Watermarks - copyright, year

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Peter Chant, Feb 21, 2011.

  1. Peter Chant

    Peter Chant Guest

    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
     
    Peter Chant, Feb 21, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
     
    John Passaneau, Feb 22, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter Chant <> wrote:
    > 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?


    Although copyright exists from the moment of creation, traditionally the
    copyright period runs from the date of first publication (ie. displaying
    it in public) so that is the date people have normally used in copyright
    notices. However this practice only existed because copyright in photos
    only used to last for a fairly limited period (50 years IIRC) so you
    would want to maximise it by dating the picture as late as possible.

    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!
     
    Gordon Freeman, Feb 22, 2011
    #3
  4. Peter Chant

    Vance Guest

    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
     
    Vance, Feb 22, 2011
    #4
  5. Peter Chant

    Peter Chant Guest

    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
     
    Peter Chant, Feb 22, 2011
    #5
  6. Peter Chant

    Peter Chant Guest

    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/2011/02/18/photographers_orphan_works/

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

    Pete



    --
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk
     
    Peter Chant, Feb 22, 2011
    #6
  7. Peter Chant

    tony cooper Guest

    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, Feb 23, 2011
    #7
  8. Peter Chant

    Peter Chant Guest

    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
     
    Peter Chant, Feb 23, 2011
    #8
  9. Peter Chant

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/22/2011 2:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    >
    > 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.
    >


    Not quite. While the copyright exists from the instant of creation of
    the image, the notification serves multiple functions:
    Copyright enforcement rights can be lost through lack of enforcement:
    The notice serves as evidence that the holder intends to enforce;
    the stealing of an image with a notice shows evidence of malice and
    could subject the violator to punitive damages;
    creates a presumption that the enforcer is the holder of the right.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Feb 24, 2011
    #9
  10. Peter Chant

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <4d6668c4$0$5677$-secrets.com>,
    says...
    >
    > On 2/22/2011 2:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > 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.
    > >

    >
    > Not quite. While the copyright exists from the instant of creation of
    > the image, the notification serves multiple functions:
    > Copyright enforcement rights can be lost through lack of enforcement:


    That's trademark. Copyright, under current US law, cannot be "lost".

    > The notice serves as evidence that the holder intends to enforce;
    > the stealing of an image with a notice shows evidence of malice and
    > could subject the violator to punitive damages;


    Under US law you can't collect punitive damages for copyright unless you
    registered the copyright. Putting a notice on has no effect in that
    regard.

    > creates a presumption that the enforcer is the holder of the right.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 24, 2011
    #10
  11. Peter Chant

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/24/2011 11:43 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article<4d6668c4$0$5677$-secrets.com>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> On 2/22/2011 2:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Not quite. While the copyright exists from the instant of creation of
    >> the image, the notification serves multiple functions:
    >> Copyright enforcement rights can be lost through lack of enforcement:

    >
    > That's trademark. Copyright, under current US law, cannot be "lost".


    the law is not that clear;
    http://www.lawcatalog.com/samples/ljp_694PublicDomain.pdf

    Read:
    Egner, et al vs E. C. Schirmer Music Co.
    D.C.Mass. (12-28-1942) ¤ 48 F. Supp. 187, affirmed by:
    1st Cir. (12-29-1943) ¤ 139 F.2d 398, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 947,
    322 U.S. 730. 88 L.Ed. 1565.

    Which takes a position contrary to your statement.

    >
    >> The notice serves as evidence that the holder intends to enforce;
    >> the stealing of an image with a notice shows evidence of malice and
    >> could subject the violator to punitive damages;

    >
    > Under US law you can't collect punitive damages for copyright unless you
    > registered the copyright. Putting a notice on has no effect in that
    > regard.


    Again not that clear:

    http://www.artlaws.com/EnterTitleCopyrightInfringementDamages.htm


    >
    >> creates a presumption that the enforcer is the holder of the right.

    >
    >
    >
    >





    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Feb 24, 2011
    #11
  12. Peter Chant

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/24/2011 12:42 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 2/22/2011 2:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Not quite. While the copyright exists from the instant of creation of
    >> the image, the notification serves multiple functions:
    >> Copyright enforcement rights can be lost through lack of enforcement:
    >> The notice serves as evidence that the holder intends to enforce;
    >> the stealing of an image with a notice shows evidence of malice and
    >> could subject the violator to punitive damages;
    >> creates a presumption that the enforcer is the holder of the right.

    >
    > Except that none of the above is valid.
    >
    > Rights under copyright are not lost by "lack of
    > enforecement", whether the holder intends to enforce or
    > not has no legal significance in a court and whether the
    > image has or does not have a notice does not indicate
    > any malice that determines punitive damages. It may
    > create the presumption of who is the holder, just as I
    > originally suggested, but that has no legal significance
    > in a court.
    >

    I don't know about your legal experience, but In every court I practiced
    before presumptions have a very strong legal significance.

    Although I did not practice IP law, I wrote the tax opinions contained
    in various red herrings for movie financing deals. And litigated
    non-bankruptcy issues in the Bankruptcy Court.
    Please don't spread misinformation, or try to give legal advice. I
    repeat what I have said: I am only making general statements that should
    not be relied upon as legal advice. Seek the advice of an experienced
    attorney for specific questions. Also, I do not practice anymore.




    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Feb 24, 2011
    #12
  13. Peter Chant

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/24/2011 4:52 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > PeterN<> wrote:
    >> On 2/24/2011 11:43 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    >>> In article<4d6668c4$0$5677$-secrets.com>,
    >>> says...
    >>>>
    >>>> On 2/22/2011 2:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Not quite. While the copyright exists from the instant of creation of
    >>>> the image, the notification serves multiple functions:
    >>>> Copyright enforcement rights can be lost through lack of enforcement:
    >>>
    >>> That's trademark. Copyright, under current US law, cannot be "lost".

    >>
    >> the law is not that clear;
    >> http://www.lawcatalog.com/samples/ljp_694PublicDomain.pdf
    >>
    >> Read:
    >> Egner, et al vs E. C. Schirmer Music Co.
    >> D.C.Mass. (12-28-1942) ¤ 48 F. Supp. 187, affirmed by:
    >> 1st Cir. (12-29-1943) ¤ 139 F.2d 398, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 947,
    >> 322 U.S. 730. 88 L.Ed. 1565.
    >>
    >> Which takes a position contrary to your statement.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> The notice serves as evidence that the holder intends to enforce;
    >>>> the stealing of an image with a notice shows evidence of malice and
    >>>> could subject the violator to punitive damages;
    >>>
    >>> Under US law you can't collect punitive damages for copyright unless you
    >>> registered the copyright. Putting a notice on has no effect in that
    >>> regard.

    >>
    >> Again not that clear:
    >>
    >> http://www.artlaws.com/EnterTitleCopyrightInfringementDamages.htm
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> creates a presumption that the enforcer is the holder of the right.

    >
    > I didn't bother downloading and reading your first URL, mostly because
    > this last one does not support your contention in any way. It verifies
    > that punitive damages are sometimes awarded, and says absolutely nothing
    > about a copyright notice having any significance.
    >


    If you ignore my authorities and take part of my point out of context,
    you win the discussion. Just Google copyright and punitive damages. Try
    it. then get thee to a law library and read the commentaries. I
    certainly have done that. If you choose not to believe my
    interpretation, that is your problem. Since I have no intention of
    creating a blog on IP law, I am letting you
    win your point, whatever it was. (feel better now?)

    If you have true interest in the subject you can use my links as a
    starting point. But please, don't spread misinformation. My only concern
    is that someone here may act on it to their detriment.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Feb 24, 2011
    #13
  14. Peter Chant

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <4d66a6ae$0$5645$-secrets.com>,
    says...
    >
    > On 2/24/2011 11:43 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > > In article<4d6668c4$0$5677$-secrets.com>,
    > > says...
    > >>
    > >> On 2/22/2011 2:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>> 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.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> Not quite. While the copyright exists from the instant of creation of
    > >> the image, the notification serves multiple functions:
    > >> Copyright enforcement rights can be lost through lack of enforcement:

    > >
    > > That's trademark. Copyright, under current US law, cannot be "lost".

    >
    > the law is not that clear;
    > http://www.lawcatalog.com/samples/ljp_694PublicDomain.pdf
    >
    > Read:
    > Egner, et al vs E. C. Schirmer Music Co.
    > D.C.Mass. (12-28-1942) ? 48 F. Supp. 187, affirmed by:
    > 1st Cir. (12-29-1943) ? 139 F.2d 398, certiorari denied 64 S.Ct. 947,
    > 322 U.S. 730. 88 L.Ed. 1565.
    >
    > Which takes a position contrary to your statement.


    And also was decided in 1944. The Berne Convention has been
    renegotiated 3 times since then and the US copyright laws have been
    amended a half a dozen or more.

    > >> The notice serves as evidence that the holder intends to enforce;
    > >> the stealing of an image with a notice shows evidence of malice and
    > >> could subject the violator to punitive damages;

    > >
    > > Under US law you can't collect punitive damages for copyright unless you
    > > registered the copyright. Putting a notice on has no effect in that
    > > regard.

    >
    > Again not that clear:
    >
    > http://www.artlaws.com/EnterTitleCopyrightInfringementDamages.htm


    The current US copyright law forbids anything other than actual damages
    if the copyright is not registered. Can't even collect attorney's fees.

    > >> creates a presumption that the enforcer is the holder of the right.

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 24, 2011
    #14
  15. Peter Chant

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <4d66a893$0$5641$-secrets.com>,
    says...
    >
    > On 2/24/2011 12:42 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > > PeterN<> wrote:
    > >> On 2/22/2011 2:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>> 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.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> Not quite. While the copyright exists from the instant of creation of
    > >> the image, the notification serves multiple functions:
    > >> Copyright enforcement rights can be lost through lack of enforcement:
    > >> The notice serves as evidence that the holder intends to enforce;
    > >> the stealing of an image with a notice shows evidence of malice and
    > >> could subject the violator to punitive damages;
    > >> creates a presumption that the enforcer is the holder of the right.

    > >
    > > Except that none of the above is valid.
    > >
    > > Rights under copyright are not lost by "lack of
    > > enforecement", whether the holder intends to enforce or
    > > not has no legal significance in a court and whether the
    > > image has or does not have a notice does not indicate
    > > any malice that determines punitive damages. It may
    > > create the presumption of who is the holder, just as I
    > > originally suggested, but that has no legal significance
    > > in a court.
    > >

    > I don't know about your legal experience, but In every court I practiced
    > before presumptions have a very strong legal significance.
    >
    > Although I did not practice IP law, I wrote the tax opinions contained
    > in various red herrings for movie financing deals. And litigated
    > non-bankruptcy issues in the Bankruptcy Court.
    > Please don't spread misinformation, or try to give legal advice. I
    > repeat what I have said: I am only making general statements that should
    > not be relied upon as legal advice. Seek the advice of an experienced
    > attorney for specific questions. Also, I do not practice anymore.


    Please read <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf> and tell us
    whether you still hold the same opinions after reading it.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 24, 2011
    #15
  16. Peter Chant

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/24/2011 6:24 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article<4d66a893$0$5641$-secrets.com>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> On 2/24/2011 12:42 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> PeterN<> wrote:
    >>>> On 2/22/2011 2:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Not quite. While the copyright exists from the instant of creation of
    >>>> the image, the notification serves multiple functions:
    >>>> Copyright enforcement rights can be lost through lack of enforcement:
    >>>> The notice serves as evidence that the holder intends to enforce;
    >>>> the stealing of an image with a notice shows evidence of malice and
    >>>> could subject the violator to punitive damages;
    >>>> creates a presumption that the enforcer is the holder of the right.
    >>>
    >>> Except that none of the above is valid.
    >>>
    >>> Rights under copyright are not lost by "lack of
    >>> enforecement", whether the holder intends to enforce or
    >>> not has no legal significance in a court and whether the
    >>> image has or does not have a notice does not indicate
    >>> any malice that determines punitive damages. It may
    >>> create the presumption of who is the holder, just as I
    >>> originally suggested, but that has no legal significance
    >>> in a court.
    >>>

    >> I don't know about your legal experience, but In every court I practiced
    >> before presumptions have a very strong legal significance.
    >>
    >> Although I did not practice IP law, I wrote the tax opinions contained
    >> in various red herrings for movie financing deals. And litigated
    >> non-bankruptcy issues in the Bankruptcy Court.
    >> Please don't spread misinformation, or try to give legal advice. I
    >> repeat what I have said: I am only making general statements that should
    >> not be relied upon as legal advice. Seek the advice of an experienced
    >> attorney for specific questions. Also, I do not practice anymore.

    >
    > Please read<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf> and tell us
    > whether you still hold the same opinions after reading it.


    Reading an unannotated version of the Copyright Law is similar to
    reading any statutory enactment, including the Internal Revenue Code and
    the Constitution. All of them must be read in the context of court
    decisions and, where applicable, the enforcement regulations and the
    administrative agency regulations and guidelines.

    I have stated practical interpretations based upon my years of
    experience. That is about as far as I will go. If I wanted to continue
    interpreting legal documents, I would only do so if I was adequately
    paid. If you think for one minute that I am going to analyze a 350 page
    document, you are wrong.
    You are certainly free to do so. You certainly are free to jump to your
    own conclusions. As I stated in essence to Floyd, the reader should rely
    on competent legal advice, not Internet opinions. I already have stated
    that despite my experience, I am not competent to give IP advice. If
    you are, great, if not, please don't mislead.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Feb 25, 2011
    #16
  17. Peter Chant

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <4d66f96f$0$5690$-secrets.com>,
    says...
    >
    > On 2/24/2011 6:24 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > > In article<4d66a893$0$5641$-secrets.com>,
    > > says...
    > >>
    > >> On 2/24/2011 12:42 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > >>> PeterN<> wrote:
    > >>>> On 2/22/2011 2:10 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> 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.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Not quite. While the copyright exists from the instant of creation of
    > >>>> the image, the notification serves multiple functions:
    > >>>> Copyright enforcement rights can be lost through lack of enforcement:
    > >>>> The notice serves as evidence that the holder intends to enforce;
    > >>>> the stealing of an image with a notice shows evidence of malice and
    > >>>> could subject the violator to punitive damages;
    > >>>> creates a presumption that the enforcer is the holder of the right.
    > >>>
    > >>> Except that none of the above is valid.
    > >>>
    > >>> Rights under copyright are not lost by "lack of
    > >>> enforecement", whether the holder intends to enforce or
    > >>> not has no legal significance in a court and whether the
    > >>> image has or does not have a notice does not indicate
    > >>> any malice that determines punitive damages. It may
    > >>> create the presumption of who is the holder, just as I
    > >>> originally suggested, but that has no legal significance
    > >>> in a court.
    > >>>
    > >> I don't know about your legal experience, but In every court I practiced
    > >> before presumptions have a very strong legal significance.
    > >>
    > >> Although I did not practice IP law, I wrote the tax opinions contained
    > >> in various red herrings for movie financing deals. And litigated
    > >> non-bankruptcy issues in the Bankruptcy Court.
    > >> Please don't spread misinformation, or try to give legal advice. I
    > >> repeat what I have said: I am only making general statements that should
    > >> not be relied upon as legal advice. Seek the advice of an experienced
    > >> attorney for specific questions. Also, I do not practice anymore.

    > >
    > > Please read<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf> and tell us
    > > whether you still hold the same opinions after reading it.

    >
    > Reading an unannotated version of the Copyright Law is similar to
    > reading any statutory enactment, including the Internal Revenue Code and
    > the Constitution. All of them must be read in the context of court
    > decisions and, where applicable, the enforcement regulations and the
    > administrative agency regulations and guidelines.


    Did you read it?

    > I have stated practical interpretations based upon my years of
    > experience. That is about as far as I will go. If I wanted to continue
    > interpreting legal documents, I would only do so if I was adequately
    > paid. If you think for one minute that I am going to analyze a 350 page
    > document, you are wrong.


    In other words we should believe you because you can cite a court
    decision that was made more than half a century before the current
    statute was enaced.

    > You are certainly free to do so. You certainly are free to jump to your
    > own conclusions. As I stated in essence to Floyd, the reader should rely
    > on competent legal advice, not Internet opinions. I already have stated
    > that despite my experience, I am not competent to give IP advice. If
    > you are, great, if not, please don't mislead.


    What I have stated is what is generally accepted as true of the current
    copyright law. If I am wrong about this I would like to know in what
    particulars and why.
     
    J. Clarke, Feb 25, 2011
    #17
  18. jaj001 wrote:

    >
    > You should use the date you snapped the pix. My daughter is a JD
    > practicing IP law with music and she says the snap date should always
    > be used. Otherwise, another photog could snap a nearly identical pix
    > - impossible to tell from yours - claim (c) and make your life
    > difficult while you set out to prove they infringed on your earlier
    > snap.


    If they take their own shot of the same view then it's not copyright
    infringement unless they were deliberately intending to copy your
    composition, which is very hard to prove.

    There have been examples of pairs of pics that were virtually identical (an
    image of Pont Neuf in France is a famous example, photographed a short
    while apart by two famous photographers, despite speculations of plagiarism
    they ended up agreeing it was just a coincidence.
     
    Gordon Freeman, Feb 28, 2011
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. serge

    watermarks in Wordperfect

    serge, Aug 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    585
    serge
    Aug 10, 2003
  2. GrailKing@oops!.Not.The.Realm.net

    How do you get copyright symbol in a picture using Irfanview?

    GrailKing@oops!.Not.The.Realm.net, Sep 1, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,237
    The Old Sourdough
    Sep 3, 2003
  3. n

    Tips on adding invisible digital watermarks

    n, May 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    994
    Jonathan Wilson
    May 20, 2004
  4. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,181
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
  5. smolderingwick

    2 year AAS degree (w/certs) vs. 4 year CIS degree

    smolderingwick, Feb 6, 2011, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,011
    smolderingwick
    Feb 6, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page