the law

[snapharry]

hi guys/gals how did i stand regaurding putting my pictures on public/social web sites and people using them without my permisson do i need to put my "stamp" on them before people can use them or what and how do i put my "stamp" on them many thanks

 

[TCR4x4]

People can't use them without your permission. You don't need a "stamp" or anything. As soon as you take the photo, it belongs to you and you own full copyright.

 

[specialman]

....As soon as you take the photo, it belongs to you and you own full copyright.

Unless you work for someone (as in salaried) then the company holds copyright. Pains me everytime I think about it.... :bang:

 

[rpsmith79]

People can't use them without your permission. You don't need a "stamp" or anything. As soon as you take the photo, it belongs to you and you own full copyright.

But at least if you do put a stamp/sig/watermark on your photos, it makes it more difficult for someone to pass it off as theirs or whatever else they might want to do with it

 

[Ploddles]

You can easily add a watermark or whatever using photoshop, lightroom or a number of other editing programs.

 

[TCR4x4]

But at least if you do put a stamp/sig/watermark on your photos, it makes it more difficult for someone to pass it off as theirs or whatever else they might want to do with it

Unlikely, they will just clone it out or crop it off.. Or not care.

 

[TCR4x4]

Unless you work for someone (as in salaried) then the company holds copyright. Pains me everytime I think about it.... :bang:

Indeed, but I doubt the op is shooting for others just yet if they are talking about "stamps"

 

[Bambi72]

The only effective watermark (stamp) would have to cover most of the image to deter people from using it, but even this can be cloned out if people are determined and skilled.

Most of your online stealing is done by kids who want to 'like' things on their blogs, if it gets your work viewed and enjoyed all is good. If you don't want people using it, don't post it on a sharing/social media site.

As others have said, Lightroom can auto apply a graphic or text stamp to all your images for kudos purposes. Like this


You can write copyright information into an images Exif info, with your name and contact details etc if you wish, but again these can just be overwritten or deleted if people are determined.

 

[williams359]

Add a mark so when people share an image people who get to see the share know who took it, this gets me work all the time

 

[donut]

Indeed, but I doubt the op is shooting for others just yet if they are talking about "stamps"

ive got a feeling that if you are " at work " ,and being paid by an employer ,you dont have to be working as a photographer for the company ,if you take a picture , they could own the copyright

 

[MartynK]

ive got a feeling that if you are " at work " ,and being paid by an employer ,you dont have to be working as a photographer for the company ,if you take a picture , they could own the copyright

More or less. The employer owns the copyright to photographs taken in the course of your employment, unless there is an agreement to the contrary. This applies to everyone, not just people employed as photographers.

There have been quite a few arguments about the meaning/interpretation of this, and particularly the words 'in the course of your employment'.

 

[TCR4x4]

ive got a feeling that if you are " at work " ,and being paid by an employer ,you dont have to be working as a photographer for the company ,if you take a picture , they could own the copyright

This law can be read many ways and needs a Lawyer really.

Example 1

I drive for a living and often when I'm out and about, I'll take photos.
Now does this mean all my photos taken like that belong to my boss?

Example 2

I often finish my work around 1pm, although technically I'm employed to work 7 til 4.
Now when I get home at 1pm and decide to go out shooting, does this mean those photos belong to my employer too?
What constitutes "at work".

It's a legal minefield and many a debate has been had here over it.

 

[HoppyUK]

Yes, the employee situation is difficult, but basically employer's rights are extensive. The fact that you're not employed as a photographer, or pictures were taken outside work hours, is irrelevant.

The basic question to ask yourself is, would I have been able to take this picture if it wasn't for my job? If the answer is no, as it often is, then there may be some doubt.

However, the intention of the law is primarily to protect the employer's commercial interests, not to stop you enojoying your legitimate hobby. That's the grey area.

Example: you work in the motor industry and get VIP tickets to the Formula One grand prix for you and your family. Very nice too, and pictures that you take out and about as a general punter, no problem. But if you get access to private areas and maybe get a shot of some secret new parts and then send them to Autosport magazine, you'll be in trouble.

Same time, same place, same circumstances exactly, but the content of the images, and their use, changes everything.

Edit: the definition of employee is another tricky one, but an easy check is if your employer deducts tax at source, you're an employee.

 

[Alastair]

The F1 example is a bad one for copyright, if you had access to a private area and shared commercially sensitive photographs with the trade press you may find yourself on a disciplinery but copyright woudn't even feature in the discussion. The discussion is going to be centred around breach of commercial confidentiality, bringing the company into disrepute and just how far your employer will have to go to satisfy others if the item you photographed belonged to one of their key clients.

A slightly better example would be that you're employed as part of a hospitality team at the same F1 event and during the course of the day you take a photograph of a celebrity partaking of the hospitality. Your employer then decides it wants to use this photograph for marketing purposes. Now you're into the copyright minefield of whether or not the photograph was taken in the course of your employment - not because you were paid to take it, but because you were being paid when you took it and could not have taken it unless you were there in a position of employment.

 

[stu7397]

It's quite simple and not that compicated at all. The issue is the same for liabilities, and whether your employer could be held liable for your negligent acts.

If you are required to drive from A to B within the course of your employment, and you actually drive from A to B but go via C - and in going via C you have an RTA due to your negligence, then your employer is liable. If you drive via C - and your employer has previously told you specifically not to - and you have an RTA due to your negligence, then your employer is still liable as long as you were going from A to B. This is because you were going from A to B within the course of your employment, and the employer is still liable for his employee and will not be able to escape liability simply because they said do not go via C.

It is the same as any job that involves liabilities. As long as you were acting within the course of your employment it will not matter whether you take the pictures on your camera for your personal enjoyment for your own private reasons. They belong to your employer. You would need to clarify the contractual obligations of your employment to arrive at any derrogations for the ownership of property received in the course of your employment, but it is the same as receiving a gift - it may be given to you personally - but it belongs to your employer if you otherwise would not have received it, but for the course of your employment.

The tricky area comes with people who hold Public Office - such as Politicians, Police Officers etc, or people who are paid irrespective of whether they are working or not, e.g. members of the Armed Forces. Such people are usually covered by an independent code of ethics though.

But in summary - if you could not have otherwise taken those pictures but for the course of your employment - then those pictures are intellectual property and proprietary ownership is vested in the employer unless a derrogation is in force.