How do I copy right an image ?

Orangecroc said:
That's cool, I'll just stop identifying by binary gender standards so that he/his no longer applies to me
Click to expand...
I know, I agree I think their gender wording could be better here, not really good considering it is a government site.
 
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...

You don’t register copyright. The U.K. has no legal mechanism to do so.
 
myotis said:
Yes, of course you are correct, sorry, I'm way off beam and getting myself confused with patents.
Click to expand...

:) IP law is a bit of a minefield. Of course then you throw trademarks into the mix to make it even more confusing
 
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...


In my case for both the last companies I worked for an in my present employment, then it in written in the employee handbook that copyright belongs to the company if the work was undertaken as part of your employment/duties within the company.
 
Orangecroc said:
So the copyright of any selfies taken at work are owned by the employers.
Click to expand...
I was given to understand that "made by an employee in the course of his employment" is the critical phrase here.
If the employer instructs or otherwise requires photos to be taken by the employee for use by the employer, then the employer owns the copyright.
Selfies, and other personal photos are not made in the course of their employment, so copyright remains with the togger.
 
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...

We have quite a number of professional photographers on this forum, employed full time who deal with this regularly on a daily basis.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_mbZ63WCA


:D
 
If you are someone like me who sells their own work through agencies etc then it is worth paying a reasonable fee to have the images registered with the US Copyright office.

If somebody steals your work from the internet and they are in the USA, a registered copyrighted images can be awarded two sets of damages. The first being the illegal use and the second you can claim a percentage of any profits that the image has helped to bring in.
 
Julian Elliott said:
If you are someone like me who sells their own work through agencies etc then it is worth paying a reasonable fee to have the images registered with the US Copyright office.

If somebody steals your work from the internet and they are in the USA, a registered copyrighted images can be awarded two sets of damages. The first being the illegal use and the second you can claim a percentage of any profits that the image has helped to bring in.
Click to expand...


How would one, from the U.K., bring and enforce such an action in the us?
 
boyfalldown said:
How would one, from the U.K., bring and enforce such an action in the us?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing by using a US lawyer.

But the legal implications are what really p***es me off about the US' registration scheme, they treat copyright as if it's a national rather than international issue.

There's a famous case where a US recording artist was found to be innocent of breach of copyright because the original artist hadn't registered the work in the states.

Almost giving the US worldwide arbitration of whether copyright exists, totally nuts.
 
Phil V said:
I'm guessing by using a US lawyer.

But the legal implications are what really p***es me off about the US' registration scheme, they treat copyright as if it's a national rather than international issue.

There's a famous case where a US recording artist was found to be innocent of breach of copyright because the original artist hadn't registered the work in the states.

Almost giving the US worldwide arbitration of whether copyright exists, totally nuts.
Click to expand...


I guess you’re right. But I also guess the costs would spiral quickly
 
Phil V said:
It's completely bonkers, typical US regulation designed to make lawyers rich.
Click to expand...


I’ve no idea if there is an easy and cheap route, like small claims here, one could use

I know DMCA is relatively easy to enforce
 
jerry12953 said:
It surprises me that there is a place for arguing about copyright on here. It just seems like such a basic foundation for being a (professional/experienced) photographer that everyone should understand it from the word go.....
Click to expand...

But the question was raised by a complete newbie, and all the experienced pro's gave the same answer. But this is the Internet, and everyone thinks they have a right to an opinion and then the waters get muddied.

Sometimes I feel we ought to have some subjects where we could post a definitive answer and hit a 'close' button, but that's not the nature of social media.
 
Phil V said:
But the question was raised by a complete newbie, and all the experienced pro's gave the same answer. But this is the Internet, and everyone thinks they have a right to an opinion and then the waters get muddied.

Sometimes I feel we ought to have some subjects where we could post a definitive answer and hit a 'close' button, but that's not the nature of social media.
Click to expand...

Agreed on point 1 but there was quite a disagreement among the "experienced pros"......... eg "b******s"
 
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...
2000 you can print a good size image from that as for your setting of dpi it makes no difference to the image, this is only used when you wish to output it to a printer what makes the difference is only pixels.
 
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...

The skill, labour and judgement of that shot eventually worked in the photographer's favour as he set up the equipment...
 
jerry12953 said:
Agreed on point 1 but there was quite a disagreement among the "experienced pros"......... eg "b******s"
Click to expand...
There wasn't.
All the pros (I'd recognise as such) agreed that statement was b****x.
 
Last edited:
I have often wondered about copyright on my pics I did make one up but found it a pain all the time to add.....
 
cjt2011 said:
I have often wondered about copyright on my pics I did make one up but found it a pain all the time to add.....
Click to expand...

Carl,

You need to remember that you already have copyright on your photos; it comes automatically as soon as you take them.

Putting a copyright watermark on your images doesn't really make much difference although it might discourage a few potential thieves.
 
PhilH04 said:
Am I allowed to say that has confused me.... think I need to go back to bed.
Click to expand...

Any IP you create in your normal duties at work (be it a photograph, a computer program, or whatever) belongs automatically to your employer
 
boyfalldown said:
Any IP you create in your normal duties at work (be it a photograph, a computer program, or whatever) belongs automatically to your employer
Click to expand...
Yes I know... I was the person who bought that up in the first place... having re-read, it is the missing full stop that caused my confusion... putting the full stop in and it makes sense.

"If you were employed to take the photo, ie it's your work. Taking a photo of yourself while at work is your photo".

also work = as in your employment.
 
It's hard to minimise theft once it's on the internet. I use a watermark, 800x600 resolution only but recognise that that is good enough for internet use, blog articles etc.
I used to shoot Sunday morning youth rugby, sold photos to parents at a tiny price for full digital image, all rights, that went towards the cost of running our team.
So many times you'd find parents happily not paying, ignoring the copyright info and where the money was going and happily using the even smaller photos copied from my website on their facebook page.
 
boyfalldown said:
I’ve no idea if there is an easy and cheap route, like small claims here, one could use

I know DMCA is relatively easy to enforce
Click to expand...

You can use small claims but as someone who is having to pursue three individuals through my Union it isn't the case. It's the IP court.
 
Here's an interesting question to add to the mix...

What if you see an image and think to avoid stealing someone's image, you just recreate it.

i.e. when an image is conceptual.

I can't think of any examples off hand, but if something's easy to recreate, how do you claim you created it first? Or that the other person saw your image and ripped it off?

Also, with regard to some shots mentioned here and on the thread about recouping money from those stolen images, you need to be careful if they feature certain buildings. It would be fine for you to take the image, and show it on a blog, but as soon as it becomes monetised, it becomes problematic.

The owners of those buildings would have to give the OK for them to be featured (or for you to make money from them), so you also need to be careful about that. As an example, we were planning to use an aerial shot of London in a campaign, but couldn't use it as the Emirates stadium was clearly visible and they would not allow us to use it*.

For example, it's not illegal to photograph the Eiffell Tower during the day and share it on Facebook, but it becomes a copyright nightmare if you take the same photo at night. As the lights are seen as a separate Art installation.

So for anyone that says it's cut and dry and that all pro photographers should know where they stand, it's not as easy as that. We had a team of people whose job it was to negotiate all the complicated deals in the background to get clearance.
 
IIRC, someone copyrighted the idea of a red London bus in front of the Elizabeth Tower (Big Ben) with the bus selectively coloured.
 
Nod said:
IIRC, someone copyrighted the idea of a red London bus in front of the Elizabeth Tower (Big Ben) with the bus selectively coloured.
Click to expand...


The circumstances of that case were fairly specific. The product owner wanted an image but, having approached the photographer, didn't like the licence fee. They then recreated it.
It was the act of deliberate recreation to avoid licensing that created the infringement.
 
Kell said:
Also, with regard to some shots mentioned here and on the thread about recouping money from those stolen images, you need to be careful if they feature certain buildings. It would be fine for you to take the image, and show it on a blog, but as soon as it becomes monetised, it becomes problematic.

The owners of those buildings would have to give the OK for them to be featured (or for you to make money from them), so you also need to be careful about that. As an example, we were planning to use an aerial shot of London in a campaign, but couldn't use it as the Emirates stadium was clearly visible and they would not allow us to use it*.

For example, it's not illegal to photograph the Eiffell Tower during the day and share it on Facebook, but it becomes a copyright nightmare if you take the same photo at night. As the lights are seen as a separate Art installation.

So for anyone that says it's cut and dry and that all pro photographers should know where they stand, it's not as easy as that. We had a team of people whose job it was to negotiate all the complicated deals in the background to get clearance.
Click to expand...

The UK has a rather important notion; ie that of Freedom of Panorama.

Historically, certain owners of building used the threat of defamation to prevent the use of their buildings in commercial work.

Since 2013, that threat no longer exists.

Another vehicle that has been used recently is the common law tort of 'Passing Off'.

As long as you don't imply that the building is lending its support or approval of a product, there is nothing to prevent the building being in the shot or background.

Equally there is nothing to prevent an image of a building being sold for decorative purposes (ie prints, posters etc) if taken from a public place.

The owners could potentially try to reference Robyn Rihanna Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (aka Rihanna v Topshop) but that would be a pretty far stretch as it involved 'goodwill'.
 
DemiLion said:
The UK has a rather important notion; ie that of Freedom of Panorama.

Historically, certain owners of building used the threat of defamation to prevent the use of their buildings in commercial work.

Since 2013, that threat no longer exists.

Another vehicle that has been used recently is the common law tort of 'Passing Off'.

As long as you don't imply that the building is lending its support or approval of a product, there is nothing to prevent the building being in the shot or background.

Equally there is nothing to prevent an image of a building being sold for decorative purposes (ie prints, posters etc) if taken from a public place.

The owners could potentially try to reference Robyn Rihanna Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (aka Rihanna v Topshop) but that would be a pretty far stretch as it involved 'goodwill'.
Click to expand...


Re: Historically, certain owners of building used the threat of defamation to prevent the use of their buildings in commercial work.
How does this work with National Trust?
http://www.nationaltrustimages.org.uk/photographic-access
 
The National Trust prevents the commercial use of images of their property taken on their property. The legal mechanism for this are the laws of trespass.

Given the siting and locations of most of their estate, this is a fairly effective preventative measure.

However, as they freely admit, there is nothing they can do to prevent images being sold that were not taken on their own property.
 
Phil V said:
I'm guessing by using a US lawyer.

But the legal implications are what really p***es me off about the US' registration scheme, they treat copyright as if it's a national rather than international issue.

There's a famous case where a US recording artist was found to be innocent of breach of copyright because the original artist hadn't registered the work in the states.

Almost giving the US worldwide arbitration of whether copyright exists, totally nuts.
Click to expand...
In the US an image has to be registered in order to bring a case to court, but it does not have to be registered in order to own copyright. If the registration is made at a later date (in order to sue) it somewhat limits what can be claimed (penalties).
I'd have to find the exact wording, but international copyright is respected... I *believe* it's in accordance with the copyright law of origin.
 
DemiLion said:
The National Trust prevents the commercial use of images of their property taken on their property. The legal mechanism for this are the laws of trespass.

Given the siting and locations of most of their estate, this is a fairly effective preventative measure.

However, as they freely admit, there is nothing they can do to prevent images being sold that were not taken on their own property.
Click to expand...

Ta
 
DemiLion said:
The UK has a rather important notion; ie that of Freedom of Panorama.

Historically, certain owners of building used the threat of defamation to prevent the use of their buildings in commercial work.

Since 2013, that threat no longer exists.

Another vehicle that has been used recently is the common law tort of 'Passing Off'.

As long as you don't imply that the building is lending its support or approval of a product, there is nothing to prevent the building being in the shot or background.

Equally there is nothing to prevent an image of a building being sold for decorative purposes (ie prints, posters etc) if taken from a public place.

The owners could potentially try to reference Robyn Rihanna Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (aka Rihanna v Topshop) but that would be a pretty far stretch as it involved 'goodwill'.
Click to expand...

What defines a Panorama? The image in question was a stock image from Jason Hawkes (below) to be used in a recruitment campaign for a well-known bank. Perhaps it's because the image almost entirely comprises the stadium that we weren't allowed to use it. This was in 2015.

JasonHawkes-5554_xgaplus.jpg
 
Kell said:
What defines a Panorama? The image in question was a stock image from Jason Hawkes (below) to be used in a recruitment campaign for a well-known bank. Perhaps it's because the image almost entirely comprises the stadium that we weren't allowed to use it. This was in 2015.

JasonHawkes-5554_xgaplus.jpg
Click to expand...
Probably because the stadium appears to be the main subject of the image and certainly the only really recognizable part of the image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top