I e-mailed them about the missing notice. here's the answer:
"Since everybody can always copy any image from the screen a copyright mark is absolute useless.
A tiny little image at 72dpi can't be used for anything that will harm you.
So way bother?"
Please look at the copyright laws concerning loss of copyright by publishing
w/o copyright notice.
Am I missing something here?
"Try to sue a Japanese that has taken a copy of small 72 dpi image of yours.
Blatant and direct. It's a frontal attack on copyrights by refusing to even publish the notice!
Looks like the media is taking or trying to take, full control of everything. Adobe is not the only one. And much milder at that.
Well, resolution of an image is irrelevant (web images have value just like those in print), but he's right.
A copyright notice won't prevent someone from taking an image, and if that person is located in another country, how much are you will to spend to right the wrong? Remember that an image without a copyright notice is no less copyrighted than one that has the notice. The only real benefits are having a photo credit - and the thief can't claim they didn't know the image was copyrighted. Other than that, a copyright notice means zilch.
And really, without registering an image with the copyright office, all you can hope to achieve is to get a violator to stop using the image. Actually, you might be able to get them to pay some usage fees if they're honest at heart, but the image must be registered in order to be awarded financial compensation (the oft-mentioned $1500 per image), in most cases, should you sue.
I use notices on my websites, but the only absolute way to keep images out of unlicensed hands is to never put them on the web.
put your own copyright notice on the pictures
(discrete, but clear; no watermark BS)
That's what I do anyway, and Phil, the important part is that so long as any copyright is visible at all times, you are covered. Yes you are covered from the outset but if it is published without the notice you lose.
If you win, the difference between registration and non is the unregistered image allows you to recover the usual fee for usage, registered means triple damages as a minimum + the usual fee.
you can register after the theft, before the lawsuit if any : )
That would probably work, so long as you do before it gets published. Most of the time, you don't know until you see it somewhere.
In any case, she's taking a cavalier attitude towards her suppliers. I have refused advertising dollars because the agency refused to copyright the image. Nor would they consider triple fees for outright ownership. Some images would not go for even that.
"That would probably work, so long as you do before it gets published."
Copyright issues are a hot topic for the Internet.
If you own a Professional level camera there is a facility to embed copyright information in every images you take in the menu options.Professional photographers who do not use methods of securing their property probably leave themselves open to missuse.
If you create an image from scratch, you can embed "PLUS" copyright information. When you prepare an image for display on the Internet (as all must be at least resized) it is a trivial process to type the ASCI code (hold down the alt key whilst typing a set of numbers) alt 0159 for the Copyright symbol.
You then use the blending and bevel tool to 'raise' the symbol and make it transparent. Make it as big or as small as you like and you have your copyright warning on the images. CS5 of photoshop will remove it in about 5 seconds!
I dont want to underestimate the problem of protecting images from unauthorised use but writers have been faced with palgurism for far longer than photogrpahers with copyright issues. Are there any less articles being written today because of their problems? Nor are any less photos being sold today because of misuse of copyright.
Put in the proper context, perhaps the top 10% of images we (the Professional photographers of the world) take are really valuable enough to need protection. The best protection of all is not to display them but an alternative I've found useful is to photograph a print of the valuable work at a 45 degree angle with a wide aperture. Copying photos with a portion of it out of focus and with a distorted perspective is far harder than cut and past one off the screen.
IF you place a person near the image for effect, it also reinforces the fact prints of valuable proportions actually exist and the picture is not just an image from a storage of images. I don't know of too many photos worth protecting by enforcing copyright that have not previously been sold. For anything to have value, it needs a market to decide on that value.
Otherwise those who complain the loudest of the potential for copyright violation IF they join a site, are probably better off not exhibiting their work in the first place. ANd then there are sites set up to crawl the INternet looking for violations of your images. Some are free some you pay for but all will turn up unauthorised use of your images. How you proceed after such a discovery is another matter all together.