[DavidUK]

As I've browsed the web, and the galleries here, I've found an increasing number of peoples images copyright notices on the bottom.

I wonder if people have simply slapped it on there or have actually gone about seeking copyright for the images?

[fingerz]

I don't think you need to actually go to a solicitors and copyright them. If someone else makes money out of your legal property/work without asking you first, you're entitled to some sort of compensation, afaik.

[DavidUK]

Originally Posted by fingerz

I don't think you need to actually go to a solicitors and copyright them. If someone else makes money out of your legal property/work without asking you first, you're entitled to some sort of compensation, afaik.

..hmm interesting. wonder if we have any legal eagles on the site that can offer more information!

[Steve]

Its just a "warning in advance" to scare off the opportunist. Generally if you shoot the picture then it and it's copy write is automatically yours, there is no need to employ a solicitor. I say generally as there always exceptions...you may have been commissioned to take the picture for someone else and it is in a contract previously agreed between the parties involved or you work specifically for a business or organisation that automatically gets all copy write of anything you produce while in their employ.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by DavidUK

..hmm interesting. wonder if we have any legal eagles on the site that can offer more information!

I am no solicitor or legal expert but if you find someone has taken one or more of your images and made profit from it, then providing you can prove that it/they were your images you are fully entitled to compensation and damages dependant on the use etc.

[CT]

Jamey is right - with photographs the photographer retains the original copyright always. Wedding photography is a classic example. Despite the huge wads of dough you hand over for your album, you have no right to have any of those shots copied without going through the original photographer, unless the deal you did at the time involved also purchasing the negs and the copyright. Some photographers can be real sticklers about this as they depend on reprints etc. to supplement their income and they will sue.

There's no real need to stick a copyright notice on your web pics - you retain copyright anyway, but it's no bad thing, the lamos who are likely to nick your images at least can't claim ignorance.

Hmmm... something I need to think about actually.

[DavidUK]

Originally Posted by CT

Jamey is right - with photographs the photographer retains the original copyright always. Wedding photography is a classic example. Despite the huge wads of dough you hand over for your album, you have no right to have any of those shots copied without going through the original photographer, unless the deal you did at the time involved also purchasing the negs and the copyright. Some photographers can be real sticklers about this as they depend on reprints etc. to supplement their income and they will sue.

There's no real need to stick a copyright notice on your web pics - you retain copyright anyway, but it's no bad thing, the lamos who are likely to nick your images at least can't claim ignorance.

Hmmm... something I need to think about actually.

..well thats assuming that any of my work actually warrants copying!

I took the tac of simply removing the ability to right-click and save-as in JAlbum, not that the images it produces are particularly high quality anyway.

I asked the question simply as a friend in my nightclass had stuck a copyright notice on the bottom of his pictures in the last project, made me think alittle.

[CT]

Well one of the big advantages of the limited file sizes we allow in Gallery here is that it does make them of limited commercial use to the nerds who will think nothing of nicking them. At least they can't be blown up to poster size etc. without looking pretty ropey.

[DavidUK]

Originally Posted by CT

Well one of the big advantages of the limited file sizes we allow in Gallery here is that it does make them of limited commercial use to the nerds who will think nothing of nicking them. At least they can't be blown up to poster size etc. without looking pretty ropey.

..I found a few pictures in peoples galleries that I wanted to use for my latest night class and asked permission in the forums rather than just burgle them! I'm such a good boy lol

[fingerz]

Removing the right-click is all well and good, but you can still drag'n'drop the image onto your desktop. Try it. Nerds know this.

And even if you couldn't drag'n'drop. You could print screen and paste into photoshop. There is practically no way of stopping people stealing stuff. The best you can do is only post relatively small images (but still plenty good enough for people to appreciate the photography) and make sure you get in touch with anyone you find stealing your images.

I've never had it happen with any of my 'proper' photos. Only had a few people using my sneaker pics on eBay but I sent them a polite email asking them to credit my site and link back to it. All of them did quite willingly.

Edit - I see your images are also links, so the drag'n'drop doesn't work. But people could still print screen and paste into photoshop.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by DavidUK

..I found a few pictures in peoples galleries that I wanted to use for my latest night class and asked permission in the forums rather than just burgle them! I'm such a good boy lol

By doing that though you are not only earning their respect but you are giving them the well deserved praise for their hard work...plus its the right thing to do I find that if you do things properly then most people are very willing to help out, often for free or less than it would cost normally.

[DavidUK]

Originally Posted by Steve

By doing that though you are not only earning their respect but you are giving them the well deserved praise for their hard work...plus its the right thing to do I find that if you do things properly then most people are very willing to help out, often for free or less than it would cost normally.

That's what I thought, though I think Bachs might be cursing me as I asked for five or more of his shots and last I heard he was struggling to process the RAW files again from his DVD backups!

[IanC_UK]

I only ever put limited quality pics on the net, they are generally on 50 or 60k in size and 640*480 so if the lamos try and reproduce and enlarge they are out of luck not that i have much worth copying anyway lol