Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Daft copyright question

Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 17:03   #1
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: West Sussex - England
Posts: 373
Daft copyright question

I guess it might be a daft question but if adding a copyright logo inc year to a photo is it 'normal' to include the year to the photo on the basis of the date the photo was taken or the time the photo was edited or posted etc.
i.e. If I was adding a photo that was originally taken in 2012 to my website now should I put Eos9 2012 or *Eos9 2014.
I guess its probably down to individual choice and matters little but just wonder if there was a 'standard' way so to speak.

Many Thanks
Eos9 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 4th March 2014, 17:10   #2
Opus Editor
njlarsen's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. James, Barbados
Posts: 22,638
Gut feeling is that if your post processing is minor then the art of the picture is really from 2012 and copyright should be labeled as such. If you take several images and combine them, or change colors in a drastic way (more painting than just showing the photo) then the piece of art did not exist before you did the processing and copyright should be at the time of processing (2014 in your example).

But, I am not a lawyer and can have misunderstood something.

Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean

Just moved to Barbados
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 5th March 2014, 07:57   #3
Registered User
kitefarrago's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 2,432
In the EU (and a lot of other countries) you don't have to put a copyright logo on your photo for it to be protected, in case that wasn't clear to you.

But, of course, once a photo has been posted on the web it become pretty near impossible to keep control over it. I think that copyright notices and watermarks are added to make the photo less appealing for people to nick and use. (But of course if you put your notice in a corner it's easy to crop it out.)

I'm pretty sure that what you put in such a notice will not have any legal effect, and I agree with Niels that I'd put the date of the original picture, since that's when it became protected.

kitefarrago is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 7th March 2014, 11:54   #4
Registered User

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 462
From Wikipedia:

"In the United States, the copyright notice consists of:

- the symbol, or the word "Copyright" or abbreviation "Copr.";
- the year of first publication of the copyrighted work; and
- an identification of the owner of the copyright, either by name,
abbreviation, or other designation by which it is generally known.


2011 John Smith

The notice was once required in order to receive copyright protection in the United States, but in countries respecting the Berne convention this is no longer the case. The United States joined the Berne Convention in 1989."

So technically its a relict (always was ouside theUS), but useful because putting it in your watermark (everywhere in the world) makes it a no-brainer for everyone to understand that your work is not a freebe to use!
seaspirit is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 30th May 2014, 16:18   #5
Dave Williams
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North Wales
Posts: 2,606
Professional photographers are having a tough time surviving nowadays because there are so many amateur wildlife photographers that are happy to give their photo's away for nothing purely for the kudos of seeing their pictures in print.I think the chances of having your pictures stolen for commercial gain are very slim indeed because if someone doesn't want to pay they can find someone prepared to give them what they want for nothing quite easily. If you have any doubt don't post them on the net, if you have a shot that you think has merit enough to be worth selling try approaching an agency. I have to say I have to laugh when on places like Birdguides people post prices on their shots when they are total garbage. Interestingly though, you can't steal a shot from Birdguides whereas here on Birdforum it's a doodle.
Dave Williams is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 2nd June 2014, 23:00   #6
Sporadic user
GraemeS's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Thailand
Posts: 215
I put a copyright notice in my tags, not on the photo. And I give a freebie creative commons licence by-nc-sa not because of seeking kudos (I'll never know if my photo is used somewhere I suspect), but because I like being able to download photos and resources for free, so I also lime to provide them to others for free.
Graeme S
Moved from 7D with 70-300L to E-M1 with 75-300. My shoulder is happy, at the very least.
Now have a 300mm f4 PRO. My dream lens.
GraemeS is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 22nd May 2016, 01:02   #7
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: east coast
Posts: 97
In the US, while you might place a copyright symbol and date on a printed image, or one on the Internet, defending it as your property will be difficult to address unless you have have registered it with the copyright office, thereby creating and setting a date of creation as your work and having it within government records. A major problem with the Internet, which is to say PEOPLE, is that many, many, do not realize and/or care that an image is real property, just as a car is, and feel it's there, it can be taken and used as they wish. Again, this is for the US: you can register multiple images at one time with one fee with the copyright office. If you have ambition to publish, or have an image in a magazine, I would strongly suggest you go this route so that someone else can't claim ownership and that you plagiarized it. It sounds crazy, but it happens from time time.
As noted in another post, if you are in fear of being ripped off, don't put it up, or at least watermark it since no warning will deter everyone.
fstop is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th May 2016, 08:37   #8
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Gateshead
Posts: 92
The problem with putting anything in the public domain it becomes just that: "Public" and if anyone really wants to download a pic of yours then the little copyright symbol etc will not put them off.

One solution is to watermark the pic with your name etc, but in order to be effective you wouls have to have it in an area of the image easily seen which may spoil it.

A second idea may be to disable the right click facility thus meaning it can't be downloaded, or a third option is to save it at a resolution high enough to view on a website, but low enough to discourage anyone wanting to use it for other purposes.
geordiebeginner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 2nd July 2016, 12:05   #9
Getting Back Into the Zone.
dave598's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 966
I do a lot of fire ground and fire equipment photography and that said a lot of Magazines will not pick up your photo if you have a watermark on it. But there are a lot of fire equipment photo collectors out there that will add your photo to their collection and then remove the water mark unless you put it as close to the rig as possible. I do that when I post photos on fire forums. I also have my camera set to put my copyright information in the photo details automatically.

I also try and keep a copy of the original photo, and any post production photos just in case. But your right if somebody really wants that photo their is nothing that is going to stop them. There are always ways of getting it. The honest people out there will be deterred a little by the copyright symbol.
dave598 is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Daft Question davidtucker Butterflies and Moths 9 Monday 3rd January 2011 14:15
Probably a daft question.. but? falconer2406 Canon 10 Saturday 26th June 2010 18:48
Daft question JohnZ Computers, Birding Software And The Internet 4 Friday 20th February 2009 18:30
Daft Question Fat Rat Birds & Birding 1 Saturday 15th October 2005 09:21
Daft question maybe!!!!!!! Mickymouse Lists 20 Sunday 11th July 2004 18:53


Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.14578199 seconds with 23 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.