To protect yourself in the future of people who might snag an image or an article it would be a good idea to attach a copyright By Line on everything you do. And/Or a copyright disclaimer at the end. Even contact information. Then if someone does want to use your material you can be paid for it. You don't need to sell the article outright but sell a use license based on number of printings, number of years it can be used, etc.
If the material does not have a copyright attached to it the snag-or has a out if caught.
A question or two. Is just indicating that the material is copyrighted legally binding? Or does it really need to have a copyright license? Or is indicating that it is copyrighted like putting a "large dog sign" on your fence when all you have is a cat?
Every work is copyrighted, just by the act of creating it. A "license" (registration) may entitle you to monetary damages, whether or not any "profit" was made. A copyright statement, without registration, simply names the owner of the work, perhaps making it easier for anyone who want to use it to either license it or beg forgiveness. ;-)
A "large dog" sign may just be an invitation to a suit should your cat maul someone. ;-)
Be forewarned that nothing on earth brings more self-styled expert opinion into the fray than the phrase "copyright" ... a phenomenon noted, on networks like Fido, long before most Googlectuals alive today could spell "www".
... and even more likely to be misleading than the proverbial "electrical" question on the wRec! :)
As I said, if it's valuable enough for someone to steal then registering the work would make sense.
If you're the one with the photographic negative, or the server logs showing you uploaded the work to your website before anyone else, or you mailed a registered letter to yourself with a copy of the manuscript sealed inside and so on and so forth then you're probably going to prevail in court. But again, how much trouble is it worth to protect a photo of the birdhouse you built or a short article on how much your wife hates it when you track sawdust into the house? Serious copyright protection is available to those willing pay to pay their lawyers to provide it, the rest of us can write a letter of complaint but if that doesn't work then we probably have to chalk it up to experience.
Under US law you don't have to do _anything_ for a work to be copyrighted--your kid's scribblings are copyrighted the instant she touches crayon to paper.
The difficulty comes in proving that you were the originator of the work. With your kids' scribbled crayon drawings it's not a problem--possession of the paper with the drawing will generally do it--but with digital proving that you were the originator is more difficult--this is where registration of the copyright helps (it also confers some other benefits, like you can collect both punitive and actual damages and violation of a _registered_ copyright is a criminal offense as well so the government in principle will take care of it without you having to go out of pocket for a lawyer). The trouble is that registration costs 45 bucks (but you can register a whole bunch of stuff for that 45 bucks--it's not per item, it's per form filed.
You might want to consider steganographically signing your images--unlike EXIF data there's no way for anybody to tell that the signature is there without extensive analysis, and if done right then it's hard to remove too.
OTOH, you can download "Circular 92 - Copyright Law of the United States and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code" (dated October 2009) in full from
formatting link
(1.6MB)
At 350 pages, it's not a quick read, but might make meaningful dialog with a capable attorney possible.
I had to look up steganography to know what you were saying - and it looks like pretty neat stuff! I think I'm going to have to write some code to try it out. :)
From a practical standpoint, wouldn't having a dated original (higher resolution) copy of an image would be sufficient to establish origination?
In keeping with my original post, and before you forget how you did it, quickly Google and post a link to the NEC and we'll surely have all bases covered, eh? :)
Not in a court. Applications exist to alter EXIF and other information. Having another photo of the same scene with a date-proving item (newspaper front page, for instance) may be effective.
But it's SO easy to manipulate an image these ays, that proving anything is going to be a battle of the expert witnesses. It better be worth your time and money.
That's actually a good idea--if you use commercial stego then someone with the same software may be able to detect that there's something there--if you roll your own it's going to be pretty much undetectable.
As you indicated in the part I snipped but also what needs to be considered.... If you buy a widget and leave it out and it gets stolen, you also are the actual owner of that widget but with out proper registration there may be no way to prove ownership.
If one is complaining about carelessly not protecting something of value to themselves they pretty much get what they receive. If you lay a baseball cap down on a park bench and leave it there for a week and don't find it when you come back you cannot really blame the person that picks it up and makes it his. I would also suggest that if you post pictures on the internet you should expect the same. THAT IS NOT RIGHT, BUT you have to take responsibility for yourself and your property if you value them and quit expecting others to watch over you.
There are thousands of laws that are not and will not ever be enforced, those laws are esentially moral suggestions for those that don't know any better. A moral law however is not going to actually guarantee protection for you or your property.
No lawyer needed. Registering a copyright is just a matter of sending off the refistration fee - $45 IIRC - and a copy of the item along with the proper form. Note that items can be ganged; i.e., many can be registered with one fee.
The advantage of registration is that it provides recovery of statutory damages of up to $100,000 plus lawyer's fees plus actual damages (money lost by infringement); actual damages need not be proved, merely the infringement. Registration must be done before the infringement and within
3(?) months of publication.
One can also recover for use of unregistered material; however, one must register the item before bringing suit and - unless the time constraints mentioned above are met - recovery is limited to actual out of pocket damages. No lawyer's fees automatically awarded either.
You can apply for your own patent too, that part is relatively easy. But in both cases as soon as someone violates your patent or your copyright you either let it go or start spending money to defend it. At that point you have to ask yourself if spending umpteen thousands of dollars over a period of years makes sense, will the work in question make such an expenditure worthwhile? How many readers of rec.woodworking are in a position to invest that kind of time and money over some web site using a photo or whatever without permission?
A takedown notice might cause website operators to remove content you claim violates copyright, but if they don't how much will you spend to pursue the issue? Big companies send takedown notices all the time (the DCMA is a corporate playground), but their notices have teeth in them because they can afford to sue.
I've known people who obtained patents and instantly sold them to big companies because they knew the idea would be ripped off and they'd be unable to spend the money to defend the patent, unlike a big company which has serious landsharks on retainer. A right you can't afford to defend is a bit pointless, that's why I said that copyright protection is available to those able to pay their lawyers to provide it.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.