Rules in the Leica Forum

[prunelle]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Or it could be colour film. Lots of people, me included, shoot the majority of their photographs on film.

At least, you have your negatives.

[andybarton]

I do, but I'm not quite sure how that's relevant. You still have your original files I assume?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[prunelle]

I do, but I'm not quite sure how that's relevant. You still have your original files I assume?

Wow, you're quite pessimistic! If the negatives, or the raw files, are not sufficient proof that you are the owner of the photo, what then?

[andybarton]

Sorry, I think that we were "talking" at cross purposes here.

 

Yes, a negative is sufficient proof that it is the origin of the shot. The one I had stolen was, as it happens, a digital shot, but I do have the original RAW file for that of course.

[prunelle]

Sorry, I think that we were "talking" at cross purposes here.

 

Yes, a negative is sufficient proof that it is the origin of the shot. The one I had stolen was, as it happens, a digital shot, but I do have the original RAW file for that of course.

Ah okay, I'm feeling better.

 

Did you manage to retrieve your photo or is your thief still able to claim that it's his?

[andybarton]

The photograph was being used in several on-line publications.

 

We came to an arrangement whereby they paid me for the use. They paid more than they would have done if they had asked me properly in the first place.

[prunelle]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The photograph was being used in several on-line publications.

 

We came to an arrangement whereby they paid me for the use. They paid more than they would have done if they had asked me properly in the first place.

Glad to know that.

[andybarton]

This is one of them. Since they paid, I let them keep using the photograph on the web article. They were supposed to put a credit on it, but I see that they haven't.

 

Bernstein’s bid to take the tower | Markets - print | Property Week

[wlaidlaw]

I sometimes use an EXIF amending tool to add lens data for a picture I am posting on a website e.g. Telyt 560mm f5.6, where the camera cannot add this data automatically. In addition to as Andy mentioned, I put in my copyright. C1 should do this automatically but if I have set up a new recipe, I sometimes forget to tick the "add copyright" box.

 

Wilson

[prunelle]

This is one of them. Since they paid, I let them keep using the photograph on the web article. They were supposed to put a credit on it, but I see that they haven't.

I can see that. Anyway, it's something I've noticed: photographers are rarely credited when some website, even "serious" newspapers', use their shots. I don't even understand why they don't react and demand that their names display clearly under the photo.

[honcho]

Professional photographers will add their own copyright and personal information to exif data before sending images to customers or picture agencies.

 

Should then a "bad guy" use the images without permission the photographer has his own evidence and can take up a law suit for infringement of copyright. It rarely happens from individuals because of cost but professional associations will take it up on behalf of the photographer and recover their costs if successful......

 

 

The quote above from dhsimmonds, whilst probably well-meaning, is rather inaccurate.

 

The only way to identify the owner is by encrypting the file with specific identifying data. Digimarc is an example.

 

None of the professional associations in the UK would consider taking action on behalf of a member in a case of copyright theft. MPA offers members free legal advice, but it would be up to the individual member to pursue any action on their own.

 

Litigation is a very expensive path to take with no guarantee of success, which is why very few cases ever reach court. It is not only images that are subject to copyright theft, it is not unknown for entire websites (images and text) to be stolen. I personally know of two professional colleagues who have experienced this problem.

 

The chances of recovering costs against a copyright thief in a foreign country are zero!

Edited April 5, 2011 by honcho

[dhsimmonds]

Honcho is correct, but the fact that a larger organisation than just the photographer working on his own is often a sufficient deterrent.

 

DRM (Digital Rights Management) is an expensive business and ultimately individuals have to decide whether it's all worth it. It usually isn't!

 

It's a bit like securing your own home or vehicle. There are really expensive solutions but most of us just take sensible precautions with the usual secure locks and alarms which is usually sufficient......providing we remember to lock up that is!

 

As far as our images are concerned, we can take the usual precautions and I personally count adding copyright details to exif data as one of those. My own pro raw processor does this for me automatically having been set up with my name address etc.

 

Sure the exif data can then be expunged and the image used without permission or payment to myself but if I should ever be alerted to that fact, I could in principal prove that I am the originator of that file. However the probability is that I wouldn't go to law and the odd few that may "get away" is always far and away cheaper than the cost of additional security measures.

 

The fact remains though that this forum's admin or any other might be hard pressed to identify an image that does not meet the "taken with a Leica" rules given the last few pages of posts!

 

Of course nothing can compete with the Leica glow so maybe that is it!

[andybarton]

The real point is that this place is a bit like a golf club, where members are trusted to stick to the rules. You can incorrectly mark your card if you wish, but who are you cheating at the end of the day? It's the same with the Photos in the photo section.

[Nick_S]

dhsimmonds wrote:

" Incidentally with the excellent professional up-sizing software available these days there is growing theft of low res images from web sites!"

 

What do folks feel are the maximum dimensions for an image to be pleasantly viewable on the Web, but not sufficiently detailed to allow theft and up-sizing for print purposes? e.g., 600 x 400 pixels printed at 200dpi allows a decent print of 3 x 2 inches which seems pretty small to bother stealing.

 

Nick

[pico]

Wow, you're quite pessimistic! If the negatives, or the raw files, are not sufficient proof that you are the owner of the photo, what then?

 

In the USA, a person has to register his copyrighted image before a court will accept the case of infringement. It's all one can really do to enforce copyright.

[k-hawinkler]

In the USA, a person has to register his copyrighted image before a court will accept the case of infringement. It's all one can really do to enforce copyright.

 

Where does one register?

 

K-H.

[pico]

Where does one register?

 

K-H.

 

In the USA, just go here.

 

While almost any work one does is automatically copyrighted, in order to take it to a USA court case, the work must first be registered.

[prunelle]

In the USA, just go here.

 

While almost any work one does is automatically copyrighted, in order to take it to a USA court case, the work must first be registered.

We have equivalent systems here but all of them cost a lot of money. The less expensive consists in sending to ourselves a registered mail containing whatever support on which we put our photos and stocking the envelopes, unopened and along with the official receipts. The official counterpart of this system is called "enveloppe Soleau".

[prunelle]

Amazing how spammers always manage to get through...

 

Edit: there was a spam just up this message, kindly removed by Andy. Thank you Andy!

Edited September 17, 2011 by prunelle

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[andybarton]

Not always. You'd be amazed if you knew how many I clear up having been automatically moderated.

 

There are five auto mod posts above this one