Watermarks - copyright, year

Chaps,

if I add a copyright watermark to an image do I use the year I took the
photo or the year I did the digital darkroom work on it or when I first put
it on-line?

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On 2/21/2011 6:39 PM, Peter Chant wrote:
Chaps,

if I add a copyright watermark to an image do I use the year I took the
photo or the year I did the digital darkroom work on it or when I first put
it on-line?

Pete

I believe it's the year you wish to assert your copyright privileges. So
any one of those dates would be appropriate. But I would choose the date
you made the image public.

John Passaneau

Peter Chant wrote:
Chaps,

if I add a copyright watermark to an image do I use the year I took the
photo or the year I did the digital darkroom work on it or when I first put
it on-line?

All of them are probably technically and legally valid,
but it may depend on the laws of the country where you
live.

The instant you click the shutter, according to the
Berne Convention which the laws of almost all countries
are based on, an image is automatically copyrighted.
The Convention does not allow there to be any formal
requirements... but some countries do require exactly
that. Some countries might, for example, require
registration, some might require the item be marked as
copyrighted, and (in the US) it may require that an
image be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression".

Obviously, whatever the formality required, once the
requirment is met your image is copyrighted, and that
is the earliest date that would be appropriate. Just
keep in mind that there may be no requirement at all to
mark it as copyrighted (that is true in the US), and if
so there is no distinction between a "correct" date and
any random date you might choose!

However, consider that in the US and most countries if
you modify a copyrighted work of art you are creating a
"derivative work", which is also copyrighted (in the US
that is automatic the instant it is "fixed in a tangible
medium"). Hence if you edit an image, each intermediate
stage that is saved to a file is automatically
copyrighted at that instant. That would also apply to
posting a copy of it to a web site, or to printing it.

Hence an image originally made in 2009, might have been
edited in 2010 for use on the web, and the intermediate
file may have been used to print the file in 2011. It
would not be incorrect to mark the print as "copyright
2009, 2010, and 2011".

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Gordon Freeman wrote:
Nowadays in most countries photographic copyright lasts until long after
your death (bringing it in line with book authors) so the date you put
on it is pretty academic, but don't date it later than first publication
since you would have a hard time convincing a court in a copyright case
if the infringing person could show they had been distributing your
images earlier than the date you are claiming copyright from!

Only in a country that does not follow the Berne
Convention, which specifically places no legal
significance on any copyright mark. It could be dated
in the future... and there would be no significance in a
court.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Vance wrote:
On Feb 21, 8:49*pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Gordon Freeman wrote:
but don't date it later than first publication
since you would have a hard time convincing a court in a copyright case
if the infringing person could show they had been distributing your
images earlier than the date you are claiming copyright from!

Only in a country that does not follow the Berne
Convention, which specifically places no legal
significance on any copyright mark. *It could be dated
in the future... and there would be no significance in a
court.

I simply use the creation date for more, or less, straight
photography. For images where I have done something like compositing
I use the date the image is finalized.

Works for me too.

I use GIMP, and have a Python script for copyright
notices. The default Scheme scripting language is has
been stripped of most facilities, such a file and date
handling. Python allowed me to go look for a RAW file
with the same name and extract a creation date from it.
Hence that's the default assuming it can find the RAW
file, or otherwise if it can find Exif data in the image
file, and if that doesn't work it just uses the current
year. Or of course I can manually type something else
into it.

Whatever, the original point was that it has absolutely
no legal status or bearing at all. Putting a copyright
notice on a photograph can be advertizing or it can be
used as a warning to those who might not realize someone
specifically owns it. But a court won't care if it is
there or if it is accurate.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 22:00:02 -0800 (PST), Vance
wrote:

On Feb 21, 8:49*pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Gordon Freeman wrote:
Nowadays in most countries photographic copyright lasts until long after
your death (bringing it in line with book authors) so the date you put
on it is pretty academic, but don't date it later than first publication
since you would have a hard time convincing a court in a copyright case
if the infringing person could show they had been distributing your
images earlier than the date you are claiming copyright from!

Only in a country that does not follow the Berne
Convention, which specifically places no legal
significance on any copyright mark. *It could be dated
in the future... and there would be no significance in a
court.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) * * * * * *

I simply use the creation date for more, or less, straight
photography. For images where I have done something like compositing
I use the date the image is finalized.

Vance

You mean like on all those images you steal from others and then claim
ownership of them, presenting them as your own? Like this one?

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

When you hover your cursor on the "Belongs to" link, it clearly states
"Vance Lear".

Yet we find proof-positive that this image is owned and copyrighted by
someone else.

http://mothphotographersgroup.msstat...p?hodges=08262

With this copyright notice clearly stated at the beginning of that page:

"Photographs are the copyrighted property of each photographer listed.
Contact individual photographers for permission to use for any purpose."

You do understand the meaning of the word "any", don't you?

I don't think you're anyone who should be talking about copyright issues,
much less showing your presence in any of these forums. You're nothing but
a low-life photo thief and troll, 100% confirmed. I bet every photo you've
ever submitted to the SI has also been stolen. I bet that ALL your photos
on your websites have been stolen.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Peter Chant wrote:
Chaps,

if I add a copyright watermark to an image do I use the year I took the
photo or the year I did the digital darkroom work on it or when I first
put it on-line?

All of them are probably technically and legally valid,
but it may depend on the laws of the country where you
live.

The instant you click the shutter, according to the
Berne Convention which the laws of almost all countries
are based on, an image is automatically copyrighted.
The Convention does not allow there to be any formal
requirements... but some countries do require exactly
that. Some countries might, for example, require
registration, some might require the item be marked as
copyrighted, and (in the US) it may require that an
image be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression".


As far as I am aware in the UK. I press the shutter and there is no need to
register.

Obviously, whatever the formality required, once the
requirment is met your image is copyrighted, and that
is the earliest date that would be appropriate. Just
keep in mind that there may be no requirement at all to
mark it as copyrighted (that is true in the US), and if
so there is no distinction between a "correct" date and
any random date you might choose!

However, consider that in the US and most countries if
you modify a copyrighted work of art you are creating a
"derivative work", which is also copyrighted (in the US
that is automatic the instant it is "fixed in a tangible
medium"). Hence if you edit an image, each intermediate
stage that is saved to a file is automatically
copyrighted at that instant. That would also apply to
posting a copy of it to a web site, or to printing it.


That's what I wondered. I post process most things I'd put on line and I
treat the digital darkroom stuff as equally important to originally taking
the image. I've just put a shot or two up that were taken last year but I
did the work on this weekend.

Hence an image originally made in 2009, might have been
edited in 2010 for use on the web, and the intermediate
file may have been used to print the file in 2011. It
would not be incorrect to mark the print as "copyright
2009, 2010, and 2011".


I see what you mean. OTOH, just using the last date might make some sense,
as even if 2009 has expired (in 2060!) 2010 and 2011 might be extant. But
as you say, not wrong.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Works for me too.

I use GIMP, and have a Python script for copyright
notices. The default Scheme scripting language is has
been stripped of most facilities, such a file and date
handling. Python allowed me to go look for a RAW file
with the same name and extract a creation date from it.
Hence that's the default assuming it can find the RAW
file, or otherwise if it can find Exif data in the image
file, and if that doesn't work it just uses the current
year. Or of course I can manually type something else
into it.

Funnily enough, I spent a bit of time on Saturday making my python script
for the same purpose. As of yet it does not touch EXIF nor use the file
timestamp - its not as advanced as yours. A script just makes it simple to
apply and consistent.


Whatever, the original point was that it has absolutely
no legal status or bearing at all. Putting a copyright
notice on a photograph can be advertizing or it can be
used as a warning to those who might not realize someone
specifically owns it. But a court won't care if it is
there or if it is accurate.


My point was that although I've shied away from watermarks before and I
_might_ for example decide in the future to put _some_ things out for
example under the Creative Commons, at present I'm undecided and two things
would annoy me:

1. Commercial use without asking.
2. Someone else passing of my photos as their own.

So, as in your example its a little hint that they are mine.

Another thing that annoyed me was the discussion on orphan works:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02..._orphan_works/

....especially the discussion of the question on whether amateur photos
should automatically be considered orphan works.

Pete



--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:41:49 +0000, Peter Chant
wrote:


My point was that although I've shied away from watermarks before and I
_might_ for example decide in the future to put _some_ things out for
example under the Creative Commons, at present I'm undecided and two things
would annoy me:

I participate in some groups where images are posted and people
comment on, or critique, the photographs.

I can see using an unobtrusive watermark if the photographer is
concerned about the image being hijacked, but I see far too many
obscuring watermarks plastered over images in these groups. How can
anyone critique or comment on a photo that has been disfigured with
such a watermark?

Where I do see the need of an obscuring watermark is a "proof" type of
shot offered to the subject (or the subject's family) in anticipation
of an order for prints being placed.

The funny thing about photographers is that they will spend quite a
bit of time cloning out distracting bits from a shot, and then put in
an even-more distracting watermark. Like a watermark doesn't draw the
eye just like a trash can does?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:


I can see using an unobtrusive watermark if the photographer is
concerned about the image being hijacked, but I see far too many
obscuring watermarks plastered over images in these groups. How can
anyone critique or comment on a photo that has been disfigured with
such a watermark?


I've tried being subtle.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59714310@N06/5466714450/

However, for this photo putting it top left would have been better.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk