I am going to conduct my life this way. When I see something while walking down the street if I can't ascertain who owns it within 30 seconds I'm just going to take it.
My analog work is not on the internet. My digital stuff is watermarked at a stock agency.
can someone please summarize for those not legally minded?
So now a © symbol isn't good enough on a photo? We have to "register" it with a company?
~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Originally Posted by bjp-online.com
Basically if you have some old long forgotten flickr account that has your images up on the web a company can come by and use them for whatever they want without paying you. Just take what they want.
...and these are the words of that brainiac, Marissa Mayer
"..…there’s no such thing as Flickr Pro, because today, with cameras as pervasive as they are, there is no such thing really as professional photographers, when there’s everything is professional photographers. Certainly there is varying levels of skills, but we didn’t want to have a Flickr Pro anymore, we wanted everyone to have professional quality photos, space, and sharing.” – Marissa Mayer, Yahoo Event, May 2013"
Read more at http://petapixel.com/2013/05/21/rip-...GW1fRK8Z4YY.99
unless images are REGISTERED with the copyright office
the creator has no legal leg to stand on, and no lawyer
will take the case on contingency and no court will hear the case.
people ( photographers ) thought, by pressing the shutter button,
all their "work" was automatically copyrighted/protected ... its not
even if there is the " © " next to the name, and people harvesting know this.
and unlike what some suggest it costs about 40$, you can
do a massive registration ( gang registration ) and be good to go.
if images are on flickr ( or anywhere else ) , and someone takes them and doesn't bother to
notice or "search" / write to the owner before using them it does not suggest
the work is "orphaned".
it just means that anyone with a camera and with images
can be considered a "pro" but the other edge of the sword is that some-goofball
who just likes to see his dog wearing a bandanna catching a frizbee in-print
for some gatorade/pro-feed ad won't know his image is worth 15K$ and will
say " cool 100$ im ok with that" and not have a clue.
the best of times, the worst of times.
So you are saying if you can prove it is your photograph and someone appropriated it for their own commercial purposes you don't have a leg to stand on if you didn't register your copyright?!
That would mean any commercial processing lab could just look through your negatives and chromes and cherry pick out the ones they like and start licensing them for advertising. I really don't think that's the way it works.
if you don't register your work, you are screwed.
if you take your chromes / negatives
to a lab and they cherry pick work out of it, keep the chromes and negatives
and register the copyright themselves, and license usage, and you have no
idea they did it, yes, you are hosed. MAYBE ... you can somehow prove
because the rest of the film is exactly the same ... essentially, copyright registration proves ownership.
if you work for someone, make some photographs and send them "proofs" of the work, and they scan the images
and tell you they aren't interested in them. you don't register the copyright, and notice down the road that
the person you sent them to grabbed them and used them without your consent ( and claimed "you just sent them the photographs" )
... unless you have the registration you have no legal leg to stand on. YES, in the USA you NEED the registration.
i was in a similar situation where i worked for a company, and they stole my work.
i found out the hard-way i had no legal leg to stand on, no lawyer will take the case no judge will hear it ...
i have no idea what the laws are like outside of the usa ...
BUT if you are in the USA and made photographs REGISTER THEM.
gang registration is cheap and worth every one of the 4000 pennies.