Photograph Copyright.
As a professional photographer with an Internet presence, I frequently come across examples of my work being copied without permission. Although this can be frustrating, it has not yet caused me too many sleepless nights, even though theoretically speaking, when bearing in mind that photography is my business, and I take photograph’s to generate an income to live on, I am actually losing money by allowing such unauthorised reproductions of my copyright work. Or worse still with no reference being made as to who the image author was. But then I am an easy going sort of bloke... up to a point.
It is increasingly evident that their is a general misunderstanding regarding photography copyright, most of which is due to vague personal interpretations of copyright law, and particularly in the modern age, how copyright of photographs applies to the Internet. Generally speaking having a copyright allows the author of a photograph, (in other words the person who took it, which for these terms of reference will be yours truly), to retain control over when and how any image is copied, transmitted, duplicated, and/or reproduced, for any purpose.
Concerns with photographic usage, and copyright transgressions, have without doubt become more commonplace following the increase in popularity of digital cameras, camera equipped mobile telephones, and of course usage on the Internet. It means that large numbers of people now have the freedom to take and share images, and on the whole some might even argue this is not necessarily a negative point, but.... It is now far too easy to copy or post a copied image somewhere on the Internet, without copyright clearance from the author, and image duplication on Facebook is a prime example of this potentially unauthorised usage.
Some people, even those aware of copyright issues, might even think that if an author has placed an image into the public domain, then no copyright violation is taking place if it is copied. How simple life would be if this was true. One pro-photographer recently found that an item of his work had not only been copied (hardly good news to start with), but was being sold as a limited edition print by A N Other (very bad news indeed, especially for the transgressor, who theoretically could end up with a limitless fine if sued, which doubtless he was!).
If an author’s photographs are being copied or reproduced on the Internet (or anywhere else for that matter) without permission, then depending on the circumstances and the goodwill of the copyright owner, the ‘copier could simply end up with a letter of warning, should the author wished to go that far, pointing out that copyright has been infringed and to remove the offending image immediately. For most people this course of action would normally be sufficient. Court action would usually only need to be considered if the person responsible for reproducing the image chose to ignore the warning, or more importantly was enjoying financial gain from the use of the image. It could end up being an expensive mistake.
It has often been heard said, erroneously, that unless the image is labelled in some way with the author’s name and an official © style copyright notice, then copyright no longer applies. This again is simply not true and has been the case in the vast majority of countries for over 20 years. The original author retains copyright regardless, and these rights are still retained even if the image did not have a © or similar label stating this. If someone is intending to use someone else’s photograph, just because it was not tagged or watermarked, it does not mean copyright no longer exists. The safest way around this is to assume that every image on the Internet is copyrighted, which means steps should be taken to obtain the authors permission, before attempting to reproduce it anywhere else.
There is also another general misconception where, by copying an author’s images, the person copying the image is providing free advertising for the author. This too is false. Some authors of the photograph might be happy to accept this and not take any action, but it is up to them to personally decide if they even want the (free) advertising. The bottom line is that anyone who wishes to copy an image should (MUST) contact the original author, and obtain permission for the use of an image. Personally I would always recommend that this is done in writing, if only to avoid any ambiguities on how the chosen image(s) can be used.
One of the more regular failings is that if an image is found in a public place, such as on Facebook, or in an Internet blog or forum, and then because it has been published into the public domain, people believe they can simply copy the image and reproduce it elsewhere. It seems many folk either believe, or are aware of but choose to ignore the fact, of how, just because an image is in the public domain, the author has waived copyright. This is never the case unless it is specifically stated otherwise, such as: “These images are available without copyright for free use”, wherever the image appears. So unless the author specifically states this then copyright remains in place.
Copyright law is there to protect images and prevent potentially nefarious individual(s) from flouting copyright law, and reproducing an author’s images for their own purposes without payment. It is also designed to stop those individuals from being landed with a claim for possible substantial sums of money, to compensate the author for potentially ‘lost’ income.
It is definitely easier to ask the author first before trying to take the law into your own hands. You might, after all, even receive a surprisingly positive reply. And for Facebook users in particular, starting by making it clear who the author of the original image was would, for me anyway, be a solid enough starting point!
