Protecting One's pictures! Simple things we can all do

Marshall Everett said:

Hi John,
Thanks for the kind thoughts. On my original post is a link to a larger image. do you want one larger than that? Can do if needed.

Asher - as I am still learning the code stuff, can you please explain what you are telling me.

Thank you -- Marshall

Click to expand...

Marshall,

When one opens the picture in photoshop one can go to File, -Info and there one will find space to fill in .

so you could right your name in as Author, add a Title, if you wish but ALWAYS complete the copyright section. Put in under Copyright: Copyrighted and then OPTION G or on the PC ALT G to generate the © sign. Then add your name and the year. So it would be © Marshall Everett 2010, (henceforth referred to as the "© owner"), all rights reserved.


In Rights Usage, you might choose to add the following or have your lawyer give you something else:

It's forbidden to copy of store this in any media known today or to be devised in the future or to use this work to make derivatives in any medium or to sample this for other works without applying for an obtaining for each specific and limited case and purpose a license for such limited use by the © owner. Notwithstanding such permitted use, all the rights obtainable from exploitation of this image always remain the exclusive property of the © owner.

You might add your email address for licensing. It can be written with AT replacing @ so it's not harvested by spammers.

Some people will hoard other people's pics but this is not likely to cause loss. It's the use of one's images without paying a licensing fee that's important to stop and for that one needs to show that one didn't just throw one's creation into the public commons! Then we can just hope some rich company falls in love with it!

Asher

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

Marshall,

When one opens the picture in photoshop one can go to File, -Info and there one will find space to fill in .

so you could right your name in as Author, add a Title, if you wish but ALWAYS complete the copyright section. Put in under Copyright: Copyrighted and then OPTION G or on the PC ALT G to generate the © sign. Then add your name and the year. So it would be © Marshall Everett 2010, (henceforth referred to as the "© owner"), all rights reserved.

Click to expand...

I'm confused. Following your detailed instructions for entry, the string would read:

'Copyrighted © Marshall Everett 2010'

not

'Marshall Everett 2010 all rights reserved'

as your discussion then suggests, or perhaps even:

'© Marshall Everett 2010, (henceforth referred to as the "© owner"), all rights reserved'

Do you suggest that the '(henceforth referred to as the "© owner")' be made part of the copyright notice, or is that just for purposes of the rest of your discussion?

In either case, does '© owner' mean (in your example):

'Copyrighted © Marshall Everett 2010'
'Marshall Everett 2010'
'Marshall Everett'

I would assume the latter, but your discussion does not make that clear.

[/quote]It's forbidden to copy of store this in any media known today or to be devised in the future or to use this work to make derivatives in any medium or to sample this for other works without applying for an obtaining for each specific and limited case and purpose a license for such limited use by the © owner. Notwithstanding such permitted use, all the rights obtainable from exploitation of this image always remain the exclusive property of the © owner.[/QUOTE]

Again, here do you intend that "the © owner" be replaced by the actual name of the copyright owner, or is the intent that it be used literally, intended to benefit from the equivalence suggested (maybe) in the basic copyright notice?

If neither, then "the © owner" is probably not good form. I do not believe that the symbol "©" is suitable as a general abbreviation for the word "copyright", but rather is only for use in a formal copyright notice.

But of course I'm no lawyer, copyright or otherwise.

By the way, the format recommended by the U.S. Copyright Office for a copyright notice proper is:

'© 2007 Jane Doe'

[Note the sequence of elements.]

Best regards,

Doug

I agree with the points raised by Doug, especially this last one. My use of the copyright notice is:
Copyright © 2010 Cem Usakligil. In other words, just like the recommendation of the US Copyright Office; but with the added prefix "Copyright" as the symbol © in itself may not be explicit enough when used globally.

PS: Alt-G does not work on a PC to enter the © sign. One should use the ALT-0169 sequence: press and hold the ALT key and type the individual digits 0-1-6-9 using the numerical keys to the right side of a regular keyboard.

Cheers,

Cem_Usakligil said:

I agree with the points raised by Doug, especially this last one. My use of the copyright notice is:
Copyright © 2010 Cem Usakligil. In other words, just like the recommendation of the US Copyright Office; but with the added prefix "Copyright" as the symbol © in itself may not be explicit enough when used globally.

PS: Alt-G does not work on a PC to enter the © sign. One should use the ALT-0169 sequence: press and hold the ALT key and type the individual digits 0-1-6-9 using the numerical keys to the right side of a regular keyboard.

Cheers,

Click to expand...

While reading the US Copyright Office's web site for explanations, I have discovered an interesting detail about which I was mistaken apparently. The USCO states that year is the year in which the work is published for the first time, in other words (implicitly) not the year it had actually been conceived and/or created. For example, if I show a picture which I took already in 2008 for the very first time publicly here in OPF, I should then not use 2008 but 2010 as the year in the copyright notice. What is your take on this?

Cheers,

Hi, Cem,

Cem_Usakligil said:

I agree with the points raised by Doug, especially this last one. My use of the copyright notice is:
Copyright © 2010 Cem Usakligil. In other words, just like the recommendation of the US Copyright Office; but with the added prefix "Copyright" as the symbol © in itself may not be explicit enough when used globally.

Click to expand...

That is my own practice, as well.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi, Cem,

Cem_Usakligil said:

While reading the US Copyright Office's web site for explanations, I have discovered an interesting detail about which I was mistaken apparently. The USCO states that year is the year in which the work is published for the first time, in other words (implicitly) not the year it had actually been conceived and/or created. For example, if I show a picture which I took already in 2008 for the very first time publicly here in OPF, I should then not use 2008 but 2010 as the year in the copyright notice. What is your take on this?

Click to expand...

That is my own understanding.

Do note that the legal meaning of "published" may not be what some would expect. There is some insight into this on the USCO site.

Best regards,

Doug

Cem_Usakligil said:

While reading the US Copyright Office's web site for explanations, I have discovered an interesting detail about which I was mistaken apparently. The USCO states that year is the year in which the work is published for the first time, in other words (implicitly) not the year it had actually been conceived and/or created. For example, if I show a picture which I took already in 2008 for the very first time publicly here in OPF, I should then not use 2008 but 2010 as the year in the copyright notice. What is your take on this?

Cheers,

Click to expand...

Hi Cem,

The first year of 'publication' indeed. This has to do with the expressed need for a work to be 'tangible' under Copyright law.

That need may differ under different jurisdictions though. For instance, under Dutch copyright law (which doesn't differ much from what all 'Berne signatories' subscribed to), it's the intellectual property that's being protected. Under US copyright law the subject is a bit more about the tangible product. However, to prove the existence of an intellectual property, it surely helps to be able and demonstrate a tangible form of it. Nevertheless, local jurisdiction will set the boundaries to the interpretation.

Cheers,
Bart