Copy Right?

Hi...I am curious how copy rights work on pictures. Do you just write copy right in or do you have to submit them some where? Also, if you put your watermark on there, does that sort of do the same thing since you have the original pic? How do you stop someone from using your pics w/o one? Thanks!

I think if you take the picture it is yours. If anyone uses it wihout your permission they are breaking copyright laws.

We have something similar in this thread:http://forums.photographyreview.com/...ad.php?t=41395
If all you want is to stop using it, and not to claim huge damages (including lawyer's fees) John's civil court approach works.

1) We are not a lawyers - if you feel you need one, open your wallet and say "go on, help yourself"
2) Remember copyright is different in every country !
3) Work for hire, copyright needs to be covered in the contract

For the USA your first stop should be www.copyright.gov

Getty Images are advising all images be registered http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...article_id=890

>> Do you just write copy right in or do you have to submit them some where?
It makes it easier to prove copyright if you submit them to the Copyright office , yes.
But no, copyright exists from the moment you create the image.
A legal case may fail if you have not registered copyright.

>> Also, if you put your watermark on there, does that sort of do the same thing since you have the original pic?
It advertises that it is copyright, as soon as it's in public view there is a chance someone will make a copy.
But no, you don't need to write copyright in there - it is copyright.
Having the notice there may be enough to scare someone into paying up, or removing the image from display, if yo get a lawyer involved and stop short of taking it to court.
Sometimes just hearing from a lawyer is enough.

>> How do you stop someone from using your pics w/o one? Thanks!
You can't stop someone from using your pics even with one, all you can do is go after them afterwards and take action, if you can afford it ...
Inserting watermarks, or if you're a techie encrypted identifiers (steganography) is useful in creating supporting evidence

This thread shows why registration helps - you can get more damages if you take it to court and win: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=299831


In the US you can copyright a set of images as unpublished works, on one form for $45.


In the UK there is no official copyright register according to the UK Intellectual Property Office (an operating name of the Patent Office). http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-claim/c-register.htm

In order to benefit from the UCC it is essential to mark your copyright work with the © symbol, followed by the name of the copyright owner and year of publication. This is not essential under United Kingdom law but it is still advisable to mark your work in this way and take the other precautions suggested regarding copyright in the United Kingdom.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/index.html
also says that copyright protection is automatic.

But it seems that copyright protection is not the same as the ability to claim damages !
Remember Getty's website said: "A recent court decision in New York makes it more difficult to get a multiplier as damages for unauthorized uses unless the photographs were registered before the infringement."

Thanks for all your help!

I'll only add these bits:

In the US and in any Western nation having adopted the Berne Convention (which is all major countries), modern works (such as photos you're taking now) do NOT have to be registered, ever. I would figure only major professionals would do this, if even then, b/c the modern statute makes it unnecessary.

Having notice of copyright on your work (by law, notice is: author's name, date, and copyright symbol) IS important for lots of reasons. It gives notice to the casual viewer that you own the image, in court, it helps your evidentiary proof, and most importantly, notice allows you to recover court costs and attorney's fees (which often exceed the value of the infringement action).

Even without notice, any picture you take is automatically vested with copyright. It's just harder for you to prove this, and you cannot get as much damages, without proper notice.

Finally, Copyright, like most law, is passive. Someone has to infringe first. But again, putting a proper notice on your image is the best way to protect it.