Copyright Law

Derek.Laurence

Derek.Laurence

Suspended / Banned
Messages
231
Name
Derek
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys n Gals,

I have no reason for asking this other than general curiosity. Im also guessing that its a heavily interwoven topic with tonnes of exceptions and would like to keep this thread relatively simple.

I have seen a lot of images on this site with copyright marks on them.

Some are obviously people who have their own business and I have no issue with these.

My curiosity lies with others

1: people who simply write "©<their name>" Does this work on a legal level should it ever come to it?

2: people who write "©<their name> photography". even though they appear to be operating at a relatively amateur level. (Im not saying its impossible for these people to have their own business but realistically it looks unlikely they all do) i.e could I just put ©Derek Laurence Photography even though the company doesnt exist? Surely not?

Ill leave it at that and see what develops.

Like I said, Id like to keep it simple and not get into bum-fights over legal jargon and Facebook owning everthing put on it etc
 
As the creator of the image you automatically are the copyright holder over all that you create, weather you mark it as copyright or not, there are notable exceptions to this such as if say your a photographer employed by a company as a photographer or with photographer as part of your duties the copywrite owner will be your emoloyer normally

Edit: to clarify I'm no expert in copywrite, this is just knowledge I've picked up over recent years
 
Last edited:
the other exception is if you assign one of creative commons licenses (as found on flickr for example). You really shouldn't touch them unless you know specifically what and why you are doing it.
 
So someone watermarking their image Joe Bloggs Photography or © Joe Bloggs in effect only makes the copyright very slightly easier to prove?

so what about the instance of Jon Doe Photography where this company doesnt exist?
 
The text is meaningless, its not needed and is only really there as a promotional or egotistical emblem. The copyright is just "there" the moment you press the shutter. There are exemptions, like being employed or contracted where copyright can be disputed or different, but for a normal person, its simple.. Take the shot>own the copyright.
 
Perfect Guys

Concise and to the point. Exactly what I was after.

Thank you
 
And just to pick up on this point...
Derek.Laurence said:
so what about the instance of Jon Doe Photography where this company doesnt exist?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a company. If you're a sole trader, you can trade under a name which isn't your own, so you could be John Doe t/a (trading as) John Doe Photography, or John Doe t/a Carp Pics, or whatever you like. (There might be rules about declaring trading names to HMRC, but that's not important here.)

If the photographer is *purely* a hobbyist, I can't see the point in putting John Doe Photography instead of just John Doe, but it's not wrong and it doesn't do any harm.
 
Thanks Stewart

I didn't necessarily mean using a name that's not your own but still get your point. :)
 
If you are contractually employed (one definition being if company deducts income tax on your behalf, ie not self-employed/freelance) then with any photos you take that are in any way connected with work, regardless of time or place, there's a good chance that the company owns copyright. It will not necessarily be in your contract as this is the legal default position.

It rarely gets put to the test, but you'd be amazed at the legal rights employers have. If this is a potential problem, you should have an exclusion clause added to your contract.
 
Derek.Laurence said:
Hi Guys n Gals,

I have no reason for asking this other than general curiosity. Im also guessing that its a heavily interwoven topic with tonnes of exceptions and would like to keep this thread relatively simple.

I have seen a lot of images on this site with copyright marks on them.

Some are obviously people who have their own business and I have no issue with these.

My curiosity lies with others

1: people who simply write "©<their name>" Does this work on a legal level should it ever come to it?

2: people who write "©<their name> photography". even though they appear to be operating at a relatively amateur level. (Im not saying its impossible for these people to have their own business but realistically it looks unlikely they all do) i.e could I just put ©Derek Laurence Photography even though the company doesnt exist? Surely not?

Ill leave it at that and see what develops.

Like I said, Id like to keep it simple and not get into bum-fights over legal jargon and Facebook owning everthing put on it etc
Click to expand...

I am not a expert on copyright law, so in my option...


Somebody (say a guy) buys a cheap compact camera, takes a photo of someone else (say a girlfriend) when they were going for a walk, and puts the pic into his family album. Technically, he owns the copyright to the image, plain and simple, he holds the copyright. He do not have to be a photographer, let alone own a business, to hold copyright, even if the camera is just for snapshots and the picture is for the family album.

Say as an example, someone working for a company saw the picture, recognise that the warm winter coat the girlfriend is wearing is one of the coats that the company mades, and the woman seems to be happy, even if it is a snapshot, the photo looks perfect for the company's website or brochure or even a company calendar, so the guy takes the photo and prints it and sells the calendar or brouchure or whatever, and the company is raking in money.

They are breaking the copyright rules pain and simple. They are making money out of an image that the boyfriend took just for pleasure and for an family album. HE, even if he is not really a proper photographer, just took the photo for a family album, is well within his rights to either ask for a fee so the company can use the image or sell the copyright. He could have made some money out of it.

So he is very well enlist to stamp his photos with the copyright logo and his name, even if he is not an amaturer photographer, nor do he owns a business. The idea is that while it won't stop people breaking copyright law (don't forget they could retouch the image to remove the copyright logo), it would help make sure if someone wants to use the image, they need to ask the boyfriend first, or offer to pay.

Anyone, from those who are not really photographers and only buys a camera for shapshots, all the way via amatuere photographers, professional photograhers, to companies, can snap copyright logo on their photos.

If they stamp their names on it, but no longer exist, people who wants to use the image, would still need to track down the next-of-kin anyway, or just print as long as they make it clear image belongs to so-and-so.
 
OK lets just go back to square one.. the watermark on the picture has absoloutly nothing to do with copyright.. for or against.. the OP has a missunderstanding on what a watermark is.. when thats clear he will have answered most of his own questions :)

Watermarks are either to advertise yourself or as in my case to protect anyone copying and using without buying the picture from me ... It really does mean nothing..Because anyone can add a watermark to any picture..
 
Last edited:
Derek.Laurence said:
Hi Guys n Gals,

Im also guessing that its a heavily interwoven topic with tonnes of exceptions and would like to keep this thread relatively simple.
Click to expand...

I see exceptions have gone metric now. ;)

You can call yourself "Joe Bloggs Photography" if you wish and it's meaningless. However, as soon as you receive income from your work you will need to inform HMR&C. In fact if it your intention to trade under the name and get income using it you should be informing HMR&C.
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
the other exception is if you assign one of creative commons licenses (as found on flickr for example). You really shouldn't touch them unless you know specifically what and why you are doing it.
Click to expand...

It's important to realise that a copyright notice and a Creative Commons (or other) licence aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, it's quite the reverse, as the licence depends on copyright law to have any meaning. Licensing your work via CC gives the licensee some rights to distribute your work, for example, but you don't relinquish your copyright in anyway.
 
What they said ;)

I put watermarks on my pictures cause I don't wan them being used by any randomer, but I want to show them to people. As an amateur, I don't make money from my shots, so it would probably infuriate me if someone else did, without consent.
 
abdoujaparov said:
It's important to realise that a copyright notice and a Creative Commons (or other) licence aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, it's quite the reverse, as the licence depends on copyright law to have any meaning. Licensing your work via CC gives the licensee some rights to distribute your work, for example, but you don't relinquish your copyright in anyway.
Click to expand...

No you don't lose copyright, but you legally let go your rights to payment and potentially attribution as well.
 
daugirdas said:
No you don't lose copyright, but you legally let go your rights to payment and potentially attribution as well.
Click to expand...
I'm just taking issue with your opening "the other exception". CC licences are a complement to copyright, not an exception to it, and I thought it should be clarified, especially as the previous post to yours really did have a valid exception to the photographer owning the copyright - Work For Hire status.
 
copyright and watermarks... some of you ahve gone way off on a tangent :)
 
Derek.Laurence said:
Oh well.....
Click to expand...

From the first reply - "As the creator of the image you automatically are the copyright holder over all that you create, weather you mark it as copyright or not". That's the simple, succinct, non-technical answer you wanted. It's not 100% correct, but a 100% correct answer would involve a lot more explanation.
 
Thank you one and all ;)

©Derek Laurence .......
 
My advice is do not put watermarks or copyright notices on images. They do nothing... they're simplicity itself to remove, and ultimately, just spoils the viewer's enjoyment of the image. It's by far and away more useful to litter your EXIF data with copyright data rather than ruin the image with a pointless watermark or logo.
 
Thought someone might bring something like that up.
 
abdoujaparov said:
That's . . . unusual.
Click to expand...
I don't know whether it's unusual, but it's unnecessary. But I don't think it's deliberate - more a result of the owners not thinking it through fully. I think it will change.
 
StewartR said:
Ha ha ha. That post is NOT your copyright. You might think it is, but in fact the forum rules say that the owners of the forum own that. Discussion here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/rules-no-reposting-elsewhere.516501/
Click to expand...

oh for f***s sake - marcel has already clarified that , they claim ownership of the actual posts , so that silly buggers can't insist on a lot of stuff being deleted when they have a dummy spit and thus trash threads - they are not claiming intellectual property of the content submitted so copyright would indeed remain with the submitter
 
big soft moose said:
oh for ILIKEBARBIEDOLLSs sake - marcel has already clarified that , they claim ownership of the actual posts , so that silly buggers can't insist on a lot of stuff being deleted when they have a dummy spit and thus trash threads - they are not claiming intellectual property of the content submitted so copyright would indeed remain with the submitter
Click to expand...

Well, he explained what he was thinking when he wrote it, but nonetheless, words have meanings, and the meaning of that clause is clear. They claim ownership of all content that isn't a photograph. They don't need to do that - every other site I can think of claims a perpetual irrevocable licence to use the text, which would fulfil the stated goal of people insisting that their content be removed.
 
indeed they claim ownership of the content (ie the actual writing stored on the forum server) - not of the intellectual property that led to the creation of the content

however my core point was the marcy has already explained what he meant, and said he'll rewrite to clarify so there's no real reason for cross thread banging on about it
 
Like I said, words have meanings, and if you think those words are simply claiming ownership of the electrons that are being used to store the characters on their hard-disks, then I have a bridge to sell you. And, I'm guessing "banging on" is one of those irregular verbs - "I debate, you argue, he bangs on".


Edit: the fact they exempt photos should prove my point. If they weren't claiming copyright, there would be no need to.
 
Last edited:
Ever regret starting a thread?.....
This is my second of such a nature!
 
abdoujaparov said:
Like I said, words have meanings, and if you think those words are simply claiming ownership of the electrons that are being used to store the characters on their hard-disks, then I have a bridge to sell you. And, I'm guessing "banging on" is one of those irregular verbs - "I debate, you argue, he bangs on".


Edit: the fact they exempt photos should prove my point. If they weren't claiming copyright, there would be no need to.
Click to expand...

indeed words have meanings - I didn't have any difficulty comprehending the meanings of these words

"Basically the ethos of the rules is that the site is ours, and if we were to ban someone, they can't turn round and say "Well my username is mine, my discussion about me having a pint last friday is mine too, as I typed the words......I want you to remove every single trace of it". It's unworkable and disruptive and hence the rules.

However, if you've posted a thread over here, and want to ask the same long-winded question on another forum? Go nuts.

The rule about not copying content is to disallow those who have used our forums and it's content to create their own site (or photography section), and to stop publications for example printing posts and threads.

I'll look into rewording it :) "

seems pretty clear to me :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
seems pretty clear to me :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I remember you now. You're the one who spent half a thread mocking me and asking why I cared that WEX were advertising offers that didn't exist. The Advertising Standards Authority upheld my complaint btw, rather than "laugh and do jack" as you so charmingly put it.

We're done. Bye bye.
 
Guys, can we please keep the discussion about TP's terms and conditions in the Forum Discussion thread rather than taking this one off on a tangent?
The link's already there in Stewart's post : http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/rules-no-reposting-elsewhere.516501/

Marcel's made the intentions quite clear over there (there's nothing sinister) and committed to having a look at the wording.
If anyone still wants to discuss it though that's the place to do it - not in here.
 
abdoujaparov said:
I remember you now. You're the one who spent half a thread mocking me and asking why I cared that WEX were advertising offers that didn't exist. The Advertising Standards Authority upheld my complaint btw, rather than "laugh and do jack" as you so charmingly put it.

We're done. Bye bye.
Click to expand...

This isn't the place for re-hashing old personal arguments either.
If you have an issue with a particular member, you can either ignore them (there's even a forum option to help you do that if you need it) or report them if you think they've said something that needs staff attention.

(Although in this case, since 90% of the post is a direct quote from one of the forum owners, I can't see that there's anything to take offense at)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top