of work". What does a body of work include? Could that be interpretted as all images shot in a lifetime? Or would that be only images shot in a single photo shoot? There is a fee associated with registering so I'm wondering if the fee would be multiplied by the number of photos taken or would a onetime fee cover any watermarked image. Surely some hoggers have dealt with this and can enlighten me. Thanks in advance.

Walt

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Whuff wrote:

As I understand it, watermarking a photo or adding... (show quote)

FWIW - this might answer some questions....

http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2013/04/how-to-registering-copyrights-your-photography

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Whuff wrote:

As I understand it, watermarking a photo or adding... (show quote)

"Body of work" in this case would be the set of images you list when registering with the copyright office. You can lump together a number of images at the time you register for a single flat fee. (I don't recall the number exactly (720? 800?), but it was substantial enough to make batch registration worth doing). You do NOT have to pay a fee for each image unless you register them individually.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Photographer Jim wrote:

"Body of work" in this case would be the set of images you list when registering with the copyright office. You can lump together a number of images at the time you register for a single flat fee. (I don't recall the number exactly, but it was substantial enough to make batch registration worth doing). You do NOT have to pay a fee for each image unless you register them individually.

The number 50 sticks in my mind as the limit per registration, but that is not from personal experience.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Dngallagher wrote:

The number 50 sticks in my mind as the limit per registration, but that is not from personal experience.

It was a lot more than 50. I sent in one form with over 100 images, and I know that was far from the limit. Just can't recall the exact number, and am too comfortable with my coffee at the moment to run out to the studio to dig through my files to find out! 😃

UXOEOD

Try a really ugly and intrusive watermark, seems to be the default solution to an, what I suspect is an overblown, problem.

By the way, the US Copyright Office, http://www.copyright.gov, is rather clear and helpful source of information. Much better to get your information from the horse'show mouth rather than from a group of Jackasses.

Goodluck!

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

My understanding is the second you click the shutter in the U.S., you have copyright protection. I watermark photos I post online and my copyright info from within the camera's setup menu is in the EXIF data. You get an extra added layer of protection by registering with the government. This topic has been visited many times, you might just go to the government's copyright site to answer your question about the number of images that can be batch protected. Good luck!

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Photographer Jim wrote:

It was a lot more than 50. I sent in one form with over 100 images, and I know that was far from the limit. Just can't recall the exact number, and am too comfortable with my coffee at the moment to run out to the studio to dig through my files to find out! 😃

You are right I am sure.... but registering a large number at a time may be detrimental if you ever try to collect damages....

I am sure there is an optimal number ;)

"Register in batches

While current registration regulations allow groups of photographs to be registered on a single application, the Copyright Law prohibits the registration of published and unpublished photographs together in the same application.
But note: Be sure to limit the number of total images being registered to prevent a court from equalizing (reducing) damages based upon the total number of images in a given registration. This is based on a few recent court cases. 500 images is better than 5,000."

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Mr PC wrote:

My understanding is the second you click the shutter in the U.S., you have copyright protection. I watermark photos I post online and my copyright info from within the camera's setup menu is in the EXIF data. You get an extra added layer of protection by registering with the government. This topic has been visited many times, you might just go to the government's copyright site to answer your question about the number of images that can be batch protected. Good luck!

You are correct, every image you take is copyrighted, however registration provides you could also collect damages and legal costs of seeing, where no registration may not get you much in damages or legal costs.

Registration might make the difference in obtaining a lawyer to sue or not ;)

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

Dngallagher wrote:

FWIW - this might answer some questions....

http://www.popphoto.com/how-to/2013/04/how-to-registering-copyrights-your-photography

This did answer some questions but raised others. Thank you.

Walt

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

Photographer Jim wrote:

"Body of work" in this case would be the set of images you list when registering with the copyright office. You can lump together a number of images at the time you register for a single flat fee. (I don't recall the number exactly (720? 800?), but it was substantial enough to make batch registration worth doing). You do NOT have to pay a fee for each image unless you register them individually.

Thank you for the info. The link that Dngallagher posted above mentioned that it would be better to register more along the lines of 500 at a time than 5000 so I assume it's possible to register a great number all at once.

Walt

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

UXOEOD wrote:

Try a really ugly and intrusive watermark, seems to be the default solution to an, what I suspect is an overblown, problem.

By the way, the US Copyright Office, http://www.copyright.gov, is rather clear and helpful source of information. Much better to get your information from the horse'show mouth rather than from a group of Jackasses.

Goodluck!

Thanks. It was your earlier post about watermarks that made me look further into this and I did a google search but didn't come up with an answer to this question.

Walt

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

Dngallagher wrote:

You are correct, every image you take is copyrighted, however registration provides you could also collect damages and legal costs of seeing, where no registration may not get you much in damages or legal costs.

Registration might make the difference in obtaining a lawyer to sue or not ;)

This is exactly what I understand. You are apparently knowledgeable in this area, so thank you. As a hobbyist rather than a pro, I have few photos that would be worthy but I think every photographer can benefit from being informed on this subject. Thank you.

Walt

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Whuff wrote:

This is exactly what I understand. You are apparently knowledgeable in this area, so thank you. As a hobbyist rather than a pro, I have few photos that would be worthy but I think every photographer can benefit from being informed on this subject. Thank you.

Walt

I am still waiting for the first image I find is worthy of registration myself ;)

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

Dngallagher wrote:

I am still waiting for the first image I find is worthy of registration myself ;)

Yup. I did read a post the other day (I don't remember who the OP was) from someone who discovered someone was using her image on mugs and things that person was selling online.

Walt

Edit: I believe it was colo43 that had her image used.