How do you copyright your photographs?

I have not posted my photos on the web because I don't want them to be
"public domain" but I am not certain how to copyright them. Suggestions
would be welcomed.

Thanks!

) wrote in
oups.com:

I have not posted my photos on the web because I don't want them to
be "public domain" but I am not certain how to copyright them.
Suggestions would be welcomed.

http://www.copyright.gov/

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

By taking them.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

wrote:
I have not posted my photos on the web because I don't want them to be
"public domain" but I am not certain how to copyright them. Suggestions
would be welcomed.

Thanks!
--
Simply by taking them they are copyrighted. In the USA, almost
everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is
copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default
you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted
and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old
works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not
risk it unless you know for sure.

It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people,
and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not
necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This
applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and
post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you
shouldn't post that either.

Now, enforcing and protecting your copyright is a different issue
altogether.
Bill in Lake Charles

Bill K wrote:
wrote:
I have not posted my photos on the web because I don't want them
to
be "public domain" but I am not certain how to copyright them.
Suggestions would be welcomed.

Thanks!
Simply by taking them they are copyrighted. In the USA, almost
everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is
copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The
default
you should assume for other people's works is that they are
copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There
are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly
you should not risk it unless you know for sure.

It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning
people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but
it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it
is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from
magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something
unknown, you shouldn't post that either.

Now, enforcing and protecting your copyright is a different issue
altogether.
Bill in Lake Charles

Another matter to consider is the concept of "fair use". In certain
restricted circumstances it is legal to use copyright material.

My experience, and the opinions of qualified people who have observed
and researched the arena, lead me to believe copyright law and
intellectual property law are among the most volatile of subjects
these days. I gather that much of what is emerging is on a
case-by-case basis, so a decision on one may not be taken as precedent
in subsequent, similar issues.

Never take a serious dip in these waters without the counsel of a good
IP lawyer.

--
Frank ess

wrote in message
oups.com...
I have not posted my photos on the web because I don't want them to be
"public domain" but I am not certain how to copyright them. Suggestions
would be welcomed.

Thanks!


Others have already posted links to explain how you can claim copyright
protection. I'll touch on a different, yet related, issue: how to protect
yourself from copyright violators.

1: Consider adding a copyright notice on the image itself. "Copyright 2006
by Joe Blow. All Rights Reserved." If anyone tries to lift your images,
they will have to crop out that copyright notice.

2: Don't post hi-resolution images on the web. Keep your image size small
and use as much jpeg compression as is tolerable at 72 ppi. This is
probably your best protection of all--low-resolution images are not good
candidates to be printed.

3: I have heard of digital watermarking services, where the service uses
robots to scan sites across the web to see if any of them are illegally
displaying watermarked images. These service have an annual charge, and the
more images you watermark the more you pay. Unless you have valuable images
to protect this may not be an affordable option. I believe the name of one
such service is "Digimark."

4: Many eBay'ers put their names in opaque lettering on their auction
photos, to discourage anyone else using them. This method is best used for
utilitarian applications like auction or product description photos, not any
type of artsy stuff.

The nature of the Internet tends to encourage re-use of the work of others.
If you are really bothered by this you may need to assess whether you want
to display your stuff in the Net at all. Hiring attorneys that specialize
in Intellectual Property Rights can be expensive and time-consuming. I
think you will find suggestion #2 to be a good compromise between not
posting your work at all, on the one hand, to becoming a vigilante, on the
other hand.

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Bill K laid
this on an unsuspecting readership ...


wrote:
I have not posted my photos on the web because I don't want
them to be "public domain" but I am not certain how to
copyright them. Suggestions would be welcomed.

Thanks!
--
Simply by taking them they are copyrighted. In the USA, almost
everything created privately and originally after April 1,
1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or
not. The default you should assume for other people's works is
that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you
know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection
without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you
know for sure.

It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by
warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different
damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you
should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may
not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and
if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that
either.

Now, enforcing and protecting your copyright is a different
issue altogether.
Bill in Lake Charles

As others have already pointed out, copyright is granted
automatically but registration is required to prevail in court
against an infringer either for damages or to secure a
restraining order to stop further infringement. I thank the other
posters for providing up-to-date links to the US gov sites, mine
were old.



--
ATM, aka JerryR

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can do
neither, administrate and become 'experts'" - National Education
Association

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Frank ess
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...

Bill K wrote:
wrote:
I have not posted my photos on the web because I don't want
them to be "public domain" but I am not certain how to
copyright them. Suggestions would be welcomed.

Thanks!
Simply by taking them they are copyrighted. In the USA,
almost
everything created privately and originally after April 1,
1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or
not. The default you should assume for other people's works
is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless
you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost
protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk
it unless you know for sure.

It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by
warning people, and by allowing one to get more and
different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks
copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to
pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and
post them to the net, and if you come upon something
unknown, you shouldn't post that either.

Now, enforcing and protecting your copyright is a different
issue altogether. Bill in Lake Charles

Another matter to consider is the concept of "fair use". In
certain restricted circumstances it is legal to use copyright
material.

My experience, and the opinions of qualified people who have
observed and researched the arena, lead me to believe
copyright law and intellectual property law are among the most
volatile of subjects these days. I gather that much of what is
emerging is on a case-by-case basis, so a decision on one may
not be taken as precedent in subsequent, similar issues.

Never take a serious dip in these waters without the counsel
of a good IP lawyer.

yes, but one has to balance the cost vs. the benefit. the
livelihood of pros depend on the price they charge for their work
and need to be very careful to protect their IP. hobbyists,
however, have nothing to really protect and hiring a shyster at
$300/hour is hardly the most cost efficient way to protect
snapshots. for them that don't have money for a lawyer nor time
to register their pictures, the best advice is NOT to post them
anywhere on the web or Usenet


--
ATM, aka JerryR

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can do
neither, administrate and become 'experts'" - National Education
Association

Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Jeremy laid
this on an unsuspecting readership ...


wrote in message
oups.com...
I have not posted my photos on the web because I don't want
them to be
"public domain" but I am not certain how to copyright them.
Suggestions would be welcomed.

Thanks!


Others have already posted links to explain how you can claim
copyright protection. I'll touch on a different, yet related,
issue: how to protect yourself from copyright violators.

1: Consider adding a copyright notice on the image itself.
"Copyright 2006 by Joe Blow. All Rights Reserved." If anyone
tries to lift your images, they will have to crop out that
copyright notice.

2: Don't post hi-resolution images on the web. Keep your
image size small and use as much jpeg compression as is
tolerable at 72 ppi. This is probably your best protection of
all--low-resolution images are not good candidates to be
printed.

3: I have heard of digital watermarking services, where the
service uses robots to scan sites across the web to see if any
of them are illegally displaying watermarked images. These
service have an annual charge, and the more images you
watermark the more you pay. Unless you have valuable images
to protect this may not be an affordable option. I believe
the name of one such service is "Digimark."

4: Many eBay'ers put their names in opaque lettering on their
auction photos, to discourage anyone else using them. This
method is best used for utilitarian applications like auction
or product description photos, not any type of artsy stuff.

The nature of the Internet tends to encourage re-use of the
work of others. If you are really bothered by this you may
need to assess whether you want to display your stuff in the
Net at all. Hiring attorneys that specialize in Intellectual
Property Rights can be expensive and time-consuming. I think
you will find suggestion #2 to be a good compromise between
not posting your work at all, on the one hand, to becoming a
vigilante, on the other hand.

a very strong, and expensive, digital watermark is really
necessary as the visible methods are easily circumvented and do
not meet the copyright regs for "reasonable" care in protecting
IP, nor does posting to the web or Usenet meet the "reasonable
care" need.


--
ATM, aka JerryR

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can do
neither, administrate and become 'experts'" - National Education
Association

All Things Mopar wrote:

a very strong, and expensive, digital watermark is really
necessary as the visible methods are easily circumvented and do
not meet the copyright regs for "reasonable" care in protecting
IP, nor does posting to the web or Usenet meet the "reasonable
care" need.

I don't know if this is tongueNcheek or not, and don't care. It's nonsense.

Jeremy wrote knowingly.

--
john mcwilliams