Copyright and Ownership- is there a difference?

[eye4animage]

<p>I was told today that one MUST register every item to hold an actual copyright to that specific item. I was always under the assumption- especially with photographers- that you, the photographer, own the copyright because you are the creator of the image. Aren't the two synonomous with one another? </p>

[photomark]

<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork">http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork</a>

[john_a5]

<p>Registration of your copyright does not affect your having copyright or ownership. The difference is that if you register the work before (or within a certain period of first publication) an infringement, you will have extra protections under the law (more in terms of financial impact than actual legal implications). (That is, here in the US)</p>

[eye4animage]

<p>Thank you! I thought the info I was given today seemed a little misguided!</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I was always under the assumption- especially with photographers- that you, the photographer, own the copyright because you are the creator of the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

BTW, this is not true under the situation of "work for hire."</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I was told today that one MUST <a id="itxthook0" href="../business-photography-forum/00b2wJ?unified_p=1" rel="nofollow">register<img id="itxthook0icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> every item to hold an actual copyright to that specific item.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just curious, what was the context of the discussion about? </p>

[eye4animage]

<p>For John H.:<br>

I posted some family pics on Facebook last week and my step sister edited some of them herself and reposted. Her sister-in-law asked if she could make copies or if she needed permission. My step sister said there was no copyright on the images so she could do whatever she wanted with them. I then replied with the fact that I was actually the copyright holder and when I had done my niece's grad photos, Wal-mart (where she was getting them printed) would not print them without me signing a release. (do you follow?)<br>

She has been trying to tell me I don't own the images nor the copyright without me actually registering them with the US Copyright Office (she actually copied and pasted a section of the "What is covered by a copyright."<br>

I was just wondering because, as I said, I've always thought that I owned the copyright to my images regardless of taking them for anyone (BTW, I've NEVER been paid for doing photos).</p>

[eye4animage]

<p>Here is the actual link: <a href="faq-general.html#protect">What does copyright protect?</a><br>

<strong>What does copyright protect?</strong><br />Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, <br />computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, <br />systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things <br />are expressed. See Circular 1, <em>Copyright Basics</em>, section "<a href="../circs/circ1.pdf">What Works Are Protected</a>."</p>

<p>She obviously failed to read the paragraphs below that stated that registration is not mandatory. I guess I missed that too since I didn't totally research her post...lol! </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>If you don't want her to use your images, you might advise her of the language she provided although some other incorrect rationalization may be offered such as her adjustments being, in effect, a brand new work. If that didn't work, then you could do a DMCA takedown notice. The reaction to that and family dynamics may make that undesirable however. She might be advised of the rule but allowed to use it, maybe with the understanding that alterations not be done. You are in the best position to know what the reaction will be or if you should allow them to be used in some way.</p>

[eye4animage]

<p>Thanks again everyone. I've taken it upon myself to delete photo albums containing any work that I consider to have been done on a semi-professional basis (and those I would like to include on my website). I think this is part of the reason why there has been such a stir about the copyright. I'm only trying to do what I feel is right by retaining the images until I actually have the opportunity to present them to her (as they were done for an early Christmas gift). I was more offended that she had taken it upon herself to edit them before I could actually give them to her, but in this world of technology, anyone can copy almost anything to make it their own... it was my mistake by posting them so early.</p>

[john_h.1]

If the images were intended for the same relative, I would just let it go. Posting them probably had a teaser effect and

there is the psychology of the images being for her anyway. Even if the usage were explained, it just isn't going over well.

It is a gift afterall which usually doesn't have conditions. Even as to the editing, in the spirit. of being a gift, it seems less of

a concern. It may be best not to mix business officialdom with family.

 

BTW, posting on your website still leaves them open for people to take. Especially those who thinks its OK without

registration.

[eye4animage]

<p>So, the next question would be- how do you protect yourself from this happening as frequently (not PREVENT because this is impossible)? I realize that having FLASH sites help to alleviate some of the copying and editing, etc as well as having your copyright on your images. However, I was reading that even having the copyright on images doesn't prevent copying as people are now keen to cropping images to remove copyrights for their own use. My solution to this would be placing a slightly trasparant copyright somewhere across the point of interest/main focus on the image. Or would this be something suggested against? </p>

[john_a5]

<p>Many people watermark their images so that they cannot be easily printed by someone who doesn't have the skill to remove it. You can also add space at the bottom of the photograph where you post the copyright symbol, your name and the statement that copying this image without permission is a Federal crime.</p>

<p>You can even add the attached symbol to your work now, which might deter people from taking the images:</p>

<p>http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/white_collar/ipr/anti-piracy</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>One has to ask what the concern is. Is there a market for your images? If so, why aren't you selling them instead of spending time on what is probably people lifting them for personal use?</p>

<p>I bring this up because there is something completely missing here. I sell photos. I don't sell them with watermarks, people are not buying them so they can look at my watermark. They then put them on the web without any watermark, with a credit line instead. <a href="http://spirer.com/Fights/index.html#15">My most copied image</a> (probably over 500 sites by now) was not lifted from my site. It was lifted from a business that purchased the image and put it on their web site. It's turned up on posters, flyers, websites, and probably in print usage I haven't seen. It's been re-posted to web sites with people claiming it's their own But there's no choice for me, except not having sold it in the first place and losing the revenue. Same with everything I shoot and sell.</p>

<p>So a lot of this concern is really misplaced. I watermark everything I can but mostly so people will contact me for usage. </p>

[JohnElderRobison]

<p>If you are an individual who takes pictures for fun - not an established photography business - the fact that you have a copyright interest in your images may not mean much in circumstances such as you describe. If someone copies your image online, you can indeed notify the host of the site and have them taken down, but do you want to do that with relatives? The only thing that would stop a place like Wal Mart from copying a printed image would be the presence of a copyright notice on the original print. Indeed, if you want to sell prints yourself, it would be wise to mark your prints in that way, with your own web address so they can then order from you.<br>

The big thing professionals get from actually registering copyright on specific images is the right to sue for damages (another word for lost revenue) if an images is later published commercially. You can't generally win a damages award unless the copyright was actually registered before the infringement.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>You can't generally win a damages award unless the copyright was actually registered before the infringement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Surely you mean that the advantage of registering copyright is the right to elect to claim statutory damages rather than the more usual actual damages? You can still claim damages for unregistered works. There's a nice summary in the 'Copyright Law of the United States' section on Wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States">here</a>, scroll down to the heading 'Monetary damages'.</p>

[JohnElderRobison]

<p>Right Simon, the registration of copyright dramatically increases your chances of winning a substantial award for damages; what we might call a punitive award in the USA. The scope of award is limited without registration</p>