How do you prove a photo is yours?

[Roy G. Biv]

If you find that a website has stolen your image, how do you prove it? Is it the fact you have the raw file? What if you shot it in jpg? Is showing the whole set good enough?

[elysium]

Depending on the camera also, you can add your name so it can add it to the EXIF imaging.

If you have a look here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31584547@N05/3269307328/meta/in/set-72157613590290594

Under Artist, it has my name. So with all imaging info, the name will be there. There will be programs where you can strip the EXIF but people may not know how to do this.

Ideally keeping the RAW file is your negative so your original. I would count that as your proof.

[dngrCharlie]

I can't personally vouch for the accurateness of this... however, a teacher in a photography class I took said that you can put your images on a CD/DVD and send them (with some form) to the Library of Congress. He says he does this periodically and sends them 100's of images at a time. That way if someone tries to use your image illegally you have absolute proof it belongs to you (or, at least, that you sent it in to the Library of Congress first).

[SuzyView]

This happens a lot. Did you register your camera when you got it? You can put your name right on every image if you did that (connect the camera to your computer, installed the EOS software and register it). It appears when you click on the EXIF.

I shot for a national organization recently and they posted only my images for their website, as I was their photographer. They did not say the image was mine, since I told them it didn't matter if they credited me. I know I was the pro. But if you check the EXIF on the image, you can see my name. Sometimes that is stripped, but most websites don't go through all that when they take your image.

Firefox will tell you the EXIF

Here is my picture:

http://mathcounts.org/Page.aspx?pid=1459

[bjyoder]

I can't personally vouch for the accurateness of this... however, a teacher in a photography class I took said that you can put your images on a CD/DVD and send them (with some form) to the Library of Congress. He says he does this periodically and sends them 100's of images at a time. That way if someone tries to use your image illegally you have absolute proof it belongs to you (or, at least, that you sent it in to the Library of Congress first).

This is true. It's a form to copyright your images. It costs money for the processing, but if you have a bunch of stuff that you're afraid is being used elsewhere, it's the best way to have any legal recourse.

[FZ1]

You can put your name right on every image if you did that (connect the camera to your computer, installed the EOS software and register it). It appears when you click on the EXIF. I did not know this...never even thought about it to be honest. Thanks for that bit :)

[Roy G. Biv]

I guess it's not as simple anymore as just owning the negative.

[Mark1]

EXIF not only can be stripped, it can also be changed. There are EXIF editors. SO the EXIF is minimal security at best. That said I still set the camera to enter my name as the image is generated in the camera.

No, simply owning the negative is not much help. The only legal way to prove ownership is to copyright the image.

[johnj2803]

Firefox will tell you the EXIF


how can you do this?

thanks

[PhotosGuy]

Depending on the camera also, you can add your name so it can add it to the EXIF imaging. You can add exif with PS, too. how can you do this? Windoze or Mac? Exif Viewer (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=249102) No, simply owning the negative is not much help. The only legal way to prove ownership is to copyright the image. Mostly not true.
Adding copyright notices to your digital files (http://www.adorama.com/Catalog.tpl?op=academy_new&article=082205&sid=1198531383137720)

Ten Copyright Myths That Can Hurt You (http://blog.sessions.edu/legal-copyright-trademark/ten-copyright-myths-that-can-hurt-you/)

[johnj2803]

Windoze or Mac? [/URL]


mac

[Mark1]

Mostly not true.
Adding copyright notices to your digital files (http://www.adorama.com/Catalog.tpl?op=academy_new&article=082205&sid=1198531383137720)

Ten Copyright Myths That Can Hurt You (http://blog.sessions.edu/legal-copyright-trademark/ten-copyright-myths-that-can-hurt-you/)

Excellent reads! But unfortunitley neither help answer the question. Embedding data does not prove ownership. I can steal the image then embed my own info..... Do I now own the image? But the embedded info say so!

The second link everybody should at least read. Short and to the point. It will at the least get you headed in the right direction on what they should be doing to keep control of thier images. But none of the info helps to prove ownership.

[RDKirk]

I can't personally vouch for the accurateness of this... however, a teacher in a photography class I took said that you can put your images on a CD/DVD and send them (with some form) to the Library of Congress. He says he does this periodically and sends them 100's of images at a time. That way if someone tries to use your image illegally you have absolute proof it belongs to you (or, at least, that you sent it in to the Library of Congress first).

No, that's not true. The Library of Congress will throw them away. They aren't in the business of archiving every set of family snapshots everybody in the country sends to them.

What you can do, though, is go to copyright.gov and use their online form to register your copyright for your images with the US government.

I guess in this thread I will point out what I'm talking about to avoid silly arguments.

Yes, Virginia, under the current copyright laws, you own the copyright of a work the moment you create it. But if you're talking about "proving" it belongs to you--and you mean "prove in court"--then you must register the copyright with the US government.

Yes, Virginia, you own the copyright from the moment you create the work, but if you have not registered your copyright with the US government, no court in the US will even let you through the front door with your infringement claim.

If you can't even get into court without registration (and you can't) then nothing else you may have done matters to the court, and if what it takes in court to prove your copyright is your registration, then that's all you need.

A lot of major infringers are well aware of this, and if you complain to them about infringing work that you've failed to register, they will simply sneer, "So sue us."

There is still benefit to marking your files, though, and that is to keep honest people honest. If your image is marked, then someone who genuinely wants to get your permission to use your work has a way to contact you.

In addition, there is the "Orphaned Works" bill that will sooner or later become law. That bill will have some big loopholes that will (as I currently understand it), broadly allow the "I didn't know it was copyrighted--nobody's name was on it" defense.

[Mark1]

In addition, there is the "Orphaned Works" bill that will sooner or later become law. That bill will have some big loopholes that will (as I currently understand it), broadly allow the "I didn't know it was copyrighted--nobody's name was on it" defense.

From the little research I have done. That defense was taken care of in the first draft. It is not as broad as everybody seems to think it will be. Far from perfect, yes. But also not as bad as everyone is rumoring it to be.

[rdenney]

Yes, Virginia, under the current copyright laws, you own the copyright of a work the moment you create it. But if you're talking about "proving" it belongs to you--and you mean "prove in court"--then you must register the copyright with the US government.

Yes, Virginia, you own the copyright from the moment you create the work, but if you have not registered your copyright with the US government, no court in the US will even let you through the front door with your infringement claim.

If you can't even get into court without registration (and you can't) then nothing else you may have done matters to the court, and if what it takes in court to prove your copyright is your registration, then that's all you need.

Have you actually found this to be the case in a real infringement suit? Because it absolutely violates everything I have read on the subject. Here's what I've read:

First, if you find someone using your image without permission, ask them to either credit you (if that's what you want), pay you, or stop using it. That's called a cease-and-desist letter.

If they ignore that, then you must determine if you have damages. Are they infringing on your ability to sell the image because of their use? Does their use damage your reputation in any tangible way? Is their use considered a Fair Use?

If there are damages, then you can sue them for infringement, whether or not it's registered with the copyright office.

Registration affects the burden of proof. If you haven't registered the image, then the burden of proof is on you to show that they infringed. That will be true if 1.) you can prove the images is yours, and 2.) you can prove they got the image by stealing it from you. With a photograph of something more complicated than a white wall, the second is usually pretty easy by direct comparison, but if it's a minimalist portrayal of a popular subject, it might not be that cut and dried. Proving the first requires proving a chain of ownership. For example, I don't see how someone could undermine my ownership if I have the raw file and all the intermediate Photoshop files showing how I got to the final image as displayed on my web page. On the other hand, if they happened to make the same image using their own camera, they'll have their own chain of ownership. Then, it will be much murkier--and my reading runs out there.

If the image is registered, then the burden of proof is on the infringer to show that they didn't get that image from the registered owner. For example, maybe they made the picture of the famous subject from the same vantage point using the same camera and lens. This is pretty hard to prove in the case of photographs, I would expect, but they would need their own chain of ownership to do so. And if it can be shown that they worked from your photograph to copy it, then you can show infringement even if they made the picture with their own camera. But most scenes are not that unchanging, I wouldn't think.

The burden of proof is a major issue when it comes to determining how much it will cost to bring the suit to trial. Usually, though, infringers run away as soon as they see a cease-and-desist letter, because they are infringing out of ignorance more than intent.

Rick "not a lawyer, but who would like to hear from a bona fide attorney with actual case experience in this arena" Denney

[RDKirk]

If there are damages, then you can sue them for infringement, whether or not it's registered with the copyright office.

Rick "not a lawyer, but who would like to hear from a bona fide attorney with actual case experience in this arena" Denney

Here is a video interview from a bona fide attorney with actual case experience in this area. He speaks on that very subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czzNOPbJWk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGZ_pJQ-_EU

The discussion of copyright is in the second half of video Part 2.

[rdenney]

Here is a video interview from a bona fide attorney with actual case experience in this area. He speaks on that very subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czzNOPbJWk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGZ_pJQ-_EU

The discussion of copyright is in the second half of video Part 2.

Sheesh. Can't he just write it down?

On the other hand, copyright law is written down, and all of us can just read it.

Rick "who can't view videos" Denney

[RDKirk]

Sheesh. Can't he just write it down?

On the other hand, copyright law is written down, and all of us can just read it.

Rick "who can't view videos" Denney

He charges $1000 an hour to write things down.

But what I wrote down before is what he said. If you don't have your copyright registered, no court will even bother to entertain your case.

[rdenney]

He charges $1000 an hour to write things down.

But what I wrote down before is what he said. If you don't have your copyright registered, no court will even bother to entertain your case.

Okay, but it's absolutely not that way in the music biz.

Rick "wondering why Congress bothered writing the law differently" Denney

[Jaymz]

Rick "wondering why Congress bothered writing the law differently" Denney

+1

Until a judge decides different, I'd go along with what the government has decided and printed.