Image Copyright
Having been around Flickr and photoblogging since May this year, I have heard a variety of discussion regarding uses to which pictures may be legitimately put. Early on I was quite excited by this myself though somewhat disappointed that my pictures have not yet been stolen - at least as far as I know 
Several people I know have discovered that their pictures were beineg used in an unauthorised way on the net - particularly from the Flickr site which in some ways encourages this sort of ’sharing’. To be fair to Flickr, the site does subscribe to a system of licensing based around the Collective Commons system but the raison d’etre of the site is sharing and many people either do not respect or are unaware of their rights and responsibilities in this respect. This problem has led several folk to remove their pictures from the Flickr site.
Possible Remedies
How can we protect ourselves?
- Post low res images
- Watermark the images
- Sign or otherwise mark the images
- Subscribe to a web image tracking service
- Disabling right click using java
- Be vigilant when surfing around
- Never publish to the net
At present my pictures are protected bey being at a low resolution on the net mainly for download speed, but also to make it harder for people to get decent quality prints. Thus far I have been asked by several people for prints or the files and in the main I have been happy to allow this - particularly where I have built up some kind of relatioship with the person.
Thus far I have not really tried the other methods I have mentioned, but I know of people who have tried all scenarios - including the last one of not publishing. This of course is the only complete protection, but it is not much fun and does not really contribute in the context of this discussion.
Personal Philosophy
All-in-all I am much more relaxed than I was four months ago when I started due to lack of bad experience on this topic. If somebody asked me I am sure I would allow them to use my image. I think I would be upset to find iit appearing with neither permission nor attribution - especially if the person were trying to pass it off as their own work.
It is easier for me to say this than, say, a professional photographer and in the end the only100% remedy is option 7 and that would make the web a much less interesting and creative arena.
How Do You Protect?
It would be interesting to hear if you have had an actual problem of theft or copying of images and also what steps you take to protect your images.
September 24th, 2005 at 2:01 pm
I stopped using Flickr except when I just don’t care if an image is ripped off. I had many of my Flickr posted images show up on other sites. Most people just posted my image on their blog, said something about liking the image or the subject. I wasn’t overly concerned about this, especially since most people even gave me credit. I was not too happy about the people who didn’t give me credit, but oh well, no big deal.
What really ticked me off were the scumbags who stole my images and claimed them as their own work. What was even more amazing to me was that several of these idiots didn’t even remove my name and copyright tag.
I know this happens and Ian, it will happen to you or it may have already happened and you just don’t know about it. It is a part of life.
Here are a few things that I do to protect my images.
— I never post my best images – ever. If I think an image is really saleable then I keep it off the internet.
— I only post small size, low resolution images. If somebody wants to print one of my images no matter what I do they will do it, so they will have to live with the low quality.
— I place my name and copyright tag on images. I know that many people don’t like this and I’ve had several comments about it but I will continue this practice.
— I have the following tag at the bottom of my blog page - All images © 2005 Rock S. Kauser
If I find that one of my images was stolen I always have my attorney contact the offending party. Usually it is just out of ignorance and no harm was intended. On the two occasions that I know of where my work was illegally used for commercial purposes I sought and received fair compensation and also recovered attorney fees.
And if somebody claims my work as their own I do everything I can to make their life miserable. I’m not flattered when this happens. I’m just plain angry.
September 24th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
As far as I know Rock, my work has not yet been ripped off - perhaps I have just not found it yet.
I do agree that if my images were posted or used wihtout my permission or an acknowledgement especially if somebody passed it off as their own work I would be upset as I mentioned in the article.
For me this does not yet seem to have been an issue - perhaps it will do so. It is a shame that you are less active in Flickr for that reason though I note with pleasure that you are beginning to do a little more there of late. One of Flickr’s drives is around sharing images and there are a lot of people who do not understand this as well as those who do and steal anyway.
The internet is a little like the US fontier times when there was a lot of lawlessness and a few brave souls who stood up to form a nation from the chaos. THere is a lot of crime on the internet which most people do not consider to be a problem - a lot of it around copyright such as music and video downloading sites. I guess the ability to move data has moved faster than the procedures, law and ethics to manage the problems it causes.
Your point about a copyright on the blog is a good one - I have been meaning to do it for some time, but not got around to it yet. I will do it this weekend.
September 24th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Just curious — when you say “small size, low resolution” photos, what dimensions do you mean? I am still trying to get a handle on the meaning of resolution, both for monitor and print versions of a photo. I was wondering when photographers print photos for sale or exhibition, what size (both in pixels and inches) and print resolution do they usually use? Does anybody here have Gigclee prints made of their photos?
September 24th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Judy,
I am by no means any expert on this, but I will explain what I know.
With this whole issue of resolution it is very easy to get confused with the headers in files having pixel per inch (ppi) number, dispalys having their own ppi and printers too.
I will do an article on this at some time.
For me printing requires a minimum of 300 ppi in a file for good quality output (this will have nothing to do with the ppi or more correctly droplets or dots per inch) of the printer. Though this could be reduced to around 200 at a pinch.
My pictures are uploaded at 600 pixels along their maximum length which means that they would not provide good quality when printed at more than 3 inches wide. FUrther, I compress the jpeg significantly which causes further degradation of the image.
They look OK on the web whihc means they can be used for that - this is where Rock’s signing helps.
For screens it is rather more complex because nowadays the resolution of the screen can be changed as graphics has improved. There is a standard of 72 pixels per inch, but this is no longer the case in the physical world. To check this out on your own monitor, check the resolution you have set it to and measure the width and divide one by the other to give a pixels per inch figure - unfortunately some browsers being helpful change this to make an image fiit onto the screen. You could load up one of my pages, measure the image and divide that number into 600 to get a rought figure.
September 26th, 2005 at 3:33 am
Thanks for your response, Ian. Your information helped me to finally sit down and understand resolution better. My camera images (5mp), are 2992×1944 as they come out of the camera. So I guess this means that the largest “good quality” (300 dpi) photograph I can print is about 8.5″ (2592/300) by (1944/300) 6.5″. If I really had to print an 8×10 photo, I’d have to reduce the resolution to about 240 ppi (1944 pixels/8 inches).
One thing that still has me confused is that the camera image’s EXIF data gives “horizontal” and “vertical” resolution as 180 dpi. I have no idea where that comes from or even if it has any meaning.
As far as protecting images, I have my photoblog store images at 1024 x 768 pixels. That sounds a bit high judging from what you do. But I don’t really worry about it because I am an amateur using an amateur’s camera.
I notice my image editing program (ULEAD’s PhotoImpact) has a feature to digitally watermark images and register the watermark with www.digimarc.com. However, unless you subscribe to their service, it only allows you to put a copyright date on the photo. It’s not visible to the eye, but it can be read by programs like PhotoImpact, PhotoShop, etc. If you do lay down $500 per year in a subscription, they will backup your photos for you (only 2 GB though), track usage over the net and tell you if anyone is infringing on your rights, etc. That sounds pretty pricey to me! I think Rock has it right for now — if you really don’t want someone to use an image, don’t put it on the web. Maybe in the future, standard image formats will include some embedded code to digitally sign images.
September 26th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
I use Flickr, but only as a “storage device” for my pictures. When I upload them, I set it to “private,” and then when I post the image itself, I don’t put it as a link to the Flickr page. (ie, you can’t click on the picture and have access to my entire photostream on Flickr.) So I’m not really using flickr for it’s intended purpose. I hope to move away from it soon. I’d like to get up and running with Pixelpost. I need to find out about somewhere to actually host the site- I may be able to host it right from here, or see what my ISP has to offer.
September 26th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
Jen - I certainly found the move to Pixel Post a great step forward - it offers more flexibility and control. Naturally being human, now I have had it for a while I want more!!