Has anyone else seen this? It looks like it's from ASMP-NY, but I can't find anything on their site connecting them. It seems pretty straightforward. But, I think the meaning will be lost on some people.
Registrant Name:Gigantic Marketing Inc.
Registrant Organization:Gigantic Marketing Inc.
Registrant Street1:90 West Street
Registrant Street2:#20K
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:New York
Registrant State/Province:NY
Registrant Postal Code:10006
Registrant Country:US
The various ASMP chapters operate fairly independently and it definitely looks like something the NY chapter would do. If you're really curious you could email Stephen Mallon, chapter president, and ask him...he's been pretty responsive to me in the past.
I like it. I'm sure the meaning will be lost on some people, but some people (many, actually) don't want to understand no matter what arguments are made.
Greg Hawkins wrote:
yeah i always wonder why people post without the Copyright symbol on the picture.
posting a photo is like leaving your car in a parking lot with the keys in the ignition, sure its your car and you don't expect people to steal it, but come on, this is the real world. a 15 year old girl is allowed to walk around downtown in a bathing suit at 3 am, but she doesn't for a reason, cause we cant be trusted. lock your car, out on some clothes, and copyright your photo. it's like people are allergic to using their head....Show more →
Nonsense. Copyright protection is a 'right' and it applies to all unique works with no exceptions. The posting of the notice does provide additional protections, but using it on everything all the time (little jpgs posted on the internet) isn't always necessary--it's often silly.
It's the registration of the work with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress that provides the legal protection for you work, not the copyright symbol in your image. While just creating the work does indeed give the creator the "copyright" to the art, registration gives the author specific additional legal means to be compensated for infringements.
In addition, the DMCA can afford you some very simple and inexpensive tools to have infringed upon images removed from any website, provided, of course, that it is a legitimate infringement claim.
The tradition is to put the copyright symbol on the image, but the symbol is not necessary to enforce the image's copyright. Certainly people should be entitled to put a copyright symbol on their photos as they choose, perhaps because doing so may be more likely to deter a potential infringing party. Or they are entitled not to put any symbol. Why anyone would care what anyone else does with their images is beyond me.
polarbare wrote:
It comes off as aggressive and arrogant, a la Metallica responding to Napster.
I agree. I think I'm one of those people Bruce said the idea will be lost on. I really don't see the difference between displaying it on my monitor in a web page, as wallpaper, or on my wall in a frame. Claiming it as my own work would be really childish and lame tho. I think as long as I'm not selling it, gaining physically/monetarily from it, or distributing it outside my personal scope then everything's cool. I kinda feel that if that's not kewl with the photographer then he won't post it. I post mine with the full knowledge that someone may indeed behave on the same assumptions/beliefs I myself hold. I even try to make my posted images large enough in order to facilitate it.
I fully support the idea of teaching people about copyright, and trying to reduce infringement, I just think that dontscrewus.org isn't doing it in a meaningful (or productive) way.
The video is actors 'stealing' the images. Too scripted for me so it loses effectiveness. The 'man on the street' effect only works when you know it is the real deal.
A copyright symbol does not protect the image. Removing this distraction takes seconds.
Degrading the image beyond any use (high JPG compression, logos all over the image) is not worth seeing. Remember, your portfolio is your presentation to the world. You don’t want to make a bad impression, are you?
It’s a myth that you can protect your images against a motivated thief. I would invest the energy is a good presentation. Good images displayed without any distraction.
Someone steals your image? Try to make a business deal or just sue him. It’s worth trying to educate visitors of your website, but as I already said, … a motivated thief will not be distracted by your copyright notices.
Hendrik wrote:
It’s a myth that you can protect your images against a motivated thief.
Someone steals your image? Try to make a business deal or just sue him. It’s worth trying to educate visitors of your website, but as I already said, … a motivated thief will not be distracted by your copyright notices.
A motivated thief is not what photographers should be worried about. They should be worried about someone who casually lifts images without regard to the ethics or legality of doing so, and there are a lot of methods that deter a large percentage of casual users from lifting images. A copyright notice is one of those methods. The majority of people who lift images are not motivated thieves, they are casual users. A couple weeks on this board and that fact is made abundantly clear.
You don't lock your car door at night to deter a motivated thief, because he will just break the window. You deter the guy who walks house to house just looking for an open door and moves on if he can't find one.
No, the unmotivated thief will not even take the time to remove your copyright statement, they use it just the way they lift it from your website.
I have seen images on websites, papers and other small publications with copyright notices still on it.
Really, if someone sees an image they like and want to keep, they just copy it to their computer, regardless of any warning or copyright notice. They want the image and it's easy.
mdude85 wrote:
A motivated thief is not what photographers should be worried about. They should be worried about someone who casually lifts images without regard to the ethics or legality of doing so, and there are a lot of methods that deter a large percentage of casual users from lifting images. A copyright notice is one of those methods. The majority of people who lift images are not motivated thieves, they are casual users. A couple weeks on this board and that fact is made abundantly clear.
You don't lock your car door at night to deter a motivated thief, because he will just break the window. You deter the guy who walks house to house just looking for an open door and moves on if he can't find one. ...Show more →
Yep, I think Hendrik's got it right. What I think you good folks are referring to as a "motivated thief" is a despicable character looking to cash in on someone else's entire portfolio (or several even). That and/or use it in a commercial product or project. Those guys suck!
I don't think Hendrik is disagreeing with me. I'm not quite sure what is he saying, though.
I'm basically saying that anyone who has a true desire to steal an image will find a way to do so. There is no way to prevent it except not to upload the images at all. But a variety of protective measures can be implemented to deter the majority of internet users, because a majority of internet users are not motivated to steal an image by whatever means necessary. A copyright notice deters more people than you might think. People are afraid of copyright notices and legal disclaimers because they do not have knowledge about how to defend themselves against same. There is no harm in applying a copyright notice, only benefits, even if they are not immediately clear.
Well, maybe in the US people are afraid of copyright notices, although I can hardly believe it. The people I know (normal people) are not afraid of any copyright notice, whether it is on a DVD, a book, an image or whatever. They copy the image or the entire website and use it if they want. Most people just like to watch your beautiful images more often and don’t have awful plans with them.
My point is that a (large) copyright notice doesn’t give you any real protection, it only distracts from the image, so your portfolio is suboptimal. There is one positive aspect, if you put your name on the image, they can trace the original owner a little bit faster if they think they need to contact you. Many people are not aware of the IPTC data. So, a little, almost non-distracting name on the image can give some benefit, but (imho) do not have the illusion that it gives you any protection.
Maybe in the US a copyright notice is mandatory to give you legal protection, I don’t know. Problem is that almost never you will know that people use your image without your consent.
Greg Hawkins wrote:
im not saying putting a big C means anything legally, it just prevents others from using your photo, or put your name on the photo.
As another poster responded to your earlier post: "Nonsense". A Copyright symbol does not stop someone using your image. At all. Under any circumstances. Someone will always find a way to use your image if they want to, logo, copyright or no. A crop is often the simplest way of removing a copyright symbol seeing as most notices are small and put in a corner. Even a full image logo can be removed I would imagine with some work.
