shutterhawk Loc: Cape Cod

I realize this is more of a legal than photographic question but I'm guessing someone in UHH land has dealt with this. I'm toying with the idea of trying to market some of my photographs (hand mounted of blank cards).I want to make it clear that the images are not up for grabs but I'd rather not superimpose writing on the image. Would putting a peel and stick label on the back of the card be sufficient?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You inherently own the copyright of any photograph you take. Just keep the unaltered original so you can prove it. Watermarks can be removed easily. (https://www.theinpaint.com/inpaint-how-to-remove-watermark-from-a-picture.html) for example. A peel and stick label will show due diligence on your part to inform others of your ownership. You might want to become friends with a copyright lawyer just in case. Those cases are usually a slam dunk.
--Bob

shutterhawk Loc: Cape Cod

Thanks. I'll probably just stick a label on the back. We're never going to be talking about huge sums here so I'm not going to loose sleep worrying about it.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Are these cards marketing teasers to advertise your photos?

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Are you aware of Clear Bags, a company that sells plastic bags and boxes? I buy their card wraps and slip the card and envelope in a bag and then put a price sticker on the bag. I print my cards in Lightroom with a copyright and my name on the back of the card. Depending on how thick your cardstock is, you might be able to run it through your printer to put your name and copyright on the back. I have some of the type of card you appear to be talking about, too, but have not used them and have not tried to print on one.

erinjay64

No.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Copying is the sincerest form of flattery!

If your printed image consists of one from a series of similar images (same place time etc) then 'proving it is yours' would be simple without copyright.

I would buy an inked stamp or sticker and put it neatly on the reverse. Also file a copy and keep it - (it increases your stock of advertising material should someone want 'different' stock to sell) It is only fine art and conservation that would sneer at a 'sticker'....are you that well thought of yet?

Have fun

shutterhawk Loc: Cape Cod

I always keep the uncropped RAW file so proving ownership wouldn't be a problem.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bob is 100% correct - you always own the copyright on the images you create.

On the other hand, No copyright notice will deter anyone intent on stealing your work from doing so.

If your work is used commercially by a thief, then you "may" be able to recover damages, but your best chances of doing so is if you register your images before you publish them with the US Copyright Office.

A good resource and reference is http://thecopyrightzone.com/

If you are just concerned with casual use, then don't bother doing anything - there ain't nuttin' you can do about it, and anything that you add to the image will just detract from it. Not even a peel and stick label. If you can figure out a way to put a dye-bomb on it, like they do when money is robbed from a bank, then I'd imagine someone may be less inclined to steal your work . . . Just sayin'

Don't waste your time seeking advice on any forum, unless you are seeking a reference to a copyright attorney. Nothing anyone can offer on any forum for free cannot ever be used in court anyway.

shutterhawk Loc: Cape Cod

Thanks everyone who replied to this question. This isn't going to be my livelihood and isn't likely to ever involve any significant amount of money so I probably just won't bother with it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

A court has decided that you must register an image if you want a chance to succeed in court.

Shel Loc: Lecanto FL

You must have registered your copyright to file suit against an infringer. Filing with the Copyright Office is $130 but the procedure is very straight forward. In my opinion, for most people, there is no need for a lawyer to assist in this process. Now retired but I have handled copyright infringement cases in the Federal courts of numerous states, so I not anti-lawyer. To avoid filing for each photograph, I have filed for copyright protection on a collection of photos. This protects each photo and well as the compilation.

shutterhawk Loc: Cape Cod

Thanks. That's something to consider.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Right and wrong.

"Wrong" because you CAN file suit against someone for infringement, even if your copyright hasn't been registered.

However, "right" because you have much more clout in a lawsuit if you have registered the copyright.

Unregistered images you can only sue for "market value" of the infringing usage. For example, if someone publishes your image without your permission and the standard fee would be $75 for that usage, that's what you can charge them (roughly, since this varies you might mark it up a bit). You also can only file a suit of this type in small claims court, where you cannot utilize an attorney to represent you. You are free to seek legal advice, but doing so will be at your expense. You cannot recover legal fees and court costs. Because of the small sums involved, most intellectual property attorneys will not take on a case involving unregistered work. So, in other words, it's hardly worth pursuing an infringement suit on an unregistered image... unless the infringing usage has been something that would normally generate a very large fee. For example, i know a photographer who was paid $20,000 for use of one of his images in a worldwide marketing campaign.

On the other hand, if an image has been properly registered, you can sue in federal court for those same usage fees, plus penalties, plus to recover all your legal and court expenses. This can add up to quite a sum. For example, one penalty the court can levy on the infringing party is "removal of a copyright protection", such as removing a watermark or deleting EXIF metadata containing ownership info. This penalty alone can be as much as $30,000 per instance, at the court's discretion. With a registered image you're also much more likely to be able to enlist an intellectual property attorney to work on your behalf and represent you, often on a contingency basis where they will share in any awards that are the result of your lawsuit.

Registration really isn't all that big a deal or expensive. The most important rule might be that in order to be entitled to full protection, you must register your copyright ownership within 90 days of "first publication". (I'm not sure if the OP's usage would entail 1st publication or not.)

As noted, for that fee of $130, you can register a very large number of images. Basically, as many as you can fit in thumbnail size on a DVD.. probably thousands. (Check online if handling the registration that way, not sure what the current number of images might be. See the U.S. Copyright Office website for additional info.... Or consult an intellectual property rights attorney... I am not an attorney, just a photorapher.)

As to your use of the images... Are those "greeting cards" you'll be offering? If so, you might "sign" the image in the corner unobtrusively. That serves as a copyright protection without being obnoxious like a watermark. You also should imprint copyright info in more detail on the back of the card itself. A label may work, too... but might be too easily removed. Will this prevent someone from using it without your permission? No. But it can give you some recourse if they do.... especially if you've properly registered your copyright.