Another reason to add that watermark (Sony, hobby, digital cameras, cameras)

[ShepsMom]

Here’s Why to Add Your Name and Copyright Notice When Posting Photos Online | Black Star Rising

[Bydand]

Wow, that is a gold nugget find! Thanks for sharing the information.

[TN Tin Man]

I some what understanding what their saying,"BUT" Is this for ( each ) photo you put out their for public display or do you register your water mark? To be placed on all work from that time on.....For a week end photo hobbyist that just may have the next Monalisa and puts their water mark on that image. Hows does that person know 3 days 3 weeks 3 months down the road that the image they posted is copied for personnel gain by some sleaze ball ..What is protecting the week end photo hobbyist...?

[thecoalman]

I would imagine utilizing the EXIF data would fall under the same section of the DMCA they are discussing in that article. You can apply this in batches using Irfanview or Exifer. Both can apply copyright marks in batches too.

As far as registering if you catch some life altering event like 9/11 certainly you'll want to register but for your average image you'll have to weigh the cost vs. the benefits. Registration provides no more or less or protection against copyright infringement, the benefit it provides is as that article states is additional things you can sue for.

page 7: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf

Copyright Registration
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended
to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright.
However, registration is not a condition of copyright
protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for
protection, the copyright law provides several inducements
or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.
Among these advantages are the following:
• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright
claim.
• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration
is necessary for works of U. S. origin.
• If made before or within five years of publication, registration
will establish prima facie evidence in court of
the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in
the certificate.
• If registration is made within three months after publication
of the work or prior to an infringement of the work,
statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to
the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an
award of actual damages and profits is available to the
copyright owner.
• Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record
the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection
against the importation of infringing copies. For
additional information, go to the U. S. Customs and
Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import - broken link).
Click on “Intellectual Property Rights.”

Registration may be made at any time within the life of
the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has
been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to
make another registration when the work becomes published,
although the copyright owner may register the published
edition, if desired.

What is protecting the week end photo hobbyist...?

You have just as many rights as anyone because as soon as you take the image it's copyrighted. Professionals are not going to register all of their images. Newspapers for example certainly don't register every daily edition and article. The only protection that is sure fire whether you are hobbyist or pro is to not publish it.

[Georgepl]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

The only protection that is sure fire whether you are hobbyist or pro is to not publish it.

I'm having trouble with this whole concept of infringement/protection regarding "hobbyists". There is no "profit motive" or "lost revenue" by definition, since they are "hobbyists" and are willingly sharing their photos. Anybody who wants can display any photo that I take even though my photos are of dubious quality at best. What's the point of taking a picture if you don't share it. Even if by some quirk of fate i take a really exceptional photo, for me, sharing it is more important than taking credit for it.

[thecoalman]

That's a great attitude to have but on the other hand people that take your images might be profiting from them which generally does not sit well with most people. Suppose you took this great looking sunset gave it away and then found it on a site for sale, still not concerned about it?

You can release images using a Creative Commons license. These licenses allow you to release material but still maintain control of the copyright.

Choose a License

There's a few of them, you could or example use one that allows people to copy and redistribute it. They cannot sell it or use it commercially.

[Poncho_NM]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

That's a great attitude to have but on the other hand people that take your images might be profiting from them which generally does not sit well with most people. Suppose you took this great looking sunset gave it away and then found it on a site for sale, still not concerned about it?

I think of all the lottery tickets which I have not bought which would have allowed me to surf city-data from a Caribbean island while drinking a Pina-Colada...

I have had a lot stolen from me in my life. If you steal a picture from me, I have enough money to have the law go after you. Having been a prior programmer and sought damages from an individual, unfortunately, most of these thieves are such low-lives you wouldn't get much from them.

But an individual person who took the photo, still have rights.

There are always a lot of if's.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

You can release images using a Creative Commons license. These licenses allow you to release material but still maintain control of the copyright.

Yes. Trying to find some decent music for some music for some videos was a pain. The intent with Creative Commons license appears good, if not complicated, but it leaves a lot to be desired. As an amateur videographer or trying to help another amateur i quit trying to use Creative Commons license. I purchased royalty free music from Sony and/or Digital Juice. It solved all my headaches and problems.



Rich

[TN Tin Man]

You would figure with all the technology and advancement in photography and paying a couple grand for a camera body we would have a embedded water mark with in the file of the image along with shooting information time of day ~ wind ~ temp and GPS location. The embedded information could be pass word protected either from the camera used or the photo editing software where it would be shielded from copy & paste on the Internet.

[Poncho_NM]

Originally Posted by Tinman313

You would figure with all the technology and advancement in photography and paying a couple grand for a camera body we would have a embedded water mark with in the file of the image along with shooting information time of day ~ wind ~ temp and GPS location. The embedded information could be pass word protected either from the camera used or the photo editing software where it would be shielded from copy & paste on the Internet.

Most digital cameras provide the time of day in the exif data.

Some cameras do provide GPS data, and you pay for that convienience.

Why would you want wind and temperature? I could provide it for you at an appropriate cost.

Word protected? It could be hacked/removed/manilpulated etc unless you really wish to spend a lot of money.

Lets be realistic.


Rich

[thecoalman]

There's a commercial product called digimarc that will embed an invisible watermark in the image data itself. The benefit is no one knows it's there. Downside is it can be destroyed through resampling especially if the image is scaled. I know they have a similar open source plug in for Virtual Dub if you want to do it with video, not sure if there is anything free for images but I wouldn't doubt it.

Originally Posted by Tinman313

The embedded information could be pass word protected either from the camera used or the photo editing software where it would be shielded from copy & paste on the Internet.

The single thing that has held true to this day is if it can be seen or heard it can be copied. There might be some protection schemes on the market that might work to some degree but they only work because of obscurity. When Blu-Ray came on the market it was being touted as unbreakable and if you understood the protection scheme you would have thought that was the case but in 6 months they were making copies of Blu-Ray discs.... Anything used by the masses is pretty much a target.