Same Same

Thanks Chase. I hope it helps

You’re awesome Cole! Thank you so much! That’s very kind of you to say 🙂

I personally don't use watermakes because I believe it takes the focus away from the photo and it is easy to remove as well

@yosefben-yehudah4604 wrote, “…should I as a photographer use watermarks on my photos as well? I am doing research on this, and I wanted to see whether its a good idea or not to put my watermark on every single photo I take.” I do, and here’s why: To REINFORCE my creative rights, I affix my posted photographs, videos, and other works of authorship with *watermarks (logos),* my copyright attribution (with URL and/or social media handle), robust metadata, and/or other *“Copyright Management Information” (CMI* -- part of US copyright’s DMCA). CMI/watermarks can be small and/or transparent; they just need to be readable to the average person. Non-Fair-Use, US-based CMI violators who KNOWINGLY remove, change, or cover up my CMI with AI, apps, Adobe Photoshop or any other software to hide their infringing actions OR encourage others to infringe can be responsible for my actual damages & lost profits OR statutory damages from $2,500 to $25,000 PLUS my attorney fees & legal costs (at the court’s discretion). See 17 USC §§ 1202-1203. Copyright attorney, Andrew D. Epstein, writes, *“We recommend always attaching a watermark or other copyright management information [CMI] to all works that you distribute. Although you do not need to have a copyright registration to recover under the DMCA [CMI], we always recommend [timely] registering your photographs with the Copyright Office to be able to qualify for maximum awards for copyright infringement ($750 to $150,000 per infringement, plus costs and attorney’s fees).”* As well, INTENTIONALLY removing or modifying CMI can suggest WILLFUL copyright infringement to a federal judge. If the work was timely registered, the infringer can face two causes of action: Copyright infringement (up to $150,000) + CMI violation (up to $25,000) = up to $175,000 in statutory damages + attorney/legal fees (at the court’s discretion). By affixing CMI to my posted works, I can statutorily defeat “innocent infringement” defense claims (the US-based infringer is claiming they didn’t know my work was copyright-protected, and therefore, they shouldn’t have to pay me damages or if there’s liability, they should only have to pay me the minimum statutory damages of $200). See 17 USC § 401(d): Evidentiary Weight of Notice. If you choose not to timely register your photographs with the US Copyright Office (USCO), at the very least, affix them with some CMI to retain some legal protection. FYI: Depending on the facts of a case, there are copyright attorneys/litigators who may take your CMI case on “contingency.” BTW, and from my observations, the people who complain about seeing watermarks/CMI on posted images are *other* photographers. I have yet to license any of my images to another photographer - they are NOT my targeted client! *Timely registering my works + including CMI strengthens my creative & legal rights.*

Totally agreed.

@Bijay.Kumar.Behera wrote, “lets say i own a camera and I rented a photographer to use my camera to produce some images, under such conditions who is the copyright owner?” *Under US copyright law,* the person who took the photograph will typically be the copyright owner, unless there’s an agreement that says otherwise. If the photographs qualify as “work-for-hire,” then the commissioning party would own the copyrights, not the photographer, assuming there is a written agreement (prior) to the start of the photography assignment. The client can also require the photographer to transfer the copyright to them via contract. If I’m working as a full-time photographer for a US newspaper, my employer (the newspaper) would automatically and solely retain the copyright of all the photographs I capture.

No, they don't NEED to...but you can ask or require your clients to since you still hold the copyright

I can’t speak for sure either way on this. I’ve never placed a single image of my work on a stock photo website (nor do I plan to), so I can’t speak to that situation with a definite answer. What I DO know is that (in most scenarios) if some product appears in an author’s photo, painting, drawing, etc. that company does not have any automatic rights to that authors work.

If the photos in question are OF the client where their likeness is the clear subject matter of the image… there is a good chance some model release forms may need to be signed by the client before the photographer can do any additional licensing of the photos. An IP attorney can give you a more specific and legally accurate answer to that question.

@@MatthewAPhoto That definitely helps! Thank you!

You're awesome! Thanks so much :-) I think I'd have to somehow condense this even more down to a 60 sec clip for Instagram

@@MatthewAPhoto not at all. IGTV will let you upload up to an hour worth of footage 👍