Copyright Terms for website

[dmccabe]

Does anyone have any good examples of detailed copyright terms for posting on a website, where I sell limited edition prints.

thanks in advance.

[amfoto1]

Why don't you just make a brief statement that all images are copyrighted and link to government websites that contain all the details?

[asysin2leads]

©2009 dmmccabe photography.

You can write a thesis on how your work is copyrighted and that won't prevent people from stealing it.

[dmccabe]

I have seen some very detailed legalize on many photographer's websites, sometime many paragraphs. So I just assumed there was a boilerplate version.

Is there more terms that can be defined out, rather than just "© All Rights Reserved"

[Karl Johnston]

there's no point really, it's all copyrighted even if you don't have it there at all. Putting out paragraphs and paragraphs just screams "I'm difficult to work with" :lol:

[dmccabe]

It is for a site that only SELLS limited edition HDR PRINTS (very large size), not photography services. E-commerce only. No "difficult photographer" issue. As far as the customer knows, they are not even dealing with the photographer, but more from a gallery.

I should have stated that up front. Since these are signed limited editions, I also stated that the images are not available for any other uses and not available for commercial use.

It was suggested to me that I should take the entire collection, burn them on a DVD, and apply for a U.S. Copyright Office in Wash. DC. They give you a specific Copyright Number for the collection.
And I am asking how this would be indicated on a website and any other terms. The U.S. Copyright Office does not really offer any suggestions.

About 50% of my images are live events. They cannot be reduplicated to reshoot, one-time only type shots. I have had many issues in the past of stolen images posted on blogs, and on commercial websites, not small personal websites.
ON advice of an attorney, applying for a Copyright in Wash DC is the best way to officially declare the "collection", and it defines specific "loss terms" in any court if the copyright is not adhered.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***********************************
from the U.S. Copyright Department Guidelines:

"The definition of publication in the U.S. copyright law does not specifically address online transmission. The Copyright Office therefore asks applicants, who know the facts surrounding distribution of their works, to determine whether works are published."

"Single Published Photographs and Published units With one application and filing fee, you can apply to register a single published photograph or an entire unit or package of published photographs—for example, photos in a calendar, a set of baseball cards, or illustrations in a book. You can apply to register these types of photographs using eCO, Form CO, or paper Form VA. See the back side of this form letter for details

Note: Published and unpublished photographs cannot be registered on the same application."

************************************************** ************************************************** ***********************************



It can get very complicated. So that is why I posted this, to see if anyone else has a site that has "specific terms" worded. I also sell these prints through a gallery in NYC, and they also have a "terms" when purchasing a print, but they apply to the physical item only.

[asysin2leads]

Yes, I would send a disc to the copyright office. However, it is not required for the images to be copyrighted. It will help if you seek damages in a lawsuit. Applying for the copyright really doesn't declare anything.

[dmccabe]

OK. Here is what has been suggested by another photographer, short and simple. I think I will leave it like this.

COPYRIGHT POLICIES

[insert name] maintains a strict zero-tolerance policy with regard to copyright infringement. All photographs by [photographer] are copyright 2009, [business name]. All worldwide rights reserved. All other images presented on this web site are copyright to their photographer or registered copyright holder.



The intent of a "strictly enforced" copyright is more of a benefit to the customer. They are buying a "limited edition" collectible. And that the photographer is not going to be selling the image someday on a coffee mug on Zazzle. Or let the image be used unauthorized for some other commercial application. When you sell a print run of "50" or "25", these are considered special and demand a higher price.

[Karl Johnston]

Whether you write it or not it won't change much, though rather than pasting a warning perhaps you could re-word it to something more like...

Each print is guaranteed and limited to the indicated quantity. Not one more print will be created once the quantity is fulfilled. Each print is handprinted with expert care of (photographer's name) and signed in archival inks to ensure the quality . (off the top of my head)

That said it's hard to guarantee anything, you never know where your prints could end up. They could be scanned in by a buyer. Holding more guarantees means people will hold you to more guarantees. But you know, within reason.

Most people buy fine art because it looks nice, until the photographer gains some credibility, is when they start buying fine art for an investment..like Vincent Laforet, for example. Or me in a microcosmic comparative way.

2 years ago I couldn't price a 17x22" at $100. Nobody knew who I was and I had no credibility. Now I can price a 17x22 at $500-800 and people say that I'm still undercutting myself.

Take a look at Vincent Laforest's fine art photograph works...
http://www.photoshelter.com/c/laforet/gallery/Available-Prints/G0000JKDd525.uHg/

Could anyone sell a shot of that building for as a 40x60 $4000 USD?
Or will it sell because it's a vincent laforet?

Here's a guy in the forum having difficulty finding a justification to sell a 30x40 for more than $125. Granted not from a fine art perspective but still. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=9230210&postcount=4)

There's not much you can do but register your copyright and ensure the integrity of the series, I think it may scare people away to write a big do about it. Or look a little less professional, at least.

[dmccabe]

Check out this gallery in NYC. http://www.nfagallery.com
(http://www.nfagallery.com)
This gallery specializes in musical photos, but also rarer photos of events like Presidents, Martin Luther King, and other historic events. The current show involves photos of the Rolling Stones and The Beatles from 1964-66.

A 30" x 40" limited edition print sells for $3K+
There are people waiting in line to be able to purchase some of the rarer prints.

I have another photographer friend who shot Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock. His b&w prints at 30" x 40" sell easily for $1K+ and the color ones go for $4K+. This same photographer has been approached by Target to license one of his photos of Hendrix for printing on a t-shirt -- offerring $500K

My photos are more in the $500-$1,000 range - but the point I am trying to convey is these types of "event photos" are in high demand, especially for books and calendars. In this day of the internet where artists post their images on websites for sale, you would be surprised how many "over-seas" printers are willing to print large book runs of books without checking at all to see if the content has any copyright infringement. Before I launch a new upcoming website/blog, I wanted to protect myself legally as best i can, even contacted a lawyer on the issue. International Copyright issues involving images on the web are so new, that they are not spelled out clearly.

[RDKirk]

OK. Here is what has been suggested by another photographer, short and simple. I think I will leave it like this.

You can also add what kinds of use licenses you do provide when requested, how and where they can contact you. Be sure to put the URL for the webpage in the EXIF of all images that appear on your website (be careful with the Photoshop web image processor--it strips off the EXIF data).

You most certainly do want to register your copyright with the government--you never know when you might find your image being used commercially by a major corporation...that does happen, and more frequently than you might expect.

Registering your copyright in the US is now pretty easy to do, as it can all be done online. You can register as many unpublished tiny JPEGs as you can stand to upload in one sitting on one $35 application. You can register up to 700 published images on one application. The images must be part of a "collection," but that's a very broad term. A "collection" can be "My Images of 2009" or "My Images of Q-3 2009." The registration is effective from the moment the online application is completed.

In fact, many busy commercial photographers simply batch-process everything they've done over the previous three months into tiny JPEGs and register the batch as a normal part of their business housekeeping. That makes effective, practical use of the 3-month grace period for infringement of images before registration.

The definition of "publishing" with regard to Internet posting is unclear--which means there hasn't been a court ruling on any cases about it. But discussions I've had with a couple of experienced IP lawyers suggest that an image that appears on an unrestricted website is likely to be considered "published" but an image that appears on a restricted website (requiring registration and a password) would be considered "unpublished."

Note, however, that the distinction really only matters with regard to when you applied for registration after an infringement has occured. Registration before any particular infringement is always valid and enforceable, whether registered as pubished or unpublished.

If an infringement occurs before registration, you may lose the ability to collect damages for that infringement (depending on timing), but you will still have protection from any further infringements subsequent to registration.