Copyright date

16 posts
21 July 2018
Thunder_Photos
Photographer
Thunder_Photos

I have thousands of archive photos going back many years. Sometimes I go into them and find interesting photos I've never used before.

When I post photos to Purestorm I add my copyright date. Until recently this was the year taken but it struck me that they had never been published before so I now add the current date.

Does anyone know in fact which date is correct? Taken or first published (the same actually applies to photos I've used before but have re-edited)

Posted 21 July 2018
ChrisD
Photographer
ChrisD

@Thunder_Photos : Copyright exists from the moment the image is created, if you take a photo on the 21st of July 2008 the copyright comes into existence then. If you do not publish the photo until the 21st of July 2018, that is the date of publication, not copyright. Your copyright of that image has been in existence for ten years.

Posted 21 July 2018
Thunder_Photos
Photographer
Thunder_Photos
ChrisD

@Thunder_Photos : Copyright exists from the moment the image is created, if you take a photo on the 21st of July 2008 the copyright comes into existence then. If you do not publish the photo until the 21st of July 2018, that is the date of publication, not copyright. Your copyright of that image has been in existence for ten years.

I hear what you day and generally agree with you however, for example I have put some head and shoulders photos on here which are actually part of much larger older photos so I have created new photos.

Posted 21 July 2018
Bob
Photographer
Bob
Thunder_Photos

 I have put some head and shoulders photos on here which are actually part of much larger older photos so I have created new photos.

The copyright date of each photograph is the date the photo is created.

If you have combined two photographs into a new piece of artwork, the copyright date of that work is the date that the work was created but copyright still subsists in the original photographs from the date they were taken.

It's not exactly rocket science, so even an archetypal Essex Girl / Boy should be able to comprehend it.

If in doubt, use our friend Google to find the 1988 Copyright Designs & Patents Act.

Seemples!

Posted 21 July 2018
ChrisD
Photographer
ChrisD
Thunder_Photos
ChrisD

@Thunder_Photos : Copyright exists from the moment the image is created, if you take a photo on the 21st of July 2008 the copyright comes into existence then. If you do not publish the photo until the 21st of July 2018, that is the date of publication, not copyright. Your copyright of that image has been in existence for ten years.

I hear what you day and generally agree with you however, for example I have put some head and shoulders photos on here which are actually part of much larger older photos so I have created new photos.

@Thunder_Photos : Now you are amplifying and asking further/more detailed questions. I can see this mushrooming so I'm going to private message you to explain this in finer detail for the avoidance of doubt 

Posted 21 July 2018
Thunder_Photos
Photographer
Thunder_Photos
Bob
Thunder_Photos

 I have put some head and shoulders photos on here which are actually part of much larger older photos so I have created new photos.

The copyright date of each photograph is the date the photo is created.

If you have combined two photographs into a new piece of artwork, the copyright date of that work is the date that the work was created but copyright still subsists in the original photographs from the date they were taken.

It's not exactly rocket science, so even an archetypal Essex Girl / Boy should be able to comprehend it.

If in doubt, use our friend Google to find the 1988 Copyright Designs & Patents Act.

Seemples!

Not being an Essex boy even I can understand that the original copyright exists from the date of taking but if I as copyright holder choose to create something new from my photos then copyright on my new creation is from then.

Good evening

Posted 21 July 2018
Bob
Photographer
Bob
Thunder_Photos
 if I as copyright holder choose to create something new from my photos then copyright on my new creation is from then.

If you comprehend that basic fact, why did you create this seemingly pointless thread?

 

Posted 21 July 2018
Thunder_Photos
Photographer
Thunder_Photos
Bob
Thunder_Photos
 if I as copyright holder choose to create something new from my photos then copyright on my new creation is from then.

If you comprehend that basic fact, why did you create this seemingly pointless thread?

 

To see who agreed with me.

G'day

Posted 21 July 2018
Bob
Photographer
Bob
Thunder_Photos

If you comprehend that basic fact, why did you create this seemingly pointless thread?

To see who agreed with me.

I don't think many who understand copyright legislation would agree that it is sensible to use Date of Publication, rather than Creation Date to assert one's copyright, as you originally said you were now doing, but as this it t'internet I'm sure somebody will eventually come along to try to convince that you hadn't made a potentially big mistake.

Posted 21 July 2018
redbaron
Photographer
redbaron
Bob
Thunder_Photos

If you comprehend that basic fact, why did you create this seemingly pointless thread?

To see who agreed with me.

I don't think many who understand copyright legislation would agree that it is sensible to use Date of Publication, rather than Creation Date to assert one's copyright, as you originally said you were now doing, but as this it t'internet I'm sure somebody will eventually come along to try to convince that you hadn't made a potentially big mistake.

Of course if they are really old @Bob and somebody else bought the film for him to use!

Posted 21 July 2018
Thunder_Photos
Photographer
Thunder_Photos
Bob
Thunder_Photos

If you comprehend that basic fact, why did you create this seemingly pointless thread?

To see who agreed with me.

I don't think many who understand copyright legislation would agree that it is sensible to use Date of Publication, rather than Creation Date to assert one's copyright, as you originally said you were now doing, but as this it t'internet I'm sure somebody will eventually come along to try to convince that you hadn't made a potentially big mistake.


As I said, many of the photos I refer to have been completely reedited.

Take this one https://www.purestorm.com/image/1597094 which has appeared on here as a "Headline Photo" The original was taken by me in 2014 and as such I own the copyright BUT the original shows the model laying nude on a bed. I have used just part of this photo and in addition have used a mix of PSP graphic enhancements so I maintain is a different creation to the original photo I own,

Posted 21 July 2018
photomane9
Photographer
photomane9

The first thing to say is that a date is not required on a copyright notice. Indeed a notice is not needed either, although it makes sense if you want to assert your right to be named as the author of the image. And if you ever need to start litigation over an infringement, having a copyright notice (with or without a date) can have certain advantages in proving ownership of copyright (see section 104 CDPA):

" (2) Where a name purporting to be that of the author appeared on copies of the work as published or on the work when it was made, the person whose name appeared shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved—

(a) to be the author of the work;

(b) to have made it in circumstances not falling within section 11(2), 163, 165 or 168 (works produced in course of employment, Crown copyright, Parliamentary copyright or copyright of certain international organisations)."

And the second thing to note is that even if you do put a date, it has little value legally speaking. That is because, as Bob and others have said, copyright comes into existence automatically when an image is created, and the duration of that copyright is based on the lifetime of the author plus (currently) 70 years. Therefore, at best, a date showing when the image was created merely serves to indicate that the photographer was alive on the date cited.

Incidentally, putting a false claim in a copyright notice is not illegal, unless it forms parts of a wider fraud. This is slightly troubling in view of section 104 quoted above. Conversely, the law in the UK protects a photographer from being falsely credited as the author of a work that is not his/hers.

Posted 26 Aug 2018
Bob
Photographer
Bob

This evening, commenting on the 7th August judgement on internet copyright infringement passed by the European Union Court of Judgement in respect of the case of a school website which republished without seeking permission a photographer's copyright image lifted from the web by a student, the British Association of Journalists (BAJ) union issued the following:-

BAJ recommends :
- always include your copyright byline when posting or filing work
- watermark your work 
- send clear terms and condition of use when possible
- ensure the fee is agreed in advance where possible

For those not keeping track of this case, the court ruled that the image must be taken down by the school and that the photographer should be paid 300euros plus interest for copyright infringement.

 

Posted 27 Aug 2018
KeithBGPhotography
Photographer
KeithBGPhotography

It’s amazing how many photos are posted without photographers mentioned, I have had photos removed in the past for this since without any mention or comment it is infringement. I digitally and watermark all images for this reason

Posted 28 Aug 2018
redbaron
Photographer
redbaron
KeithBGPhotography

It’s amazing how many photos are posted without photographers mentioned, I have had photos removed in the past for this since without any mention or comment it is infringement. I digitally and watermark all images for this reason

No it is not. Read the copyright act it is not that long. You have the right to assert copyright and require your name to be associated with an image but unless you have specifically asserted that right as part of the agreement to use that image the user is not infringing anything legally by not mentioning you. 

Posted 28 Aug 2018
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join