|
Lewis Buckle ran the website for the Blandford Forum Camera Club's AV
Group. The site included many lovely images but they were marked with
intrusive "copyright signs". so we asked him about it ...
My thoughts on Image Copyright? How long have you got?
I generally think many people expect too much, and go overboard to maintain
and protect copyright. They do this having discovered their rights, and
unfortunately insist these are implemented on work which will largely go
unnoticed. Hence, I fully agree, the overwritten copyright statement is usually
obtrusive and unnecessary, however some of my members expect measures to
be taken.
I also feel copyright laws are ineffective if the author cannot afford to
pursue his claim, and insufficiently definitive with respect to altered images.
(The European law is also oddly selective whereby you may not photograph
a French person's face as it is their copyright, however you may copyright
their genetic structure.)
| As much as I dislike pessimism, there is little protection at our level.
The introduction of the World Wide Web (WWW) has brought about difficulties
not hitherto envisaged, with cross border access, undetectable downloading,
and unscrupulous usage of the Internet going relatively unhindered. Should
unauthorised use be detected, retrospective redress through the courts can
take time, a lot of money, and is often ineffective in the case of cross-border
disputes. |
This image by Shawn Kearney is used with permission!!! |
If the copyright is securely in place it makes proof of ownership a lot easier,
and in some cases make the matter worth chasing. The only person who can
ensure the security of proof of ownership is the author of the work. This
person must ensure the dates and artwork concerned is safely recorded in
a manner with legal standing.
Setting up and supporting the web pages for other people's work imposes a
responsibility to protect the client's rights, not to create or enforce them.
For the Web Author, there is a responsibility to implement those protective
measures available, and to be seen to be doing so. Without the latter, there
may not be the submission of members work for posting on the web, which would
make the site somewhat superfluous. There are various methods available:
-
The most successful by a long way is utilising the low resolution required
to gain an acceptable screen image. Keeping the images small, at 72dpi, prevents
downloading a reasonably sized image of printable quality. By the time an
image of around 12 square inches is compressed to achieve 300 dpi, it will
generally be around 1 inch square. However this does nothing to protect against
those who wish to post your images on their website. Equally, in the case
of video and moving images, the result can still be worthwhile.
-
Placing the 'Digimarc' identifying watermark (there are of course others
available) is another solution, but to what degree? Digimarc watermarking
is only supported on a minority of software packages, does not prevent tampering,
and if you want to trace who has your images on the WWW, will cost extra.
Not good for voluntary sites! If someone does alter the image, who owns
copyright? This would cost a fortune in solicitors, and the author would
most likely lose (as shown by the sampling debate in the music industry a
few years ago). I have only put it on our site for reassurance purposes,
the reality is if other people post the same images on their website I'll
be none the wiser unless the Committee vote more funds for Digimark protection.
-
This leaves damaging the images with obtrusive messaging. If I put the message
in an unobtrusive corner, it can easily be cropped, faded, or 'cloned' out
of existence. If I put the message across in bold bright letters, it would
be very disturbing for the author, let alone the viewer. I have therefore
compromised with big letters across the image, but in a supportive colour
scheme.
| As for my personal belief, there can be great benefits from not protecting
images. Take the example of the late Cuban Photographer Korda:
Korda's image of Che Guevara earned an unscrupulous Italian 'friend' a fortune.
So perhaps there is a lesson to learn.
The surface however rarely depicts what is found after a deeper examination.
At the time of taking the photograph, Korda was an unknown. Would anyone
have heard of Korda if not for the marketing skills of the Italian? Korda
went on to become a reasonably well known photographer, however he had the
support of his close friend Castro, allowing him access to opportunities
denied the rest of the world. Was his ability that great, and would anyone
have searched out his images if not for the Che picture? As it is, Korda
later went on to sue the Italian, and won.
Bill Gates is a similar example, excepting in his case it was deliberate.
By not copyrighting his early systems, they were free for all to use. Everyone
ended up tied to Microsoft and the rest is history. |
If you want to investigate the Digimarc protection system visit their
website.
For a wider view try Watermarking World
website.
|
