Stop Image Theft | Ask David Bergman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лип 2024
- Today's question from Robert S. is, “It seems so easy for people to steal images that you post online. How can you protect them?”
Go to www.AskDavidBergman.com to submit your own photo question, see David's gear list, and view the episode archive.
SUBSCRIBE AND BE PART OF THE ADORAMA FAMILY:
➥ / adoramatv
__________________________________
✘ PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT USED:
Canon EOS R Mirrorless Full Frame Digital Camera Body
www.adorama.com/car.html?kbid...
Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM Zoom Lens
www.adorama.com/car28702.html...
Manfrotto MT055XPRO3 Black Aluminum Tripod with MVH502AH Pro Video Head
www.adorama.com/bg055xprob52....
CLAR Illumi Max 500 High Power 5600K LED Light
www.adorama.com/clilmax500sl....
Glow EZ Lock Octa Quick XL Softbox With Bowens Mount (48")
www.adorama.com/glsbez48octa....
Zoom H4n Pro Audio Recorder, Black
www.adorama.com/zh4nproab.htm...
#photographytips #imagetheft #adorama
__________________________________
00:00 Intro
00:59 The challenge of protecting your digital images online
02:02 Watermarks
04:39 IPTC Metadata
06:29 Copyright
08:15 Don't post high resolution images
__________________________________
❐ LET'S GET SOCIAL ❏
➥ Facebook / adorama
➥ Instagram / adorama
➥ Twitter / adorama
❐ MORE ADORAMA ❏
➥ Podcast www.adorama.com/g/adorama-pod...
➥ Blog www.adorama.com/alc/
➥ Shop www.adorama.com/
__________________________________
Get more information about David's #shootfromthepit online workshop at www.ShootFromThePit.com
One-on-One consultations with David:
www.askdavidbergman.com/1on1/
Follow David on Instagram:
/ davidbergman
David's "From the Vault" on UA-cam:
bit.ly/BergmanFTV
Photo Mechanic by Camera Bits
www.camerabits.com/
Adobe Photoshop:
bit.ly/BergPS
** How do you stop image theft? Let us know in the comments below and stay tuned until next week for another Ask David Bergman!
__________________________________
THANKS SO MUCH FOR WATCHING! - Навчання та стиль
What a truly excellent subject to cover… that has nothing to do with selling stuff. It once again shows your commitment to helping photographers. Thanks so much.
I bury info (a name, a word, or a logo) into the image so it can't be seen unless you were to really look for it for images that I'm worried about. I also put the standard copyright in the corner. If I need to go to court I can prove I had the proper copyright info on the original that they cut off and can zoom to point out my unique info I hid on the image. I have another business doing 3d lake maps this method has been valuable. They are more colorful and easier to hide than portraits of course. Landscapes are very easy to use this method as well.
Bottom line though, if you never see them elsewhere you'll never know they were stolen.
For the social media stuff: low res with a 1 or 2% ghosted logo that you can almost never see via screen - but if you print, well then it's plain to see. Larger image postings get similar plus one or two minute fingerprints in case there's ever the need to reach for Legal. A friend of mine is does a lot of people shots and is more direct: a trans bar with web branding, etc right through the image. The way it's done makes it clear there's been an attempt to pshop it out so image spoiled.
Always great seeing videos like this. So many people are unaware, or don't care - till they need to care.
Great info as always David! Thank you!
Thanks David for an interesting and informative video! It’s good to know how to protect our rights as photographers!
Great coverage on the copy right issues David. I always add a signature to my images some where so small that it looks like it part of the image and not noticable to the eye but i know it is placed pn the images with date and year next to it. Bended into the area so well that it not detectable at all. Something I used when doing artwork from the advise of one of my art teacher who did artwork for ads. Just other thing to add for added ID on images. Thanks again on the subject David
I would love to know more about the Library of Congress registration / process
Useful, good to have the situation in Asia
I post a lot of concert photos on social media and I always watermark them. I have friends that do the same and they have had the watermark removed from
some of their images. The people that do this cannot plead ignorance because if they take the time to do that, they know exactly what they're doing. Push comes
to shove I can always prove that an image is mine because I have the original RAW file and the thieves do not. Thanks for this video!
Great video, David. Copyright is such a pain when you are the owner and the Internet is like the Wild West. I've chased a number of reputable organisations for infringement and been paid a fee which sadly does not usually compensate for the bother of chasing them. Another thorny copyright side issue is "fair usage" which some people treat as a catch-all for blatant copyright theft.
According to the Australian Copyright Council: "Protection is free and automatic. There is no system of registration for copyright protection in Australia. Copyright protection does not depend upon registration, publication, a copyright notice, or any other procedure-the protection is free and automatic. A photo is protected by copyright automatically from the moment it is taken."
They also summarise the situation thus:
- Generally, copyright in photos lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years.
- Copyright has expired in photos taken prior to 1 January 1955.
- Ownership of a photo varies depending on the circumstances under which it was taken.
- You will not own copyright just because you own the camera.
- Photographers also have moral rights in relation to their works. [Which can't be transferred.]
At the end of the day, the best advice is David's point - don't post hi res images that you don't want ripped off. :-)
Great stuff.....4 simple things....photo mechanic.
registering with library of congress. Cool.
A friend of mine (a mutual acquaintance, actually) had an image stolen by another photographer. When he called out the thief about he blamed the "mistake" on an assistant. Nice.
I've heard them all! Ugh....
Hi there. Well not exactly protection but through Google Image and Google alert one can find out the trail of ones image where all it was used. I have only heard about it as information and never used it actively.
Yea there are a few services that will do this. It can be a full time job if you just want to pursue infringements all day.
Speaking about "Copyright" on the "popular video hosting website" *for many years* people from the same "music labels" trying to take over music that someone created just by claiming copyright. The problem is that someone that you had never heard about can claim your music or video, even if you created it in live stream. Making the situation where you "steal" your own creation from those scammers..... So, it's kind of very wide problem.
Digital and the internet has added a huge level of complexity to the world of copyright that I don't think has been properly addressed.
Another reason photo sharing social media sites strip metadata is to protect the privacy of the posters.
Really? Seems like no privacy is assumed or wanted when you post a photo to your own social media site.
Great video. The part about the copyright belonging to whoever pushed the button brought up a question for me. I often use triggers to take photos. Example, lightning trigger, infrared trigger, intervelometer for timelapse etc. In the case where the button was "pushed" by an electronic device would the copyright default to whoever set up the shot?
I’m not a lawyer, but I would think if you started the shooting process (by pressing the trigger), then it’s still your image.
@@DavidBergmanPhoto the cases I'm thinking of are times when some outside factor triggers the camera.
Case in piont, I use camera traps for wildlife photagraphy. The camera will often sit in sleep mode for days before an animal walks through the sensor's detection zone and a photo is taken. I set everything up but I don't push the button that actually takes the photo.
It's very similar to a security camera on your front porch. Do you own the rights to any video or photo your security camera takes? Or do those rights belong to the person who approached the door and triggered the camera?
In the case of a lightning trigger the camera is made to take a picture by the trigger responding to a sudden increase of light. So the lightning which isn't even an inanimate object took the picture.
I think our copyright laws have yet to catch up with the technology that can be used to produce intellectual property in this era.
@@zenphotojourney In many cases, these things are determined only when a case goes to court. There's a famous one where a wildlife photographer worked very hard to set up a remote camera that was triggered by a monkey. The famous "monkey selfie" image has been published worldwide. PETA sued, saying that the monkey owns the copyright and that PETA should handle the image revenues on it's behalf. A court ruled that a non-human can't have copyright. PETA appealed, but they settled out of court. Bottom line is that we don't really know until it goes to court and a precedent is set.
Great info. I do have a question for you. Should the government prohibit the removal of metadata by social media? I'm not a fan of big government, however this is a case where the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Good question. I would love to see a governing body of some type do something to try and help the creators of the work. I’m not sure they can (or should) force private companies to do something. We do, after all, agree to their terms and we have the right to not post on their service. You have to weigh the benefits vs the risks for your particular situation.
Very interesting. I did not know my wife owned the image when on rare occasion, I step in front of the camera.
Yup! Better hold onto her or you might get sued for copyright infringement! :)
Watermark & metadata 💯%
David, have you ever had to sue someone for stealing your images and is it worth it?
Thankfully, no. I had had a few instances where just the threat of going to court made them rethink their decision. I also reminded them that my image was registered with the Library of Congress and a willful infringement can be as high as $150,000 per work. Most clients are awesome to deal with and mutual respect goes a long way. But once in a while, you find a bad apple in the bunch.
Interesting, David. You say, you're not a lawyer, and then say, the person who pushes the button owns the copyright.
I'm not a USAnian and live in Europe. AFAIK, you need to distinguish "intellectual property" from "Copyright". In my country, a business can hire you as a photographer and ask you to shoot a subject. Then and there, that business owns the intellectual property of your work. They can sell, copy/reproduce, publish, that work. Here, you as photographer have to be mentioned in publication with the owner of the intellectual property (IPr), as the person who pressed the button. This has been the subject of court cases and jurisprudence exists. Looking at the references with photos in publications, I guess the US is not too different from this.
Like you state, just shooting the picture - pressing the button - establishes IPr. The US thing of "Copyright" however follows from registration in the "Copyright" system.
The problem with (c)-right is, strictly you do not need it, but if you want to be able to win a case in court, you absolutely need to buy it. US lawyer say, if you did not register (c) then there is no point in going to court. Well, if you can afford the best (and the past 4.5 years have made clear how bad those are) then a case may still have merit, but your costs may not be recoverable and likely exceed the value of your IPr.
We can, must, distinguish publication, making copies and distribution. The US copyright system IMO has an advantage over my legal system that does without such registration.
There are a few socially desirable exceptions that are frequently misused as loopholes.
(i) Work can be quoted for journalistic, editorial or scientific research, analysis and comparison and in this sense zero permission is needed for making copies.
(ii) Collage - we can take elements of artworks and create a new one from them. The requirement is that the original(s) can no longer be recognized.
Note: Look at all the UA-cam movies that are built from stolen quotes edited into a new version of an old story. That is theft and plagiarism.
(iii) Private use. I could buy, say, a painting and have a copy made of it "for private use". Then store the original in a vault. This is also misused a lot. I have to have the artwork or an original version thereof that is sold/licensed to me. Private use excludes publication to, and the making of copies for 3rd parties.
Another loophole with the internet is that US stock agencies have their servers constantly browsing the web for new photos, world wide. When a photo was not registered in the US, they may claim its copyright and when this remains uncontested, they may start earning money from that at some point - pure gangster practice.
Note the state of New York IIRC has seen a court case of a photographer who's shot of the NY skyline had been used commercially without his consent, without compensation, without his name being mentioned. The judge said that basically everybody could have taken that shot.
This ignores the point of view and perspective chosen, as well as the timing relative to light and shadow. It ignores the "Decisive Moment" that made photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson an internationally recognized artist.
Or, you may be entitled to a right, but may have a very hard time and costly process to get it acknowledged once it was violated.
David, if you ask a friend to take a photo of you they own the intellectual property? In my country, if I ask and pay you to make my portrait, I own the intellectual property by default, unless we contractually agreed to other terms. If you are a registered business and I am a private person, your business conditions might try to turn this around, but my rights cannot be alienated by that.
"𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘐𝘗"
In the US, if it is a registered work, you receive not just statutory damages but 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 legal fees. There are plenty of IP lawyers here, good ones, that will take the case with no up front cost to you. The person that infringed on your copyright actually ends up paying your lawyer.
The law is very complex and differs from country to country as you mention. Things like “fair use” are very narrow provisions for use and are often misused. Bottom line is that you shouldn’t use someone else’s work unless you’re sure that it’s ok to do so!
simples....Don't post them online to start with hahaha
👎👎👎