How do I copy right an image ?

BADGER.BRAD

BADGER.BRAD

Messages
3,692
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,

Not as though any one would want to half inch my images but I was wondering how to protect them with out going over the top. Any pointers really appreciated.
 
In the UK, you automatically have copyright as the person who took the photograph. To prevent anyone from taking an unauthorised copy, the only way is to not put it on the web! Plenty of ways to stick a watermark on any images but they tend to detract from the image's impact and are often easy to dispose of anyway.
 
You already own the copyright of your own images, all you really can do is fill in the appropriate EXIF fields.
 
As above; what's your aim?

The only way to stop someone nicking your images is to not post them online.

They're 'copyrighted' as soon as you press the shutter,

There's ways to ensure you get paid for unauthorised use, but how much effort you want to put into it is consummate with the risks and appropriate rewards.

The only people likely to be interested in my images already paid for them, I don't feel the need to put in any effort to further protect them.
 
As said already, any images you put on the web are vulnerable for use by anyone if they want to irrespective of your rights. One safeguard is to only upload reduced size/resolution images. At least that makes it a bit more of a challenge for others to do something of significance.

Some advice that I got recently from some professional players, was to update the EXIF to include your name and contact details for images you put online. That way if someone legitimately wants to use your images, they can contact you and request full-size etc.

Those that want to steal your online images will do so and there's really not a lot you can do about it.
 
Thanks everyone much appreciated, the question was really a theoretical one , as I said before I don't think anyone would want any of them anyway.

thanks again

Brad
 
I only post 72dpi images online at a maximum of 2000px, I also put a small watermark on them and have filled in the copyright exif field in my camera. If you post decent stuff it's inevitable some will get pinched though. The worst example I have is a 'photographer' in China who has put some of my Peak District pictures in his portfolio, but can't realistically do anything about it.

Just been on a media training course where a lawyer was presenting on copyright law - pictures must display 'skill and labour' apparently.
 
Scirocco_09 said:
I only post 72dpi images online at a maximum of 2000px, I also put a small watermark on them and have filled in the copyright exif field in my camera. If you post decent stuff it's inevitable some will get pinched though. The worst example I have is a 'photographer' in China who has put some of my Peak District pictures in his portfolio, but can't realistically do anything about it.

Just been on a media training course where a lawyer was presenting on copyright law - pictures must display 'skill and labour' apparently.
Click to expand...
People could still get a fairly reasonable good print out of that. Quality is subjective but 10-12" or so easily.
 
myotis said:
"A work is subject to copyright if it is regarded as original, and must exhibit a degree of labour, skill or judgement." is what the law requires.
Click to expand...


You own the copyright when you take the picture.. If you me and ten other people take exactly the same picture of a wall... we all own our copyright to the picture we took.. has nothing to do with original or anything else you listed
 
myotis said:
"A work is subject to copyright if it is regarded as original, and must exhibit a degree of labour, skill or judgement." is what the law requires.

But I can't see how this an issue with any photograph, as all photographs must fall within this definition.

https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/ukcs/docs/edupack.pdf
Click to expand...


And you source for this information is the scam website you've linked to? Genius. As Mark so ably put it. b*****ks
 
Jeez, what an aggressive bunch. As per copyright law, I just repeated what was said on the course by a solicitor who works for a major organisation, and the course is the best regarded in that sector. As for how that applies to our photos, well you can probably argue even a quick snap takes skill and labour. As for dpi/ppi - whatever, does that actually matter in this instance? 2000px is the max I'd post online, not always - just saying what I do, you don't have to do the same but what a strange response. I currently have several pictures in major magazines, have won a category in previous Landscape Photographer of the Year along with several other commendations, Outdoor Photographer of the Year commendations. I'm obviously a very misinformed person
 
Last edited:
You get the “strange and aggressive” response (really?) because the information you’re posting, regardless of how highly you think of the source, is wrong.
 
Scirocco_09 said:
I currently have several pictures in major magazines, have won a category in previous Landscape Photographer of the Year along with several other commendations, Outdoor Photographer of the Year commendations. I'm obviously a very misinformed person
Click to expand...
I obviously need to be humbled.... I won't quote my CV, the simple facts are that regardless, if you took the image, you own the copyright, unless you were an employee in which case your employer owns the intellectual property rights and for presentation on screen the ppi does not make any difference and can be ignored, simply reduce the pixel dimensions to a size you consider to be 'safe', you are right in that 2000 pixels on the longest side seems to be the norm, I normally go for 1200 pixels.

Mind you if you post to places like F*c@b$$k they 'mash' your file so badly it isn't going to be worth nicking :)
 
If 'labour, skill and judgement' are a requirement, I'm a bit puzzled as to why there would be copyright difficulties in the "monkey selfie" case. Surely it would be hard to consider that the monkey displayed any skill, judgement or labour unless the latter means simply pressing the button?
 
boyfalldown said:
And you source for this information is the scam website you've linked to? Genius. As Mark so ably put it. b*****ks
Click to expand...

Given the well known "sweat of the brow" concept in copyright law, this seemed perfectly reasonable to me, and hence the link. Why is this a scam website?

Here is it phrased slightly differently from a different, site

"It has been submitted that originality simply means that the work should originate from the author and that the test is that the author used sufficient skill, labour and judgment in creating the work. However, there is limited to no rules surrounding the test, as originality "must depend largely on the facts of the case and must in each case be very much a question of degree""

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/copyright-law/what-is-copyright.php

Or here it is from wikipedia explaining how the Labour and skill requirement is used to qualify databases as something that can be copyrighter

In order to grant copyright protection to computer databases, UK copyright law recognises the element of labour and skill used in compiling them, even though they are not in truth original works (being entirely derived from existing records),[17] applying a principle sometimes called the 'Sweat of the Brow' doctrine; they are also protected by database right

Are you saying that this basic copyright requirement doesn't apply to photographs? Maybe it doesn't, but I have always assumed it did.

as I said, given that all photographs are going to show a degree of skill, judgement etc then they should automatically pass this test, assuming you can prove you were the photographer
 
Orangecroc said:
That's a rather strange thing to say. The employer will not own the copyright unless there is a specific clause in your employment contract.
Click to expand...
Not strange at all, it is in fact the other way round as regards clauses.... From the Gov IP site....

'Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or a film, is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work (subject to any agreement to the contrary).'

I have 34years of published images to which I do not hold copyright, my employer for those 34yrs holds the copyright with no clauses in my contract.
 
Orangecroc said:
That's a rather strange thing to say. The employer will not own the copyright unless there is a specific clause in your employment contract. I would also expect you would hold shared copyright.
Click to expand...
I Am Not A Lawyer. So if I wanted or needed to know about things like this, I might look at, say, the website of the Intellectual Property Office, since I'd expect them to know how it works.

Unfortunately they don't agree with you:
Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or a film, is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work (subject to any agreement to the contrary).
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer



EDIT - Oops, far too slow!
 
KIPAX said:
You own the copyright when you take the picture.. If you me and ten other people take exactly the same picture of a wall... we all own our copyright to the picture we took.. has nothing to do with original or anything else you listed
Click to expand...

Doesn't copyright law revolve entirely around the idea of "original work", but in the case you cite surely each of those images would be original as each would have been independently created by the photographer using some degree of skill. I don't see how this aspect of the "originality" test is a problem for photographers.
 
myotis said:
Doesn't copyright law revolve entirely around the idea of "original work", but in the case you cite surely each of those images would be original as each would have been independently created by the photographer using some degree of skill. I don't see how this aspect of the "originality" test is a problem for photographers.
Click to expand...
The 'originality' test isn't a problem for photographers.

That's why it's never considered ;)

In fact if you search here you'll probably find 100 copyright threads, this is the first time it's been mentioned. ergo. the 'lawyer' educating photographers about copyright law was wasting his breath mentioning it.

There's 100's of years of working pro experience posted on this subject, it's easy to find a consensus on copyright if you know who's posts to believe. :)
 
Phil V said:
ergo. the 'lawyer' educating photographers about copyright law was wasting his breath mentioning it.
Click to expand...

That I can agree with, as I assume that at some stage, it was decided that "works of art" will always pass the "sweat of the brow" test of originality, which is what I have been trying to say. This is implied in the way its listed in the Act, but I wonder if there is an explicit decision laid out somewhere.
 
myotis said:
That I can agree with, as I assume that at some stage, it was decided that "works of art" will always pass the "sweat of the brow" test of originality, which is what I have been trying to say. This is implied in the way its listed in the Act, but I wonder if there is an explicit decision laid out somewhere.
Click to expand...
I doubt it's ever been tested, it's too obvious to be discussing on an open forum, I can't think a judge would ever have ruled on it.
 
Phil V said:
I doubt it's ever been tested, it's too obvious to be discussing on an open forum, I can't think a judge would ever have ruled on it.
Click to expand...

I wasn't meaning a test case, I meant at the green/white paper stages of the Act. Not that its of any real importance .
 
myotis said:
Given the well known "sweat of the brow" concept in copyright law, this seemed perfectly reasonable to me, and hence the link. Why is this a scam website?

Here is it phrased slightly differently from a different, site

"It has been submitted that originality simply means that the work should originate from the author and that the test is that the author used sufficient skill, labour and judgment in creating the work. However, there is limited to no rules surrounding the test, as originality "must depend largely on the facts of the case and must in each case be very much a question of degree""

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/copyright-law/what-is-copyright.php

Or here it is from wikipedia explaining how the Labour and skill requirement is used to qualify databases as something that can be copyrighter

In order to grant copyright protection to computer databases, UK copyright law recognises the element of labour and skill used in compiling them, even though they are not in truth original works (being entirely derived from existing records),[17] applying a principle sometimes called the 'Sweat of the Brow' doctrine; they are also protected by database right

Are you saying that this basic copyright requirement doesn't apply to photographs? Maybe it doesn't, but I have always assumed it did.

as I said, given that all photographs are going to show a degree of skill, judgement etc then they should automatically pass this test, assuming you can prove you were the photographer
Click to expand...
A
Website that charges to provide a service that inherently free and implies that it offers something extra while providing incorrect info is a scam

If you don’t understand you gain copyright as soon as you press the shutter then....
 
myotis said:
I wasn't meaning a test case, I meant at the green/white paper stages of the Act. Not that its of any real importance .
Click to expand...
As far as i know (and a cursory glance just now) the act only relates to 'authorship'.
 
PhilH04 said:
Not strange at all, it is in fact the other way round as regards clauses.... From the Gov IP site....

'Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or a film, is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work (subject to any agreement to the contrary).'

I have 34years of published images to which I do not hold copyright, my employer for those 34yrs holds the copyright with no clauses in my contract.
Click to expand...
StewartR said:
I Am Not A Lawyer. So if I wanted or needed to know about things like this, I might look at, say, the website of the Intellectual Property Office, since I'd expect them to know how it works.

Unfortunately they don't agree with you:


Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer



EDIT - Oops, far too slow!
Click to expand...
So the copyright of any selfies taken at work are owned by the employers.
 
boyfalldown said:
A
Website that charges to provide a service that inherently free and implies that it offers something extra while providing incorrect info is a scam

If you don’t understand you gain copyright as soon as you press the shutter then....
Click to expand...

While registering copyright is free, making sure that you prepare a copyright that properly protects your work can be difficult, and I assume that is what this service is providing. It wasn't obvious to me that the information on the fact sheet was is incorrect, and it correctly described the well known test for originality that you need to pass before being granted a copyright. Which was what the lawyer referred to in the OP was talking about.

The fact that its of no practical relevance to photographs the lawyer may not have explained/understood properly, but its still a fundamental aspect of what type of works can be granted a copyright.
 
GeeJay57 said:
If 'labour, skill and judgement' are a requirement, I'm a bit puzzled as to why there would be copyright difficulties in the "monkey selfie" case. Surely it would be hard to consider that the monkey displayed any skill, judgement or labour unless the latter means simply pressing the button?
Click to expand...
Interesting, but that'd be US law anyway.

But AFAIK both theirs and our laws only mention 'authorship' - I'm sure 'authorship' would mean it's a deliberate act, just remember that in the monkey case, no judge has ever been any where close to suggesting the monkey owned copyright. It's an interesting argument only from an academic point of view. No one really believes that the monkey could own copyright (including the PETA lawyers).
 
myotis said:
While registering copyright is free, making sure that you prepare a copyright that properly protects your work can be difficult, and I assume that is what this service is providing. It wasn't obvious to me that the information on the fact sheet was is incorrect, and it correctly described the well known test for originality that you need to pass before being granted a copyright. Which was what the lawyer referred to in the OP was talking about.

The fact that its of no practical relevance to photographs the lawyer may not have explained/understood properly, but its still a fundamental aspect of what type of works can be granted a copyright.
Click to expand...
Nope. Copyright exists, you need no legal help to prove it exists. And the website is selling a service not required under UK law by pretending that the service is vital. If you wouldn't describe that as a scam, do you want to buy some magic beans? :rolleyes:
 
Orangecroc said:
So the copyright of any selfies taken at work are owned by the employers.
Click to expand...
You can't argue with the Government site... It does say 'in the course of his employment', so obviously creating images etc for the employer.
 
Phil V said:
As far as i know (and a cursory glance just now) the act only relates to 'authorship'.
Click to expand...
And "ownership" but its more to do with the how they decided to deal with the definition of an "original" work during the preparation of the Act. But its all rather idle curiosity now, and I suspect we both have better things to do.
 
Phil V said:
Nope. Copyright exists, you need no legal help to prove it exists. And the website is selling a service not required under UK law by pretending that the service is vital. If you wouldn't describe that as a scam, do you want to buy some magic beans? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

OK, I have now looked at the site, as I said, I only looked at the fact sheet, and I agree the site is a scam. This is what I get for just trying to find a quick reference to the copyright Sweat of the Brow doctrine, without looking at the source properly, but as the originality requirement is so well established there was no real reason to doubt the information provided
 
myotis said:
OK, I have now looked at the site, as I said, I only looked at the fact sheet, and I agree the site is a scam. This is what I get for just trying to find a quick reference to the copyright Sweat of the Brow doctrine, without looking at the source properly, but as the originality requirement is so well established there was no real reason to doubt the information provided
Click to expand...

But there are still occasions where you might need help to register a copyright (not for photographs of course) I have no idea why I seem to be replying to myself here :-( I've been up ill all night and a little befuddled
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top