Assumption of Copyright

[Student]

I was under the impression that a picture was copyrighted from the moment it was taken in the UK, however I stumbled upon a news article which said works had to be registered? What is this madness? And then it has to be renews every 10 years? It's a travesty if it is true... Please enlighten me. I have shot many many pictures and did nothing other than to put my name in the EXIF.

 

[PASM]

Got a link to the article?

 

[Student]

Got a link to the article?

It was in a French Newspaper, basically a photographer took pictures of a major event and he put them on his website, another photographer stole them and claimed they were his, a press house then saw the thief's pictures and registered a copyright on the picture and stated that the thief was the author. Horrible story!

 

[PASM]

UK...

"
Copyright can subsist in an original photograph, i.e. a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film.[10] Whilst photographs are classified as artistic works, the subsistence of copyright does not depend on artistic merit.[10] The owner of the copyright in the photograph is the photographer - the person who creates it,[11] by default.[12] However, where a photograph is taken by an employee in the course of employment, the first owner of the copyright is the employer, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.[13]
Copyright which subsists in a photograph protects not merely the photographer from direct copying of his work, but also from indirect copying to reproduce his work, where a substantial part of his work has been copied.
Copyright in a photograph lasts for 70 years from the end of the year in which the photographer dies.[14] "

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

 

[Student]

Ah, I feel relieved... So what happened in the article was just a one in a million times thing? Right?

 

[PASM]

Who knows..
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Ah, I feel relieved... So what happened in the article was just a one in a million times thing? Right?

 

[skieur]

Copyright exists from the time that the work is created. Registering the copyright makes it easier to resolve who the copyright owner is, if there is an argument. On the other hand the photographer should have the original shot with the EXIF information, perhaps the shot in RAW format, as well as similar shots taken at the same location at the same time, which would lend validity to his claim of copyright.

skieur

 

[Student]

Copyright exists from the time that the work is created. Registering the copyright makes it easier to resolve who the copyright owner is, if there is an argument. On the other hand the photographer should have the original shot with the EXIF information, perhaps the shot in RAW format, as well as similar shots taken at the same location at the same time, which would lend validity to his claim of copyright.

skieur

Merci Skieur. Vous etes very helpful!

 

[KmH]

What country are you in? It helps avoid confusion if that is indicated in your profile.

UK copyright law: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2250249

Each has it's own copyright statues.

Here in the US copyright statutes are defined in Title 17 of the United States Code. www.copyright.gov

Further, last I checked 140 countries had signed the international Berne Convention. Edit: It's now 164 countires

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia