Mon, June 14th, 2004 by Kris Bell
I've spent hours upon heaps of hours browsing through the sites listed here at Photoblogs.org, and one thing I've discovered is that there are as many different copyright and image-protection schemas as there are layouts. Some use image-editing software to imprint each and every picture with a brief copyright blurb—"©2004 IDWIC," for example. Others detail accepted usage on their "about" pages, and some list it on ever page. In a few cases photobloggers use javascript to disable the save feature; in a few others, photos are encapsulated in Flash files.
Personally, I use a Creative Commons license to protect mine. My license basically says that you can use my photos as you like, as long as you don't make any bling off them, as long as you give me credit, and as long as the derivative work is released under a similar license. I'm not too concerned with people taking my photos and turning them into banner art for their weblogs, or something along those lines. But if Wal-Mart happens by and feels like it needs a photo for one of its fliers, then I'll come a knockin' for my cut.
I'm curious as to who else uses Creative Commons licenses, and if they feel these are sufficient protection. I've heard photographers argue that as long as their work is up on the web it's unprotected. And I've seen those who will only post ridiculously small images on their gallery sites as a way of protecting their work. On the other hand, most photobloggers tend toward large images (many of mine are 700x525 pixels—large enough for a decent 3x5 print) . . . Also, does anyone here use a robots file to keep Google from indexing images?
June 14th, 2004 at 1:10 pm
Interesting topic. I was doing some research on licensing and copyright, and at least for the United States, here's what I found out:
Just by putting the words "Copyright" or the symbol © and your name (on every page of your website) provides you with copyright protection...BUT if you want dispute your copyright you need to register it with the Library of Congress. These last until the life of the author PLUS an additional 70 years.
More info can be found here:
http://www.copyright.gov/
http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/Register.htm
http://www.lawgirl.com/registration.shtml
Law terms can be frighteningly difficult to understand, but these sites are surprisingly easy to read.
Licensing gives us the right to tell people how they can use our photos - Creative Commons is a great resource for the law-terms-phobic. Your photos can be both copyrighted and licensed.
Personally I use a copyright - no I haven't registered my work. I used to have modified .htaccess files to keep people from hotlinking my stuff, but that prevented thumbnails from showing in my xml feeds. I'm not too worried about people stealing my work - it's kind of flattering that someone would use my photographs...BUT if someone were making $$BLING$$, then I'd be pissed...I need to look into that licensing thing.
June 14th, 2004 at 1:38 pm
Here's something to think about regarding Creative Commons:
http://www.powazek.com/2004/02/000372.html
June 14th, 2004 at 1:44 pm
I use the Creative Commons License as well. If you really think about it - 99.9 percent of us are basically honest and trustworthy. With that thought in mind the CCL is sufficient to inform those that are interested how we, as the photographers, feel about the use.
For the other 0.01 - they will do what they want regradless of our wishes. In a sorta sad way - there is not much we can do to prevent the abuse, only react to it. If someone REALLY wants to steal my work - they will - then I'll nedd to decide how choked I am about it.
June 14th, 2004 at 2:02 pm
I have had this discussion often with my brother, who is a professional photographer, because he and several of his colleagues are concerned about people thieving their pictures from the web.
Unless you want to use Digimark or something similar (pricey), there really isn't anything you can do to keep people from snatching your pictures from a web site. There are ways around every measure -- (disabling the right-click, etc. -- that I am aware of.
As far as watermarks go: YUCK. They look tacky and detract from the image. It seems to me that if you have the original -- file or negative -- and you properly reduce the image for web viewing, the image that people can copy is at a high enough resolution to look good on a monitor but a low enough resolution to make a print look pretty crappy. And if you are in the business of selling photos, anyone who would settle for a print of a low-rez image is probably not going to be a customer anyway. I'm not sure how you keep people from using your photos on another web site. Just a hazard of the medium.
Myself, I'd be happy -- hell, flattered -- to share my images on request or for a low fee. I use the create commons license as well...for all of the good it does.
June 14th, 2004 at 2:07 pm
"Just by putting the words "Copyright" or the symbol © and your name (on every page of your website) provides you with copyright protection"
Nope, it's not even that complicated. Every work is protected by copyright law the moment it is "created in fixed form." You have copyright protection for all your photos without using any copyright tag (as of a 1989 change in the law).
The use of a copyright tag (like copyright 2004 Joseph O. Holmes) is helpful under certain circumstances. For example, it could help keep the person you're suing from claiming innocent infringement, which would cut down on the damages they'd have to pay. That's about it.
Me, I'm in favor of the Creative Commons License, partly because I believe that it encourages wide distribution and exposure of art, right up to the point where someone wants to make a profit. At which point, the author gets a share.
June 14th, 2004 at 2:43 pm
Joseph, I think that's one thing I was hoping this post might bring to light for some photobloggers--that a Creative Commons license might provide a good alternative to restrictions that come with a generic copyright. It really is a great organization, and one that suits the needs of Photobloggers perfectly.
Beerzie Boy: I'm with you, man. Watermarks blow. I won't spend half the time on watermarked image as I will on a pristine, unaltered one.
June 14th, 2004 at 4:03 pm
i also use a creative commons license. since i use blogger(tm), my images don't show up in google's(tm) cache files, and people can't just "steal" an image with the photos url. they won't show up unless they are on my site. most people don't take the time to actually save a photo on their own server, and if they do i will find them.
June 14th, 2004 at 4:26 pm
I use an .htaccess file to stop people from re-posting images directly from my server (a bandwidth thing) and I have a traditional copyright line at the bottom of each page on my site.
My thinking is in-line with the Derek Powazek post that Brandon linked above. I am somewhat open about the use of my photos in a number of venues but I always want full control over how the images are used.
I post my images quite large on screen and they could be freely downloaded or screen captured. I've never had my images used without permission as far as I know but I know people who have (even for purely commercial uses).
Unfortunately the legal cost of chasing down these people can be somewhat prohibitive but a formally worded cease and desist letter usually does the trick.
June 14th, 2004 at 5:56 pm
my photographs have published under a creative commons license for some time. i must say that i'm always pleasantly surprised when i come across my work elsewhere though i'm not sure that how i would feel if my work turned up in a scenario to what derek outlines in his post. i'll deal with that when it arises rather than limit myself by the idea that it might happen.
if you do find your work posted without your permission (or in the case of a cc license, accredited) and get no response from the individual, i've found that the best way to deal with offfenders is to go straight to their isp.
course, if their hotlinking, you can always go the way of replacing the original image with nasty porn or "[insert name] steals images". a couple of years ago, i found one of my images hotlinked into a very busy, popular bulletin board. i read the dude's profile, found out his name and replaced the original image with "[his name] has a very small penis." he was rather livid and threatened so sue me for slander, but i never heard from him after that...
June 14th, 2004 at 6:08 pm
note to self, don't anger heather. :O that's a great solution.
June 14th, 2004 at 6:46 pm
LOL Heather! hahahah. I spat my coffee giggling.
June 14th, 2004 at 7:16 pm
Uh, Heather, that was me, and I have the burning hatred of a thousand suns in my heart.
Joking, joking.
It never occurred to me that I could use a .htaccess file to stop hotlinking, but now, of course, it makes sense. Then again, now that my site is hidden from Google, and it no longer happens, the point is moot . . . but still, good to know.
June 14th, 2004 at 10:08 pm
Take some time and fully read this.
http://www.apanational.com/value/default.asp
http://www.pacaoffice.org/copyright.html
http://www.copyright.gov/
June 15th, 2004 at 12:17 am
I'm so glad Derek posted that. I'm a firm believer in traditional copyright, too. It's interesting how that word is starting to become demonized...
June 15th, 2004 at 5:30 am
I admit that I do use watermarks, but they're generated on the fly by a php script - so if I ever change my mind about them I can just remove the script and won't have to re-edit all my old images.
Having said that, I think I'd rather not have a watermark at all. I don't think it's that effective - if it's small enough to be unobtrusive, it's small enough to be easily cropped.
Oh, and I have a feeling that no-one would want to steal my images anyway
I'm not sure there *is* an answer to this.
June 15th, 2004 at 6:12 am
I use the good old copyright as well. I have no illusions, that it will stop [insert name of evil persons] from stealing my images, but it's a reminder for those with some manners and integrity left. It's not like everyone is really aware of the copyright laws.
Here in germany every artistic work, including photographs, is automatically protected by law. Quite simple, just could get complicated with co-artists and modells, but thats normal.
June 15th, 2004 at 6:15 am
Oh right, about the CCL. Thats a good licensing system, but I don't use it for my images. Mostly because I like to know what is done with my images. I would allow a lot of free usage, but I want to know the purpose, so I prefer the traditional copyright.
June 15th, 2004 at 7:05 am
Copyright all the way.
I'm not that concerned with thieves profiting from my images per se, but I hate the idea that an image I've taken of another person could be used in a context that I'm uncomfortable with or find outright offensive.
I don't use an .htaccess, although maybe I should if bandwidth gets outta hand. I've noticed a lot of people linking directly to my images in their own blogs (specifically stumbleupon.com). I like that though.
June 15th, 2004 at 7:08 pm
Enlighten me on the .htaccess. Right now I'm using it as a redirect from an old web page. (waiting for the fix of changing the URL here at photoblogs.org).
I guess what I'm asking what would the code be to block hotlinking. Probably should search on that one but a great thought of its use.
June 16th, 2004 at 10:30 am
The .htaccess is something in this format:
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)?domain.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteRule \.(gif|jpg)$ - [F]
But I would look into it further for your specific needs.
June 17th, 2004 at 7:47 am
Thank you Davin. I'll give it a shot.
June 17th, 2004 at 2:08 pm
This dicussion is great, lots of good insights and links.
Copyright and rightful ownership is something that is easy to prove if a case arises. I don't use the CC license because I don't want to encourage usage of the images just appreciation, I'm not a free stock agency. If someone wants to use an image I would like to know why and I would in most cases be accomidating.
June 26th, 2004 at 11:05 am
I thake the view that if a photo of mine gets "stolen" then....
1) if it's a publication then this is a good thing. I can make a fuss, get free publicity if nothing else, and a shot at applying for money from the UK's DACS copyright-payback scheme.
2) I just have to make five more photo's tommorrow. They can't steal your _brain_!
July 4th, 2004 at 10:04 am
I'm a bit late to this thread. Just wanted to say that for the Java script that disables right-click for saving, If you view the [web page] source code in your browser, you can usually find the URL that the photo points to. Copy that URL and paste back into your browser address window and it will ofen load the image (of which you can then save or print it).
Pointing this out in case someone thinks that the Java script is an end-all, meets-all blocker.
-later,
DD
November 19th, 2005 at 2:51 am
Do you have any suggestions for those who don't code themselves but use a blog template. I have a blog @ blogspot.com and I want to protect the pictures I post. Is there any way of manipulating the template code to incorperate this?
November 19th, 2005 at 2:52 am
(and by protect, I mean prevent the lay person from saving them from the page)
November 26th, 2005 at 1:25 am
There's absolutely no way to protect your images from being downloaded off the net if you put them up. There are various clumsy methods to distract or deter people from saving them but if someone really wants to they can without difficulty. It takes half a second to create a screen shot of the page from which your image can be cropped. Some modern browsers, like firefox, even come with a built in 'media browser' which allows you to view a list of media, including images, on the page and save them directly.
If you put images up on the net people will be able to save them, there's no way to prevent this effectively. Watermarking your images can be one way to at least prevent false attributions, but no one likes having one because it makes an image harder to view.