NZcaver wrote:
The problem is Teresa, you're missing the point. Last I checked any original work by you, me, or anybody else (while not under contract or in the course of a job) is automatically copyright unless you specify otherwise. It doesn't matter if you're crying over spilled milk because you feel you lost your bragging rights. If somebody copied and used your images without permission (outside of the copyright act "fair use" clause), THEY are at fault. Regardless of their motivation or yours. To assert your rights, you don't need to list your photos on istockphoto (which has really crappy caving images, by the way) or anywhere else. Nor do you need to have lost income, or be concerned about plagiarism.
I didn't miss the point. I was asking Sungura what her real objection was. Loss of income, plagiarism of work, loss of control or loss of attribution of her work? Those are the big four reasons for copyright in the first place.
You don't need to list your photos anywhere for copyright purposes, except with the Library of Congress registrar. Without registration, you may hold the copyright, but you cannot legally enforce it. The burden of proof is on the creator to prove it is their original work, which requires either formal registration, or some other means of proof of date of creation and by whom. "Poor man's copyright" is to snailmail a work to yourself to get a legal proof of date. Earlier dates supersede later ones in court.
Dates in digital files can be altered, so they do not constitute proof. Publication in dated hard copy is also a proof of date.
How to prove photos are yours? This is more difficult in digital...possession of original negatives or slides, while not 100%, makes a good argument as evidence.
In order to bring legal action, you *do* have to prove loss of income...at least $999...or that your work is being misrepresented by a third party without permission to do so (fair use exclusions apply for parody, and commentary, of course.) There is a gap between the letter of the law and actual enforcement of the law-- a gap which is generally bridged by "cease and desist" threats which work in some cases.
Develop a personal style, and people will know the photos are yours, regardless.
Not necessarily true. Photography is not quite the same as painted media or creative writing. While many photographers allow their left brain to go wild and create weird, wonderful and unique images, good photography is not all about original creativity from an artistic perspective. It's also about being in the right place at the right time, and capturing the right moment.
In many instances of nature photography, you may only have a few options of photos to take, but I disagree...anyone beyond just a snapper will have a style, or an approach that can be recognized, just as you can tell an Ansel Adams print from Edward Steichen. True, some photos are serendipitous, but many more are "recognized" or planned. And that creates style.
For example: search Google images for Alley Spring. Many of the photos are of the red mill there. There are limited places to take that photo. If you look on pages 5 and 11 you will see an identical image with different file names...it's mine, which has been taken by others and renamed. I put it up as a 35k file. Am I bent out of shape that people have stolen it? No. Do I have proof that it's mine? In this case, it was taken on film and I have the negative. (I have old slides taken by my deceased father, too. Possession isn't proof, but it is evidence that you some relationship with the images.) But, I bet you can pick out which photo is mine as opposed to all the other red mill photos on there. That's what I mean by style.
The only bunch I really detest are people who steal stuff and make money for themselves off them by using them without credit.
I agree. I don't detest anybody who uses my images without permission with no intended monetary gain. I'd just rather they ask permission first, like any reasonable person should know to do.
Even though I make most of my living from creative endeavors, the end of the public domain was a big mistake in my opinion. There still is "sort of" a public domain-- images created by the federal government can be freely used, and most state photography can be used without notification, but with attribution, as well as images set loose by the photographers. I'd personally like to see single, one-time, incidental use of images with photographer attribution be made legal. I'm often in the position I need to illustrate an article with generic stock images...say, someone canoeing, or a white tail deer...there needs to be a reservoir for such things that people could contribute to and take from. Right now, the stock photo companies are my only resource for things I personally have not taken photos of, and often things go unillustrated because of the cost of the images.
However the bit about mother nature being kind enough not to copyright the cave - while it may be true for him personally - is irrelevant to this argument. Mother nature didn't copyright Yosemite or the Tetons either, so should those images by Ansel Adams also be reproduced freely in the public domain? Just because the subject matter is public, doesn't make it right to use of somebody else's photographic image or artistic creation as you please.
Did you know you cannot take photos in a national park or forest, and many state parks, and legally use them for commercial purposes without permission? Some people even interpret this as for editorial purposes. This is something which gets skirted just as photo copyright off the Net does. More regulations to read....grrrrr
I suggest folks take a look at this online article about copyright myths. Yes it's rather dated, but the key points seem to be as relevant as ever (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Don't trust any copyright advice website, (well, perhaps the Library of Congress' is OK) including my post. Get a copy of the laws and regulations, and read them. You might be surprised what's there.