[MRRiley]

I don't think Donald is saying is that he doesn't want credit and profits, he is just say that if his work is stolen and published the work (and he) will gain noteriety and public exposure during the sebsequent fight over creatorship. I just hope he can find a good lawyer that will get enough out of the thief to pay his own fees and leave a little over for Donald (unlikely).

I do think he is being a bit disingenuous when he says that "the publicity, networking and educational insight are worth it alone". He thereby claims to consider this sufficient compensation. Frankly, the only advantage would be that you would learn to better protect your work in the future. But that wouldnt get you jacksh*t for the at-hand legal action. And like PDL, I don't think that would really trully satisfy Donald either (no matter how much he protests to the contrary).

Anyway, once the work is stolen he, of course, has to discover it's theft... Then he has to win in court to prove that the work is his. This is where embedding copyright info in the EXIF, visibly marking the work and registering it make things easier. However, the EXIF copyright info and the visible notice only deter the casual thief. Since EXIF can be erased and visible markings can be removed using Photoshop, they do not deter the determined and skilled thief. This is where the registration comes in. This is your last recourse and the best hope you have to protect your work. This is also why it is important to save all original files.

Now Donald... Most of us may indeed be toiling away in perpetual obscurity and unlikely to ever have anything published (I have been published but that didn't lift my obscurity to any great degree), but that is irrelevent. It is simply wrong when anyone (from Bubba Potlatch in Doglick, MS to Bill Gates) has their intellectual or physical property or their livelihood (either real or potential) stolen. The fact that you are a working "arteest" does not make your work intrinsically more valuable than anyone elses.

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 11-06-2007 at 10:54 AM.

[ctwdaz]

Why can I visit someone's Smugmug site and purchase copies of their work without their consent or agreement? Smugmug makes money but the photographer doesn't.

[PDL]

Why can I visit someone's Smugmug site and purchase copies of their work without their consent or agreement? Smugmug makes money but the photographer doesn't.

Read the End User Agreement at smugmug, shutterfly, flickr, pbase etc. By uploading your images to those sites you provide the site with the right to sell your images (let people print out copies) without giving you a "cut". By putting your images on their site - you are giving your consent.

However, if you get a pro account on smugmug or shutterfly (I have not investigated about the others) - you set the price and get a substantial cut (shutterfly took 15% the last time I looked).

That is why I have been embedding my copyright in the image and in the ITPC copyright field. Just in case someone copies my stuff down, scans it and tries to sell it. Now, I admit that this will most likely never happen, but I will take steps to protect my work.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL