Copyrighting images

[PhilH04]

Does the Copyright remain mine as I am self employed

Yes.

or do they automatically get it as I am doing it on the time they are paying for?

No... Unless it is in a written contract.

If you are self employed then you will own the copyright, you do not have to do anything else although it may be worthwhile getting a proper contract draw up to define the copyright and usage issues.

As a general rule if you are employed i.e. on the payroll with a contract of employment then your employer will be the copyright owner.

 

[Byker28i]

What does the contract you've signed with the client say? As image creator the copyright belongs to you initially but I would suggest they would expect full copyright for final images they wish to use, the transfer of which should be negotiated/documented in your contract?

I was employed and product photography became one of my duties, but my contract/terms of employment said that any intellectual property created during work time belonged to the company and I negotiated that I could use the images for my portfolio, but it was understood at the start that the images and copyright would belong to the company.

 

[Peter Drought]

Hi can anyone help with this question. I am starting work in a marketing role and photography is a major part of the role. I will be working as a self employed consultant - can you tell me what I do about Copyright? Does the Copyright remain mine as I am self employed or do they automatically get it as I am doing it on the time they are paying for? I want to set this out right from the start but don't really know where to look for the answers.

If I can retain the copyright will simply crediting myself for the shot with the copyright sign do this?

Any help you can offer would be appreciated.

Copyright normally remains yours if you are under a self employed contract (or there is no contract), unless you have specifically assigned it away in writing (watch this, as large companies often try to trick you into signing such agreements). You don't need to add a watermark, but it can be helpful later on in legal proceedings, because it effects the infringers ability to claim they "did not know" and this in turn affects the level of damages payable. However, in practical terms though, images supplied to clients under commission are often not watermarked on their (the clients) website / marketing materials (which is generally normal practice - although you might insist on a credit elsewhere - not that it will do you much good with a potential infringer, but still insist).

The situation is different under a contract of employment where you pay tax/NI under PAYE. In that situation the copyright is normally that of the employer.

 

[Bollygum]

1. Watermark addition takes no time at all. I have it as a default option in Lightroom, selecting it off when I produce full res images.

But every time that somebody wants to use an image you need to get them a clean version. This takes time.

[QUOTE="Byker28i, post: 8077775, member: 3506"
2. Small images still get used, blog posts, facebook, websites don't need full resolution images so it doesn't limit these but it does stop sites taking your full res images and selling them. We've seen images taken sold on posters, screen background sites, mouse mats etc. Many people use free image hosting websites, from which these images are taken.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, small images are generally the ones that are stolen. But, if you load large images and people want to buy them, you just need say "download it from my site". The only work is replying to the email.

[QUOTE="Byker28i, post: 8077775, member: 3506"
3. Free use of images - this depends on your view. Large organisations have budget for this, why shouldn't they pay? I have £15K invested in camera systems, my time, efforts and expenses in producing images. This should be rewarded, but it's up to you what that reward should be, be this monetary or other value to you. Only you can decide. I have had some great opportunities through working for no money or expenses only, I've also made enough money to buy a car from a series of images that I sold to a picture agency that went worldwide and all sorts of sales inbetween. Thats my choice though, why should others steal my images and make money from my work.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, why shouldn't people pay if they can, but how much work are you going to put into that? And how many potential advertisers are you going to scare away? I don't suggest being silly, but I do suggest that one of your objectives is to get your photos out there. You can't do that if you focus on making money out of the shoplifters? What department store would do that? They allow for some "shrinkage" and take rudimentary steps to stop it. Of course Department Stores are a good example here as they are dying because of the internet. So will many of those photographers who fail to understand it.
As for you 15,000 pounds of gear that you have to pay for, I've been given more than that by customers and vendors who wish to use my photos or my name.

[QUOTE="Byker28i, post: 8077775, member: 3506"
My personal experience is also, I believe, quite informative. I've had a large number of images stolen by an individual and included on a CD collection of images sold on ebay, which took a long time to resolve as ebay were slow to move against a premium seller. I've never had an issue with modestly watermarked small images and sales, or getting images published. In the old days contact sheets were used to decide on image selection, this is just a different method. I publish images on my website or image hosting service, people contact me for usage without any issues as generally I have the images of an event or vehicle they wish to use.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds good. I can often complete a transaction with one email and an invoice. They can often just download the pictures. I'm not interested in being an accountant.

[QUOTE="Byker28i, post: 8077775, member: 3506"
I see you post small images on your website. I think you're missing a trick by stripping the exif information which wouldn't impact on the presentation of the image on your site, Watermarks are very much a personal choice. I don't like large ones across the middle, preferring smaller ones bottom right.[/QUOTE]
My website contains images posted over 10 years. The earlier pics are smaller, some even 800x600, but all of the recent images are 4k. You need to look in fungi for most of them.

I'll give you an example of how my images have spread. These are the results from google image searches on some of my images. They are quite informative and show that a large number of people have re-posted my images, usually with credits. I occasionally chase up some to make sure they do post credits, but it is rarely a problem and the high traffic posters usually comply.

https://www.google.com.au/search?tb...iXP8ra9sB5DVpHpxsuykl1H0vUujJVMVJm9LWKUVU3rXQ
https://www.google.com.au/search?tb...ccjEMqB8R7pqqZ3_1GioJy9KxbNwlOpAh3uZnJTYer7gQ

 

[PhilH04]

I agree, small images are generally the ones that are stolen. But, if you load large images and people want to buy them, you just need say "download it from my site". The only work is replying to the email.

But what is to prevent them downloading the image anyway?

I think what we have here, Steve, is that you work in quite a specialised field, although I photograph fungi, it is certainly not to the same extent.

Unauthorised use of images is a very real threat to some and when it is your source of income then one will protect that source to the best of ones ability.

It takes no time to place a discrete signature on an image, the same as it takes no time to output an image for a specific purpose.

Sadly it is a growing trend, maybe perpetuated by photographers giving away work just for a credit, that buyers/users of photography now expect to get images for either next to nothing or free, unfortunately this leads to some trawling the internet for images and just lifting them.

I would say that so far your experiences have been favourable, many have not...

 

[swanseamale47]

A discrete signature will do nothing, people will usually just crop it it out. Sadly to give images a degree of protection you need the name or copyright plastered across the image so it's nearly impossible to remove. Yes a pro probably could get out nearly anything but you reach a point where it's easier and cheaper to buy the image, and joe blokes maybe hasn't the skill.

 

[Bollygum]

[QUOTE="PhilH04, post: 8078799,
I would say that so far your experiences have been favourable, many have not...[/QUOTE]
I would agree that there is no correct answer, but I do think that many amateurs use watermarks as a mark of status rather than any real hope of selling an image. Many get lost in the idea of protecting their images rather than showing their images. Perhaps they would never sell anything anyway, but maybe they would.
I just think it is worth telling people that there is an option. No big deal if nobody believes me.

 

[Byker28i]

But every time that somebody wants to use an image you need to get them a clean version. This takes time.

You seem to be hung up on watermarks - they are a personal choice. I don't put them all over the image, just small bottom right. It takes no more real time to generate full images, than communicating with the client and discussing requirements. You seem to move in a specialised world that works for you, but the majority of image use and requests aren't like this. Lightroom, export small images with watermark, then export full images without to a separate folder. All controlled with drop down selections and quick.

I agree, small images are generally the ones that are stolen. But, if you load large images and people want to buy them, you just need say "download it from my site". The only work is replying to the email.

You still can without any work. Small fry I know but I used to shoot sunday morning youth rugby, with the money generated being used to run our team. Small watermarked images were placed on my site, business cards and an ipad displaying scrolling images in the clubhouse after the match drove traffic to my site (dual cards raw on CF, small jpeg on the SD card imported to the ipad on the walk to the clubhouse). Payment on the site generated a link to download the images, all automated.
Full sized images with all rights to do as they wished with them, print, copy, distribute but copyright was mine, was £1. Small money but priced to sell, with emphasis that all money went to our team for running costs. Over the course of a season it raised over £600 a year for several years. That still didn't stop the small watermarked images appearing on numerous parents facebook pages...

They allow for some "shrinkage" and take rudimentary steps to stop it. Of course Department Stores are a good example here as they are dying because of the internet. So will many of those photographers who fail to understand it.
As for you 15,000 pounds of gear that you have to pay for, I've been given more than that by customers and vendors who wish to use my photos or my name.

You mention rudimentary steps, yet dismiss any when it comes to photography. As for selling images, it's not, nor has ever been my main source of income. I've not had the business skills or balls to do this, but can produce a decent image. I've been lucky to be in the right place at the right time and monitise a set of images that were syndicated world wide and still occasionally appear. If I had put these full res on the internet then I would probably have received nothing. I was happy at the time, but looking at the coverage they could probably have paid off my mortgage. As I said, business skills...

Without the need to monitise all images, payment for me comes in many forms. As a car enthusiast, I was happy to be involved in car photography for a few years, opportunities to photograph F1 teams through a sponsor meant being flown to some races, opportunities to assist in producing images for magazines gave me the chance to drive and photograph exotic cars that I'd never have the opportunity to do otherwise. My best blag ended up spending 2 hours in a helicopter photographing a spitfire for publicity shots.

However, for others who's business is in producing images, then that is their product, generating their income. No one else is expected to give away their product, no workman leaves his tools around for others to use without asking. You take appropriate precautions, which is whatever you deem necessary for your given field

You seem to work in a specialised field with a workflow that works for you, but the one sized approach doesn't fit for all.

 

[Byker28i]

A discrete signature will do nothing, people will usually just crop it it out. Sadly to give images a degree of protection you need the name or copyright plastered across the image so it's nearly impossible to remove. Yes a pro probably could get out nearly anything but you reach a point where it's easier and cheaper to buy the image, and joe blokes maybe hasn't the skill.

Photoshop content aware has a pretty good attempt at removing

 

[Peter Drought]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am convinced the more I look on this thread that certain posts are being made deliberately to stir things up

 

[StewartR]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am convinced the more I look on this thread that certain posts are being made deliberately to stir things up

That's a little ironic, don't you think? What would be the right way to take this?

 

[PhilH04]

A discrete signature will do nothing, people will usually just crop it it out. Sadly to give images a degree of protection you need the name or copyright plastered across the image so it's nearly impossible to remove. Yes a pro probably could get out nearly anything but you reach a point where it's easier and cheaper to buy the image, and joe blokes maybe hasn't the skill.

Any watermark/signature can be removed full stop, stick it all across am image and the determined will still remove it...