Copyright Protection Lock?

[alemar_calambro]

<p><!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --></p>

<p >Last night I was searching the web and their was a cool photo I wanted for my wallpaper. When I crop the photo and change a couple of things in photoshop when I tried to save the photo it showed a warning sign that I do not have permission to edit the photo and I also tried to edit the photo in a couple of different apps. My question is how can I do this to my photos where I have a copyright protection lock? I have seen my photo in a website without my copyright signature, I do not mind the person using my image however I want people to know I took the picture not the other person. I tried to e-mail the person however the website and photographer is Japanese and I am not fluent in Japanese.</p>

<p> </p>

[john tonai]

<p>You got a warning that you didn't have permission to edit the photo, and then you tried to get around it by using other apps? And now YOU want to protect your own images.</p>

<p>Please tell me I've got this wrong</p>

[alemar_calambro]

<p>No, the other apps did not work for me I am not trying to edit the photo and say I did this I just wanted to fix and add a couple of things in the photo and I do not think I can edit the photo without his consent. I am not trying to steal the other persons photo.<br></p>

[stevecolemanaus]

Using another persons photography as your wallpaper is stealing. He or she may not mind but give them the choice &

respect, please ask them.

[famico]

<p>What Steve said...</p>

[jimmckinnon]

<p>Perhaps those who have responded so far should consider starting their own churches, since they prefer to preach, rather than reading and responding to the OP's question. Then again, there's a lot of that going on around here, lately.</p>

<p>As I read it, Alemar attempted to make minor changes to the image to make it work as his wallpaper. A second and maybe third attempt proved to him that the protection worked, and now he would simply like information on adding such protection to his own images. I don't have his answer; hopefully someone reading this does. </p>

[dean_tomasula1]

<p>"When I crop the photo and change a couple of things in photoshop when I tried to save the photo it showed a warning sign that I do not have permission to edit the photo and I also tried to edit the photo in a couple of different apps."<br /> <br /> This is what's known as stealing someone else's work. You may be only using it for personal use and not making any money from it, but since you are not the copyright holder, you do not have the right to make any changes and use the photo without the copyright owners permission.<br /> <br /> You can argue that this is done all the time and that everyone does it, but that does not make it right -- or legal.<br /> <br /> The changes you make to the photo may not be in line with the vision the photographer has for the photo. And even if no one other than you sees it, you don't have the right to change another photographer's photos without permission.<br /> <br /> I would suggest contacting the photographer. Just because he's Japanese does not necessarily mean he doesn't speak English. You also could write an email and have Google translate it into Japanese. It won't be prefect Japanese, but I bet he'll get the idea of what you want.</p>

[stevecolemanaus]

<p>Jim saying that we should "open our own churches" since we "prefer to preach" is not helpful. I also find it lacks any understanding and is insulting.<br>

Unfortunately we now live in a world where photographers, writers, illustrators, musicians, designers and movie makers, in fact a whole host of different peoples regularly have their work stolen..... and much of the world thinks that it is ok to do so. Well it's not.<br>

This is how many of us make our living. It is how we feed our families and help raise our children. It is how we strive to save and fulfil the dreams and aspirations in our lives which many other people take for granted. And for which many other people are offered significantly greater legal and attitudinal protections then we are.<br>

How would a taxi driver feel if I did not pay at the end of the journey? How would a carpet layer feel if I wanted my computer room re-carpeted for free... to match my computer screen's new wallpaper. How would Walmart or Tesco feel if I just walked into their shops and helped myself to products off the shelf and refused to pay? I don't know what you do for a living Jim but who would you feel if you had to work and not get paid for it.<br>

If we are not inclined to answer Alemar's question, perhaps its because we don't want to. Perhaps its because we think Alemar should try harder to ask that particular person from whom he is receiving some benefit from their photography and software skills. Perhaps its because there is a greater issue here that is being ignored.<br>

Or perhaps it is because we are in fact answering the question but giving an answer he or you do not like. <br>

As I said that particular photographer may not have any problem at all in Alemar using the image as wallpaper.... but ask them. It is the right thing to do. It is polite to do so. It is respectful..... and may be if the photograph is so great Alemar might like to send the photographer a few dollars as a thoughtful note of appreciation. After all it would be the right and decent thing to do.<br>

What a wonderful world it would be if we treated each other like this.<br>

Jim I don't want to preach, but I would like some understanding. How else do we get understanding without openly addressing the issue.</p>

[jimmckinnon]

<blockquote>

<p> It is the right thing to do. It is polite to do so. It is respectful...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True, just as addressing the original question before going off on a tangent would be right, polite, and respectful. Perhaps something along the lines of:</p>

<p><em>Alemar, I'm glad you see that artists/photographers need some sort of protection from copyright violation. I do not know the program or steps the photographer used. Perhaps someone else who reads this will have that information. However, I feel it is important to remind you that using his work as your wallpaper is a violation of copyright law, even if you do not share it, sell it, or edit it in any way. The general public does not always understand this, and that is a good reason for protecting your images.</em></p>

[stevecolemanaus]

<p>Again I'm not sure that you understand what we are saying Jim.... we did not go off on a "tangent" We went right to the heart of the issue.<br>

By calling it "off on a tangent" you are seeing the issue of stealing as a side or secondary issue and trying to deflect it.<br>

I understand that we could have used words that were more helpful and gentle to Alemar, but this would not have put the issue of stealing as the point of focus and that is where it needs to be otherwise people just don't get it. Many of us have also made the point that he needs to try harder to contact the original photographer.<br>

We will just need to disagree on this. All the very best to you Jim..... cheers</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>How would a taxi driver feel if I did not pay at the end of the journey? How would a carpet layer feel if I wanted my computer room re-carpeted for free</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>While I agree ANY form of image theft is wrong, I won't preach; it's a waste of time.<br>

What you say is true. But; unfortunetly, this is not how it works in reality for photographers.<br>

Photography is taken and used w/o permission often. I see no way around it nor how to stop it.<br>

If someone takes one of my images, I need to look at a few things myself.</p>

<p>Did I lose money? If the photo was something I licensed or planned on licensing, was I smart enough to register my copyright?<br>

If I did make it public via the internet, was I stupid enough to post it at a resolution so someone could make a nice print?</p>

<p>There is nothing new here, all we can do is our best to insure our better images stay out of public display until such time we are ready to license them. If we must post them, do so at low resolutions. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>For the most part, this is being looked at all wrong. Unless photographers want to go the way the music industry is going, it's important to look at the changes in technology and find ways to fit within the resulting environment.</p>

<p>The monetary value of wallpaper is extremely low. Being generous, we can say that each usage is worth about a penny. With treble damages, a court could award four pennies. Is that really worth it to anyone? I've seen shots I've sold being used as wallpaper and it's never occurred to me ask for four pennies. Frequently, they're not even taken from my site.</p>

<p>Which brings me to another point. If photos have monetary value and are sold with web usage rights, then they can legitimately be posted somewhere on the net at higher resolution, where it's easy to take them for a use like wallpaper or even printing. As I said above, I've seen shots of mine used as wallpaper, and I know they have been lifted from client sites. What am I supposed to do, tell them not to post them after they've paid for them? Am I supposed to watermark them so they can't use them? They wouldn't pay if I did that. And some have been used for press kits where high resolution is essential.</p>

<p>The real issue for photographers should be usage in situations that would normally require payment, such as advertising or promotion, or where it is being re-broadcast to a large community. By putting efforts into that, instead of value-less usage like wallpaper, photographers might have a chance at doing better than the music industry. However, this will point out that the vast majority of cries of "theft" are for images with no commercial value, as the percentage of photos that have real financial value is minuscule.</p>

<p> </p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>I agree with the spirit of <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4199263">Jim McKinnon</a>'s comment- a call to get to the point. Interesting, right after his post comes another repeat of the nonanswer.<br>

We still don't have a response to the OP's question. For those "preaching" (not my term, but still not wholly off base either), wouldn't getting to the point of discussing anti-theft technology-- the original question-- do more to spread the use of it (copyright protection), than more preaching?</p>

[alemar_calambro]

<p>Just got a e-mail from the photographer(had to use a translator). I apologize for making it look like I wanted to steal the photo from the photographer. That was not my attention for this post. However the lock has nothing to do with copyright it has to do with a layer lock. Thanks for all the response.</p>

[paul_skelcher1]

<p>I'd still like to know more.<br>

What's a layer lock, and which website?<br>

Paul</p>

[davidyoung]

<p>The tangent discussions aside, I would also like to know how this happened and does anyone know of available software to do this. The fact that the warning happened at all is good information. It can be done.<br>

Anyone?</p>

[stevecolemanaus]

<p>Hi Alemar, many thanks for efforts in contacting the photographer. Im not aware of a workable locking solution which would stop people working on your image. However on the issues of software protection of copyright and monitoring of usage, this is an industry which is still very much in its infancy. There are no perfect workable solutions as yet. There are a few companies trying to develop a software solution. One company is PicScout. Their web address is http://imageregistry.com/. They appear to be working with all the big photo libraries as partners and clients and have a product which looks promising. But its early days. I would encourage you to also register every one of you images with the United Sates Copyright Office. Here: http://www.copyright.gov/register/ <br>

And anyone from anywhere in the world can register their images here. It costs about $35 per application for an almost unlimited number of images. While you do have general copyright protection by default no American court is likely to want to hear your case unless you have your images registered. And few lawyers would be interested in taking you as a client unless you've got that registration. <br>

There are also a number of software companies working on linking the copyright monitoring software to a net based pay for usage service so that if someone wanted to use your image for anything they would pay a small to large fee to do so. Again this is early days but will move fast in the next few years. Again PicScout is a good place to start. It may mean we all get to become our own photolibraries. Funny how things go around.</p>

 

[alohadave]

<blockquote>

<p>While you do have general copyright protection by default no American court is likely to want to hear your case unless you have your images registered. And few lawyers would be interested in taking you as a client unless you've got that registration.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You also have to have your picture registered within 3 months of publication to be able to be awarded statutory damages. If you register after you find infringement, you can only be awarded actual damages and profit.</p>