Copyright vs. Copyright License..?

[Grumby]

I have always included a copyright notice in the exif data on every photo I process for the net, and though I don't use it (I'm a flickr man myself), apparently that copyright shows up when pictures are posted on facebook.

So today, I got challenged about my right to use a Copyright symbol :-o after a friend posted some of my pictures on their facebook page. I was told that apparently, I need to purchase a Copyright License and have a license number before I can copyright my pictures (or perhaps just before I can use the Copyright symbol...)?

Now, I always understood that the photographer automatically has copyright of their own photos... is it just that I'm not allowed to use the Copyright symbol to advertise the fact? Or is a Copyright License for different purposes - such as commercial use of your photos (something I aspire to, but is probably a long way off).

Can anyone tell me if I'm really doing something wrong here?
Cheers
Grum.

[I @ M]

Grum, copyright ( in Australia at least ) is automatically awarded to the photographer unless other contractual arrangements are in place.
The copyright symbol attached to your image is purely an indication that you think you are hope to be seen as are the original owner of the works.

flikr is the FIRST place that people are going to steal borrow your photos from.

facebook is the second.

If you post photos to the net expect to have them stolen borrowed.

Photoshop is a marvellous program, it allows people who are skilled in its use to remove annoying watermarks / copyright symbols in their work.

Have you taken any photos that are worth stealing borrowing and posted them on the net?

[ricktas]

my understanding is that in the USA you may need to buy a licence to protect your photography, this does not apply to Australia. So your friend, is frankly full of it. No one owns the copyright symbol, and you are free to use it.

"What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded). Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents. Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration. Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)"

[Grumby]

Andrew - I would consider it an honour if anyone thought any of my pictures were worth 'borrowing'. Having said that, I do watermark them (I know - watermarks can be disguised or removed), and always resize them to just 1024px before posting - so maybe people can use them elsewhere on the net, but not make prints from them.

But in this instance, it was the fact that somebody challenged my right to even put the copyright on my pictures that has upset me...
Cheers
G

[ricktas]

Andrew - I would consider it an honour if anyone thought any of my pictures were worth 'borrowing'. Having said that, I do watermark them (I know - watermarks can be disguised or removed), and always resize them to just 1024px before posting - so maybe people can use them elsewhere on the net, but not make prints from them.

But in this instance, it was the fact that somebody challenged my right to even put the copyright on my pictures that has upset me...
Cheers
G

Can you block people on Flickr, if you can, I would!

[Kym]

Copyright is assigned by default according to the Bern convention to which we and the US are signatories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...ning_copyright

In all countries that are members of the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder, or rightsholder, is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, while registration isn't needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright.

[Grumby]

LOL Rick - thanks for your input. The person that challenged me actually saw me face-to-face (I sometimes wish I could block that too...)
Kym - That's just about what I understood. But since this challenge came from an established photographer with a business of their own - I wondered if a Copyright 'License' was something different from Copyright - but it sounds like it is just a means of 'registering' the fact you have Copyright rather relying on the fact that you took the photo in the first place...

Maybe she was just trying to wind me up (she succeeded...)
Cheers
G

[ricktas]

Sounds to me like this photographer with a business of their own, needs to learn about the copyright...hehe. Maybe suggest they sign up here and they will be given a lesson

[Tannin]

Can anyone tell me if I'm really doing something wrong here?

You certainly are. You are listening to a clueless man.

There was something in a rules a bit like that, years ago - I mean many years, like 40 or 50 years. I can't remember the details now. Doesn't matter anyway, it as Rick and I&M have stated. By creating the work, you own the copyright.

[farmer_rob]

The US has a system of registering copyright, but the main value is in regard to damages claimable (and then only if you are suing n the US I'd guess).

Edit: Registration is not necessary in the US to retain your rights - laws there were changed some time back.