Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

Archive 2014 · Thoughts On Protection ...

RustyBug

Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Thoughts On Protection ...

eeneryma wrote:
Rusty and others:
Curious what your take is on protecting your work from theft. Since watermarks are easy to get around, what are your best strategies to minimize the risk of theft? I do register for copyright my best works each year. Any other suggestions?

RustyBug wrote:
I'll start a new thread ...

Preliminary thoughts:

1) I'm not an attorney
2) I'm formerly versed in both interpreting and enforcing Federal Law for OSHA as a government official, most notably 29CFR1910, et al (once you understand how to read CFR's)
3) Cyber-law can be very folly (such erroneous/incomplete info floating around)
4) One should read the Copyright Act and the DMCA for themselves to particularly understand the differences
5) There are attorneys who are very capable in this area

6) And probably most important, imo ... is that you are able to know your actual legal rights and recognize when they have been violated. That doesn't mean you know how to "fight the fight" all by yourself, but you know when it is time to get someone to help you "fight the fight".

7) And yes, I have personal experience (on the semi-losing end) of a violation where an international magazine lifted an image of mine from Flickr for publication. Which became a "RustyBug" tear sheet.

On to perspective ...

Protection FROM theft is pretty tough unless you want to plaster a ginormously interfering with the image watermark as a deterrent. If you remember the old days when folks did such things. Even then talented folks could PS watermarks into usable imagery.

Protection FOR theft, such that you have recourse (which also serves as a deterrent from theft by knowledgeable thieves) in the event of improper usage (which is often a misuse of "fair use" is something that you have much more control over.

And background ...

There are two primary aspects associated with the issue. While they are covered in the same Act (Ch. 5 & Ch. 12 iirc), there are portions of them that are dependent upon each other and portions that are independent from the other. There is much folly in the cyber-law world that overstates the dependencies and ignores the independencies. These two aspects are COPYRIGHT and DMCA (Digital Millinium Copyright Act).

Copyright has been around for a very long time and boils down to three main key points.

1) You made it ... it is copyrighted. PERIOD
It doesn't matter if you have put the copyright symbol on it or not, written registered or the words copyright or not, it is still copyrighted.

2) Your copyright, which you have from the moment of creation can be either REGISTERED or UNREGISTERED. In order to have a copyright registered, you have to file it. If you haven't filed your images, they are unregistered copyright.

3) Your Registered copyright can be either TIMELY or UNTIMELY. Essentially (fine details in the Act) you have 90 days/3 months (there is a diff, but I forgot which it is) to REGISTER your images from the time of first publish (that one gets a bit sticky @ what constitutes "publish", but I go with first time others can see it). If you file your images within the timelines and a violation of your copyright occurs, you have different legal recourse than if you file your images in an untimely manner, or not at all.

Subordinate points @ violation recourse ...

If your image was either unregistered or untimely filed, your recourse is limited to ACTUAL DAMAGES (which you have to be able substantiate) and the is no allowance for attorneys fees. With no STATUTORY/PUNITIVE award available, and no attorney's fees available ... hmmm @ why attorney's won't (almost never) take cases for unregistered or untimely filings.

For registered images, recourse includes the potential for ACTUAL DAMAGES & STATUTORY/PUNITIVE awards ... with punitive awards (last I checked) being able to go as high as $150,000.00 per violation (iirc). Additionally, ATTORNEY'S FEES are also awardable. With such a vast difference in potential outcomes, attorney's are very selective in taking on cases for registered vs. unregistered or untimely registered cases.

You can still go after violations of unregistered and/or untimely registered cases, but it usually isn't very cost effective due to your out of pocket attorney's fees and the limit to your ability to substantiate your actual damages.

For this reason, the practice of filing images for registration 4 times a year is a one that is advocated by attorneys/photographers to ensure that all your images are always filed with timely registration. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't file your images from two years ago because they are more than three months old. The three months is a "grace period" for folks who publish before they file, so if the violation occurred before they filed, they'd still be covered. But, if you publish, have a violation and wait more than 3 months to file (after first publish, not after violation), then you are considered untimely.

That's the essence of key points @ COPYRIGHT
(iirc)

Edited on Oct 14, 2014 at 09:09 AM · View previous versions

Oct 13, 2014 at 08:44 AM

RustyBug

Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Thoughts On Protection ...

DMCA is a different matter, but it is also contained in the same law as the copyright, but under a different chapter.

The DMCA is relatively new, and as such there is much misinformation/disinformation regarding it.

While copyright addresses the usage of the image. DMCA goes beyond usage and enters into a realm of REMOVING YOUR LIKENESSS.

Remember, the issue of removing watermarks ... THAT is addressed in the DMCA. WITHOUT ANY REGARD for the registration status of your works @ unregistered/registered or timely/untimely.

What that means is that to remove the likeness, logo, watermark, etc. from an image (for the purpose of denying the owners identification) is a violation of the DMCA. Where in the former portions of the copyright, one had to substantiate actual damages and could not receive attorney's fees for unregistered images, the DMCA does not have such restrictions.

Simply put, if someone removes the watermark, such that your identity has been removed (reverse identity theft if you will) and they are now presenting it as unidentified or as theirs or as though they have the right/permission to do so, the ACT OF REMOVING YOUR LIKENESS/LOGO/NAME is the OFFENSE. Copyright status of unregistered / untimely does not mitigate this offense. MUCH folly has been cyber-law written that suggests unregistered / untimely registrations can ONLY issue a "take down" notice ... or that your image must be registered before DMCA applies ... and that is FALSE information.

Here's one areas where it starts to get sticky & folly @ cyber-law. Many folks on the internet believe that your only recourse is to issue a "take down" notice when someone has lifted your work for their use. Often times, it includes a belief that "fair use" says they can take and use it. While there are provisions for fair use (which we practice prolifically in this forum for training/education purposes), the removal of one's likeness to disassociate them from the image in use is a violation under the DMCA.

The key points to the DMCA awards are that they can be awarded (minimum fine @ $2,500 per occurrence, iirc) with/without copyright registration AND attorney's fees are awardable. For that reason, attorney's are willing to take on cases involving unregistered copyrights under DMCA.

Copyright and DMCA are two related issues, but many folks WRONGLY apply the tenets of copyright to DMCA and forego what is duly theirs.

Edited on Oct 14, 2014 at 09:13 AM · View previous versions

Oct 13, 2014 at 09:43 AM

RustyBug

Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Thoughts On Protection ...

So, baseline info @ Copyright vs. DMCA (roughly presented) out of the way, what do you do with it.

First of all, I'm not as good at practicing what I preach as I ought to be ... SHAME ON ME.

That being said, I have no problem at all with folks who watermark EVERYTHING. It is built in protection afforded under the DMCA. Nobody says it has to be big, nor blatant, just that if it is there SOMEWHERE and if it gets removed ... DMCA is at your diposal. Serial numbers get put on valueable diamonds that don't interfere with their aesthetic, we should be able to do something similar ... small watermark / good metadata.

Personally, I believe that it is a good idea to put your watermark on everything you publish, if the image can be stolen (which includes here). Here's were I don't practice what I preach as well as I should, as my works here are often times "incomplete" in my mind, but Fred has included the "show signature" button, which I HIGHLY recommend we use more than we have been ... it can be a small / faint one, but we should still use it.

Next, we should register our images on a regular basis. The filing fee in nominal, but I suspect for many, it is our lack of image organization with our images that drives this omission, more than the cost of filing.

Edited on Oct 14, 2014 at 09:14 AM · View previous versions

Oct 13, 2014 at 09:48 AM

eeneryma

Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Thoughts On Protection ...

So if I can summarize, you feel the best way to protect your photos is to register them, preferably on a timely basis. And bottom line, watermarks are mostly a waste of time?
Do you post mostly low resolution images to deter theft?

Oct 13, 2014 at 10:01 AM

eeneryma

Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Thoughts On Protection ...

OOps sorry, as I was typing, you answered my question.

Oct 13, 2014 at 10:02 AM

RustyBug

Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Thoughts On Protection ...

+1 @ register

-1 @ watermarks ....

WATERMARKS (and/or metadata) ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT for DMCA.

Edited on Oct 13, 2014 at 10:41 AM · View previous versions

Oct 13, 2014 at 10:03 AM

RustyBug

Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Thoughts On Protection ...

Theft can occur at any resolution ... many bloggers feel they can rip people off incessantly under the realm of "fair use".

Fair use is NOT the same as removing your likeness. Blogger takes your image, and uses it ... most folks would say all you can do is issue a "take down" notice. BUT, if they removed your likeness, logo, name, etc. in the process ... $2,500 fine per occurrence.

This is why I ASK folks here for their permission to use a rework (future website) that illustrates some aspect of our craft. I personally have no intent of ever violating another persons rights (Copyright or DMCA), but I do ask for permission also.

This has spawned a new thought for me ...

On prints, the signature is often placed on the matting (or the back), not the print itself. Maybe we (and Fred) could place our signatures on matting/frame surrounding our images rather than on the images themselves as an alternative to those who find the logo/likeness/signature on the image to be intrusive.

Oct 13, 2014 at 10:06 AM

RustyBug

Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Thoughts On Protection ...

Here's the link to what started it all for me on the subject.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/905375/0?keyword=copyright#8533496

And one that I dissected it a bit more helping out a fellow FM'er. It also contains a very nice chart (attorney developed) to illustrate things @ differentiating Copyright vs. DMCA ... a picture is worth a thousand words, but when I try to explain things, the picture is worth way more than that.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1153656/0

ALSO, information contained in the image metadata is part of the issue under DMCA as well, and on a technical basis SHOULD be able to substantiate likeness, such that removal of the metadata also constitutes a violation of DMCA.

As mentioned at the onset ... not an attorney here, but I know a couple who are very versed on the matter (read the second link) and I have spoken with each, one being my "go to" for referring others who need help (I get nothing out of it, except the warm/fuzzy @ helping). Others are around, of course, but you tend to stick with someone once they've shown you what they can do.

There's more of course, but that is much of a primer, I think.

BTW, I do wish the signature option was available in our "TOP 15". Something about putting up your best, but without protection (other than being kinda small) that seems contradictory. I'll put a bug in Fred's ear to see if that can be provided.

Edited on Oct 13, 2014 at 10:44 AM · View previous versions

Oct 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM

ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Thoughts On Protection ...

Good info here as usual Kent.

I sign images for Facebook and Panoramio. Mostly for recognition. The Panaramio images will show up on Google Maps.

I never post any image online bigger than 1600, and usually 1024. If you want to steal such a tiny image go for it.

Oct 13, 2014 at 10:42 AM

RustyBug

Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Thoughts On Protection ...

I've added my signature to my "Scoot & Shoot" images to illustrate "there, but not intrusive".

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1323069/0?nc=1#12623513

This is a 9 font (smallest size) and I used silver for the color. This is kinda my version of a "serial number on a diamond".

This of course, does "nothing" for branding (different subject altogether), but it does associate the image as my likeness. One could use a logo or other, but here @ FM, this signature is what Fred has so astutely provided us. Not just an issue of signature for pride/branding, but for protection also.

I do have another concern ... and wonder what others think about it here @ PC Forum.

When we so generously offer up our reworks, are they not just as available for theft as the original post. My heart wants to place a signature for the OP (small / faint) for their protection, but I don't know if that would be good/bad. Some would say, hey you did the rework it's yours ... but I equate it to taking your film to a professional lab, working with the lab technician to finish (why they call it photo-finishing) to produce an end product. The lab or tech's name doesn't go on the finished piece.

In that regard, I have no desired pride @ seeing my name on it ... just that if we do help improve a fellow FM'ers image, it might make it more attractive to others who have no right to it, particularly if we have inadvertently stripped the meta-data info in to process of OP to rework, thereby potentially mitigating the owners identity in the process. Adding a signature (even if it is their user name) affords protection. While it might be that someone may argue a user name doesn't readily tell me who the image belongs to (outside this site) ... it still readily tells who it does NOT belong to, and the removal is still an act of intent to deceive the true identity / likeness of ownership on an image.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the notion of adding an OP / our / FM signature to reworks as a respectful consideration to the OP's protection. Or maybe we could adopt a standardized small / faint "FMPC" signature for inclusion on reworks. Thoughts

FMPC added @
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1321921/0?nc=1#12618720

Oct 13, 2014 at 11:06 AM

RustyBug

Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Thoughts On Protection ...

eeneryma wrote:
Rusty and others:
Curious what your take is on protecting your work from theft.

Don't put your images in the "legal theft" sites.

You know, those that you grant permission to use for their use (condition of site use) and then disclaim they have no control of secondary dissemination (I get that). At least not without a watermark.

The watermark still doesn't prevent theft (but is a degree of deterrent) any more than writing down the serial number of your camera does, but I think it comes down to what are you putting out there in the "steal me" marketplace ... I just don't put anything out there in the well-known feeding grounds for thieves. I'd suggest using a dedicated site of your own places them off the beaten path of the Super-Sites where the more efficient thieves frequent.

Oct 13, 2014 at 11:49 AM

eeneryma

Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Thoughts On Protection ...

When you send your images in for copyright protection, should each image have a watermark on it?

Oct 13, 2014 at 01:02 PM

AuntiPode

Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Thoughts On Protection ...

When I tweak another's image here and it has a watermark, I try to be sure the tweaked version retains it, even it I have to reposition it.

Oct 13, 2014 at 10:46 PM

ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Thoughts On Protection ...

I would not tweak a watermarked image myself. It says to me hands off.

Oct 14, 2014 at 09:53 AM

AuntiPode

Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Thoughts On Protection ...

ben egbert wrote:
I would not tweak a watermarked image myself. It says to me hands off.

To me, posting on a site to solicit critique implies permission to alter the image for the purpose of illustrating the critique. The watermark simply retains the creator's rights. I do not alter images unless they are posted here to solicit critique.

Oct 14, 2014 at 03:33 PM

AuntiPode

Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Thoughts On Protection ...

RustyBug wrote:
... Fred has included the "show signature" button, which I HIGHLY recommend we use more than we have been ... it can be a small / faint one, but we should still use it.

I am not a lawyer. I could be wrong, but I suspect there's a hole in the forum added watermarks that render the images legally vulnerable. If you click on a forum watermarked image and drag it to a program, such as Photoshop, the watermark is *NOT* included in the image copy. Therefore, it seems to me the charge of removing the watermark would not hold up in court because the offender copied a version of the image that was not watermarked. Personally, if I wanted to protect an image I'd never publish it anywhere without a watermark in the image. I would not count on the forum mechanism to add a watermark.

To illustrate the issue, go to Anurag's thread, click on an image and drag it to Photoshop. Notice his watermark is included. Then go to one of Scott's threads and click and drag one of his to Photoshop. Notice, no watermark. That's why when I edit an image watermarked by the forum I try to remember to make a screen shot copy of the watermark and combine it with the altered version. It's a slightly tedious process, but I try to do it to preserve the original rights as intended. I could start from a screen shot of the image, but that carries potential color space issues.

Oct 14, 2014 at 03:39 PM

RustyBug

Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Thoughts On Protection ...

Karen,

Good point @ the diff of the forum placed WM vs. image included WM. I never noticed the diff before.

+1 @ solicited input = no blood, no foul for making/showing edit potential ... but, still wanting to be considerate of fellow FM'ers in the best way possible if there is a better way to deal with watermarks that might get removed by a crop or were absent of a WM to begin with.

I was just brainstorming ... good catch on the technical variance aspect.

Oct 14, 2014 at 05:08 PM

AuntiPode

Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Thoughts On Protection ...

RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ solicited input = no blood, no foul for making/showing edit potential ... but, still wanting to be considerate of fellow FM'ers in the best way possible if there is a better way to deal with watermarks that might get removed by a crop or were absent of a WM to begin with.

Don't suggest it's ideal, but I TRY to keep or re-add any original watermark to each image I edit to critique. Unfortunately, it's a manual process and I can easily blunder and forget. That makes me uncomfortable and apologize if I've ever accidentally remove a watermark in error. Wish there was an automatic way, but my imagination fails at scheming a way to automate it.

Oct 14, 2014 at 05:14 PM


FM Forums \| Photo Critique \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.