I only get involved in discussion when I actually have knowledge to base it on.

Now, do you if you are not aware of the latest IP reforms drive?

But hey, you were taught, you did the research and you have the diploma. No need to read anything any more:)

Just get down from your high horse, stop being is touchy and stop taking everything personal.

Me asking "are you sure" was a perfectly innocent invitation to discussion. His on earth was I supposed to know you had your high and mighty diploma and I was touching a nerve there. I apologise if you felt offended in your professional capacity so to speak:).

I just want to exercise this problem via discussion *extends olive branch*

It's not my profession, I just happened to graduate from a law degree this July. I took on board what you said and confirmed why it wouldn't be effective in protecting original work. I'm sure there are alsorts of proposed reforms for IP, however that doesn't mean the law will be reformed. I confirmed the actual law - you refused to believe me. Several of us have replied to you saying why what you are saying wouldn't work. We weren't saying you were stupid, we were fully aware you dont know the rules of IP law, it was clear from your initial posts, which is fine, but you didn't seem to want to accept what we said and kept on and on as though we were somehow wrong, when we are only giving you facts and possible scenarios to illustrate why that change would be unfair. That is what got my back up somewhat. Followed by the name thing seeing as when I typed your name I scrolled back to make sure I spelt it right - just polite

If you still think its a good idea, well maybe you are more the sort of person who likes to pinch people's images, rather than someone who uses skill and knowledge to create any kind of original work which you would want to benefit from protection. That must be why you refuse to see how damaging it would be to change the law, which is perfectly fine and up to you. However I'm pretty sure they won't do that and that there would be an uproar if they tried! Olive branch accepted.

KB - further to the post you made on the red bus photo (if you're still in here haha) I've read up on it and it seems to be one of those random surprise verdicts which doesn't follow either with the copyright act or with previous case law (Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd). So it could actually be classed as bad law not long from now. To cut it down, the summary about the case was this:

"I have to say that although I follow the logic I feel very uneasy at Judge Birss's decision in Temple Island. It seems to come very close to protecting copyright in an idea as opposed to expression. That is something that art 9 (2) of TRIPS says cannot be."

(temple island being the bus case)

Seems the judges interpretation here was closer to attempting to rewrite the law, which judges are not allowed to do. Copyright stands with the person who pressed the shutter, not the objects in the shot. There is always contradicting case law, which is what makes the subject a pain to study and apply! However I wouldn't take it as red that 'no one can take a photo of the same subject as someone else' because that isn't what the law actually states. However if you're going out of your way to recreate a famous photo, they may try to sue you, and depending which case they rely on, you *might* get sued haha!

Gotta love the law .

Perhaps you are right and in the form I described it would be difficult (if not impossible) to make it work. I ( and many others) still think something needs to be done as per the documents I linked to which in turn were based on Hargreaves Review.

My work relies on Intellectual Property Law. Disputes are very rare as all involved are professionals and everybody knows how it works and we are all happy with the current state of affairs. However, when I look at what is going on in the now digital I am having my doubts and can see problems with it.

Just from a left field. Fresh graduates can be (and very often are) a source of all sorts of problems due to know it all attitude and general level of cockiness stemming from the empowerment of freshly acquired knowledge/ qualifications. There is always somebody who knows better, has more experience and can make you eat your own hat . Not suggesting anything here

Well what have I said that is wrong? And which of my points aren't valid? No one (including me) has said the situation is perfect, but the reality is it never can be. The very foundations of copyright are that everything is protected. Your time and uour enegeriea and your skill is embedded in your work and are therefore held to be yours and yours alone. While enforcing rights can be difficult, it is most certainly not a step in the right direction to make it even harder

Or maybe do it in a way to avoid the constant need of policing?

Not saying you were wrong or your points were not valid. I thought about that bus photo or whatever it was and I am pretty sure that trying very hard to recreate somebody's else's photo by whatever means so it looks as identical as possible to original is as well as taking that jpeg, copying it and calling it your own:). But then again you'd argue the degree of similarity and impossible ro prove intent I suppose.

I mentioned graduates as we are currently having such problem. Young, clever, freshly qualified and know it all attitude - we landed being sued for damages due to her inability to take on board what she was being told despite on the face of it her being right according to the letter. Sometimes it is good to look at things from outside the box, from other people's perspective-you never know it might be rewarding

Edited 21 November, 201213 yr by Jabozuma

Which I did. I read your points, however they weren't persuasive enough, or with any benefit that made me agree with you, that's all.

I don't think there's a way to avoid the need to police it, I think it's one of those things where you as an owner has to keep check on it and hope you do it well enough, but you have to deal with the fact that you won't find every infringement.

The bus photo - copyright law is on expression, not content. The bus photo was taken with every intent NOT to infringe anything, different angles etc. the oasis album cover case follows the law as it stands, this new case doesn't, which is why we'll have to wait and see whether it is deemed to be a bad judgement or not. Nothing in law is clear cut. Read up on the perfume copyright cases, that's a right pain! Perfumes aren't covered because they don't fall under any of the categories of the act, but in some cases judges found there was copyright subsisting in the perfume. So there's really no way of knowing how a court case in the area of 'copycat' will go.

The straightforward use of someone else's original work is, thankfully, fairly straightforward as it stands, which is how I feel it should stay

KB - further to the post you made on the red bus photo (if you're still in here haha)

I'm still here!

Just keeping my head below the parapet so it doesn't get blown off....

And waiting for a response from a friend who deals with copyright specifically for photography and represent the BIPP (I think it's the BIPP).

Loz, have you had a chance to read the documents I linked to? I am curious as to your view on the findings and proposals there.

KBPhoto - I almost finished a painful process of having mine re-attached . Let us know what your friend told you.

Going back to the OP's question. It looks like there is no need to protect your original work in any specific way as the Intellectual Property Law stands now but to be able to enforce it you'd need to have something in place to keep tabs on the "movements" of your publicly released material i.e. some tracking system.

However I still find it strange that large number of pros and non-pros still emboss their photos with copyright watermarks and plugins like digimark are doing quite well. Why are they doing it then if there is no fair usage license legal entity currently within IPL? I find it hard to believe people would spend time and resources (or pay for plugins) if there was no need to do so? Somebody shed some light on this one please.

Loz, have you had a chance to read the documents I linked to? I am curious as to your view on the findings and proposals there.

KBPhoto - I almost finished a painful process of having mine re-attached . Let us know what your friend told you.

Going back to the OP's question. It looks like there is no need to protect your original work in any specific way as the Intellectual Property Law stands now but to be able to enforce it you'd need to have something in place to keep tabs on the "movements" of your publicly released material i.e. some tracking system.

However I still find it strange that large number of pros and non-pros still emboss their photos with copyright watermarks and plugins like digimark are doing quite well. Why are they doing it then if there is no fair usage license legal entity currently within IPL? I find it hard to believe people would spend time and resources (or pay for plugins) if there was no need to do so? Somebody shed some light on this one please.

The simple answer is that prevention is better than cure. ie if you can emboss a logo on the photo it makes it less attractive to those who would like to steal it, they will move on. That way the photographer doesn't need to rely on enforcing their rights because they have prevented the infringement.

Think of it like this: breaking in to cars is illegal, so why do people go to all the expense of fitting alarms? They don't need to because if someone breaks in the law provides a remedy.

The simple answer is that prevention is better than cure. ie if you can emboss a logo on the photo it makes it less attractive to those who would like to steal it, they will move on.

It's just a shame that it also makes your photo less attractive in general.

Loz, have you had a chance to read the documents I linked to? I am curious as to your view on the findings and proposals there.

KBPhoto - I almost finished a painful process of having mine re-attached . Let us know what your friend told you.

Going back to the OP's question. It looks like there is no need to protect your original work in any specific way as the Intellectual Property Law stands now but to be able to enforce it you'd need to have something in place to keep tabs on the "movements" of your publicly released material i.e. some tracking system.

However I still find it strange that large number of pros and non-pros still emboss their photos with copyright watermarks and plugins like digimark are doing quite well. Why are they doing it then if there is no fair usage license legal entity currently within IPL? I find it hard to believe people would spend time and resources (or pay for plugins) if there was no need to do so? Somebody shed some light on this one please.

I like how you assume he meant me when you were clearly annoying all the people in this thread and all of us were on the same lines, but hey ....

No I haven't yet, not been on here.

As has already been mentioned, it acts as a reminder for those who are ignorant to the law (which by the sounds of it a lot of people are) but also for their own promotion.

I know that I personally, if someone, be it a friend or a stranger, used my images, I would like there to be a logo or watermark with my name on it to credit me for my work. Regardless whether I decided to sell that particular image, I still like to get credit for what is mine.

To be fair to vast, vast majority of extreme watermarks are used by event photographers to enable them to use online galleries to sell their photos. They need to make the image viewable but in a way that means if someone wants it they really need to but it.

Most other watermarks are small and inoffensive and are mainly for awareness and to give the photographer some credit.

Oh, and the answer to the OP was already answered - use photoshop or Lightroom etc. you have misunderstood the question. They asked HOW to add a watermark, not how to ensure it is protected.

Edited 21 November, 201213 yr by Loz

Right, I've read through the first half of the document you linked and if I'm honest, I don't think it backs up your argument at all.

From what I understand of what you said, you believe that anyone who 'publishes' (a term which you don't define and which is likely to have very woolly boundaries) a work which at the moment would be covered by copyright, but doesn't (or forgets to) add some kind of (again undefined) mark/word/logo/warning then anyone who finds it can take it, copy it, print it, sell it or modify it any way they want.

What I understand from that documents is that firstly it is aimed at businesses, not individuals, and actually seems to focus on clarity of copyright on new technologies which aren't explicitly covered in the current legislation. Understandable (see the comments I made previously about perfumes - they aren't covered as they don't classify as a 'work' under the act, however in some cases judges have afforded the manufacturers protection. Therefore leaving the law in perfume unclear). Things which already have obvious protection don't seem to be an issue in that document, that isn't what they are getting at.

Further to that, nothing in that report even remotely makes the suggestion that automatic protection should no longer happen. It is saying that you can apply for a notice in a similar way to a patent, which the IPO would register. Again, this is very much a business thing, no individual is going to start doing that, nor should they need to. There's nothing mentioned about having to make sure anything published has a notable mark on it.

They go on to say that courts would be under a duty to consider the notice therefore giving further clarity - not that no protection is afforded to those who don't have a notice. One of their options even suggests that courts don't even have a duty to take it into account.

So no, that doesn't back you up I'm afraid.

Edited 21 November, 201213 yr by Loz

Loz, you're as bad as all us lawyers with all your pesky definitions. It's all a conspiracy to make life more complex and allow lawyers to rip people off. Don't confuse him with facts, his mind is made up

At this rate you'll end up on his ignore list too :lol:

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Obviously lawyers and law students all have nothing better to do than offer free advice and legal opinion for which they can then be sued

We're just parasitic scum after all.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

However I still find it strange that large number of pros and non-pros still emboss their photos with copyright watermarks and plugins like digimark are doing quite well. Why are they doing it then... Somebody shed some light on this one please.

Free advertising!

My pictures are worthless to anyone other than the B&G, their family & any sc*m to try to pretend they are a wedding photographer! Limited market to worry about in my case.

Any pictures on my web / blog are all lo-res and (max.) 750px wide. Not good for much (except web use).

Remember that recomendation is better than paid advertising...

My pictures frequently appear as Facebook timeline banner pics (or whatever they are called) which is effectively a non-verbal endorsement of my product / service.

If they steal a visibly watermarked picture, that can be easy traced to me, my website & therefore act as a personal recommendation (I like this picture therefore I like this photographer).

I have given up thinking of it as stealing and, if asked or if I spot it, I will send the person a properly sized & composed picture specifically for their banner heading FOC.

With my visible watermark on.

I was only doing what he asked! I was quite happy to not read any of it lol. But I struggled to see how it backed up his theory, that's all. No good me saying 'it doesn't back up your theory' because that would have just caused more pointless rantings haha! I explained the two approaches, and how they are very different. I've not given anyone advice - I'm very used to giving out facts rather than advice lol

Yeah, the definition thing just came up because he'd need to think up what defined those terms in order for his theory to work, and I don't think it would be easily done!

Domhnall - you are a lawyer? Fancy getting me a job? LOL

Or am I too annoying with my pesky definitions :( haha

Once you re qualify in Scotland you mean?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

I was only doing what he asked! I was quite happy to not read any of it lol. But I struggled to see how it backed up his theory, that's all. No good me saying 'it doesn't back up your theory' because that would have just caused more pointless rantings haha! I explained the two approaches, and how they are very different. I've not given anyone advice - I'm very used to giving out facts rather than advice lol

Yeah, the definition thing just came up because he'd need to think up what defined those terms in order for his theory to work, and I don't think it would be easily done!

Having definitions is one of the picky detail things that he fell out with me on another thread. He was canvassing opinion on the uk legal system, a couple of us pointed out there's no such thing and he had a go at us for being picky picky picky. It's the sort of level of detail thst annoys him apparently. Ho hum :lol:

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Ahh right, you have prior knowledge, if I'd known I wouldn't have bothered replying

What does the re-qualifying entail out of interest? I do need to sort a new job, not sure what to do yet though, might just apply for anything and everything though I'd like to do photography and be my own boss

I do need to sort a new job, not sure what to do yet though, might just apply for anything and everything though I'd like to do photography and be my own boss

That's not all it's cracked up to be either...

I don't think anything is to be honest :( but I'm having such a bad time where I am now, what with failing managers and having to work along side a large amount of morons I just would love to only have myself to answer to and rely on.

Or get a job elsewhere because I seriously can't stand it there anymore, it's beyond a joke!

Edited 21 November, 201213 yr by Loz

Ahh right, you have prior knowledge, if I'd known I wouldn't have bothered replying

What does the re-qualifying entail out of interest? I do need to sort a new job, not sure what to do yet though, might just apply for anything and everything though I'd like to do photography and be my own boss

Im not sure tbh, but there's been enough redundancies and law firms packing up that I doubt it would be worth your while.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Hey Mizz LB, FYI, it's something I seriously considered a year ago. In the end, I didn't jump ship as despite being overworked, it was paying far better than what I could earn doing togging (at least at the beginning).On the one hand, it's great being your own boss and being theoretically solely responsible for your success, but it does require a huge amount of perseverence if you want to make it profitable.I can't remember if Graham (scuff) still posts online, but he sent me a fantastic PM (several pages worth) with lots of useful advice.It is a tough world out there and being able to find a market segment where you can make a name for yourself and be recognised by your USPs, style, etc takes skill, a huge amount of effort, and an occasional bit of luck IMO.I've spent a small fortune on my photo gear and it costs me to keep it going (professional PL insurance, etc) but it's something I keep doing if/when I'm commissioned for a shoot. But once I've added it all together, for the amount I do, I'm spending more than I'm earning (at minimum, insurance + tax return + web site hosting costs...).