When a photographer posts an image on the internet, is he/she giving up their rights? Meaning, can someone legally print that image out (or re-post that image in another location without credit) or do whatever else they please with it?
I'm in a debate with someone about it right now... help!
You own the copyright when you press the shutter button. This has been discussed many times on this forum. Do a search if you wish,to get more information. Someone may copy the picture and use it for their own purposes, but you own the copyright until/unless you sign it over to or license it to someone else. Registering the image would give you the greatest leverage to getting any compensation for the use of the image. There's much more to it, of course.
Yes, do a search. Just because you post them on the web does not mean ANYTHING. You own the copyright until you sign it over to someone, or after 70 years have passed since you clicked the shutter.
I agree... not to be unhelpful, but there are four copyright and usage-related threads on the front page alone -- such a thing does not even necessitate a search.
When a photographer posts an image on the internet, is he/she giving up their rights? Meaning, can someone legally print that image out (or re-post that image in another location without credit) or do whatever else they please with it?
The answer is "no" as far as legally owning the copyright is concerned. But if you have not registered your copyright, there is a strong likelihood that putting an image on an openly accessible website will be considered "publishing" when/if it's ever considered by the federal courts. If that's the case, while you would still legally own the copyright, your ability to recover damages for copyright infringement would be substantially weakened. So rule one is to register your copyright before presenting an image to the general public in any form.
At the same time, it's likely that putting an image on a secured website will not be considered publishing. At this time, controlled showing of paintings and other documents has not been considered "publishing" by the courts, even if they have been shown to a great number of people. That has even included paintings shown in museums and galleries. Court decisions have appeared to point to mass or blind distribution as being "publication."
No. There are a few circumstances under which a person can use another person's copyrighted work, called "fair use" but they are also described in the copyright laws. Check the US Library of Congress Copyright website to find the laws, explanations, etc.
If one were to consider putting something out on the web like setting a copy out on a library table, displaying in a store, or hanging a print in a gallery, it would be almost unthinkable that someone could come up, take it, copy it, use it.
RDKirk wrote:
At the same time, it's likely that putting an image on a secured website will not be considered publishing. At this time, controlled showing of paintings and other documents has not been considered "publishing" by the courts, even if they have been shown to a great number of people. That has even included paintings shown in museums and galleries. Court decisions have appeared to point to mass or blind distribution as being "publication."
This may just be one of the places where I'm woefully under-educated on copyright law, but what does an image being published have to do with future or unrelated uses of the image without permission? If I publish a photo in a book or magazine, that doesn't give a third party license to scan or tear out that page and use it in their own commercial endeavor...it's still an infringement of the copyright of my image (not to mention the book or magazine publisher), no?
It seems to me that whether or not an image is considered to have been published doesn't have any bearing its copyright status.
shatterkiss wrote:
It seems to me that whether or not an image is considered to have been published doesn't have any bearing its copyright status.
I think the point is for people who do not register everything immediately - there is, iirc, a 90day period after publication for registration or something.
Right, but what does that have to do with whether or not putting an image online yourself is considered publication, or whether publication has any bearing on subsequent infringements?
Shatterkiss, the courts have been very wishy washy on what constitutes publication of images. Very little has been written about publication to web. Typically, if an image is not placed for sale or lease, or has not been offered to be distributed to a larger group of people than originally intended, it is not considered published. However the implication or intent to sell can be construed as publishing. Mere display of photos -- such as in a photoblog -- typically does not constitute publishing in Copyright Law.
Because the idea of publishing is tied to valuation of your work (that is, to be sold), then the publishing affects the damages you can receive upon an infringement.
The courts have still not decided how this all plays in to what is stated by the NET Act of 1997 :-/
sboerup wrote:
Yes, do a search. Just because you post them on the web does not mean ANYTHING. You own the copyright until you sign it over to someone, or after 70 years have passed since you clicked the shutter.
This is incorrect, technically. You own the copyright, and you can assign it to someone after your death. The copyright begins the moment you press the shutter, and persists for your life, and 70 years after your death.
shatterkiss wrote:
If I publish a photo in a book or magazine, that doesn't give a third party license to scan or tear out that page and use it in their own commercial endeavor...it's still an infringement of the copyright of my image (not to mention the book or magazine publisher), no?
If you can show copying, and misappropriation, you have a prima facie case for infringement, but there are situations where such copying might not be unlawful. "Fair use" is the most flexible of infringement defenses, and commercial motivation to copy is the most important of four key factors the courts consider in determining infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 107, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
Fair use is not an easy subject, and not one that you can easily understand the nuances of from a simple reading of Title 17; the case cited above is seminal. That said, under most circumstances, copying an image and selling it as your own, or selling it without the photographer's permission,
I think the problem is that Congress (the courts get stuck trying to enforce or at least interpret what the Congress makes in the way of laws) hasn't caught up with all of the technical issues in "publication" and that while they may have covered the big dollar broadcast and music industry concerns, smaller businesses and artists have a different set of concerns.
One that the LoC is aware of is the lack of a Federal equivalent to "Small Claims Court."
Another is that the internet has provided a variety of ways of displaying and sharing images that allow for easy copying but that don't fit the older practical issues of publication. Public performance or display didn't mean it was "published." So passing the pictures around the table, displaying at a local fair or library, etc., was both not "publishing" and not easily copied. Now we upload to a gallery at some picture sharing service and email the family where to find it. And it's not at all unusual that those services provide for purchase of prints. There needs to be a clear cut way to allow for a modern, internet sensitive "display," that isn't "publishing," intentionally or accidentally. Because unlike the good old days, it's pretty much impossible to prevent copying.
IP law is complex, at best Much of the technology has outrun clear precidents - i.e., posting on the web - is that "publishing"
Carolyn E. Wright, LLC runs a blog at http://www.photoattorney.com/ - and she has published a book Photographer's Legal Guide that cuts through the mess pretty well. The blog alone (and the archives) will give you a pretty clear idea of what your rights are.
The quick answer has already been given - No, posting on the internet does not mean that you have given up your rights. Enforcing them, is another matter, all together.
It seems to me that whether or not an image is considered to have been published doesn't have any bearing its copyright status.
Not on the status of the copyright. But publishing an image naturally makes it more vulnerable to copyright infringement--on the internet, infringement could happen dozens of times within days. If it hasn't been registered within the grace period after after infringement, recouping losses will be much less likely.
If you can show copying, and misappropriation, you have a prima facie case for infringement, but there are situations where such copying might not be unlawful. "Fair use" is the most flexible of infringement defenses,
Court cases have proven "fair use" to be nowhere near as flexible as people may think.
There is an article discussing fair use in July/August 2008 Digital Photo Pro:
"Naked in the Courtroom - The internet has opened a can of worms for photographers struggling to keep control over images while also seeking to get their work seen by the public and image buyers."
A good general book on the subject is "Legal Handbook for Photographers - The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images, 2nd ed." by Bert Krages, Esq.
Another article is "Grand Theft Photo" in February 2008 Pop Photo.
Yet another - "Copyright, licensing, and business plans aren't sexy, but understanding them is crucial for success" Photo Techniques (magazine), September/October 2007, Bobbi Lane.
I haven't read every post here, but in general:
a) you own the copyright
b) however, if you don't register, you can't sue.
c) if you do sue, you can only sue in Federal Court.
d) you can retroactively file for registration, and it can be after infringement takes place, but there is a time limit - I think it's six months, but you should check one of the resources that others have posted.
As many professional photographers, I am affiliated with a Copyright association to protect my art. If you are serious about your art-work and are trying to make some money out of it, I can only suggest you become a member of a Copyright association of some sort. They will help you choose the right licenses and protect your work by enforcing your rights. Especially if you need to go to court, they will often help with the legal fees and expenses.
I would also recommend you get his book “Legal Handbook for Photographers : The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images” which you can get for less than $25!
The book is written from the perspective of a photographer who has actually confronted the legal issues that many photographers face.
