Also, although technically in the U.S. every creator of a photograph has a copyright at the moment of creation, in Real World practical terms you must also actually go through the process of registering said copyright with the Copyright office to truly be afforded legal protection. Then, yes, big penalties kick in and even bigger ones if the appropriator cropped out or otherwise removed your copyright watermarks.
A copyright watermark implies that you register your photographs and so has the effect of being a deterrent to theft. But to actually protect yourself, get a copyright lawyer to protect you, etc. you need to actually follow through and register your copyright (which costs money and most people, heck even most photographers, don't do that). If your images are being stolen, however, it can much more than pay for itself. A lot of photographers make more money from prosecuting (and settling out of court with) copyright violators of their work, than from legitimate sales and licensing of their work. On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Malcolm Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > John wrote: > >> For a definitive answer, you really need a lawyer. >> >> But, I'm pretty sure current law is that copyright protection for old >> photos is "life of the author + 70 years". So whoever took the photo >> owns the copyright and/or his heirs own it for 70 years after his >> death. >> >> http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/special-topics/duration-and- >> the-public-domain/ >> >> See the section "Works created before 1978 but not Published before >> 1978:" >> >> As a practical matter, if no one can say for sure who actually took the >> photograph, it's an orphan work. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works_in_the_United_States >> >> If you're copying them to preserve digital copies of a deteriorating >> physical image (i.e. fading prints or slides) for purely personal use, >> that might fall under "fair use" a la the Betamax Case. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_S >> tudios,_Inc. > > This really is lawyer territory, because it is so easy to muddy the water. I > can see for someone using such an image commercially it is a potential > minefield. So much easier using your own images (the point of photography to > me), but now also ensuring someone else isn't using them too. We have seen > list members suffer this issue recently. Some I can just about understand, > but not when people take the image from somewhere they can clearly see who > the copyright owner is, and often strip copyright watermarks from the image > before using it themselves. Those people are the real problem. > > Malcolm > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
