[PDL]

While I agree with some of what is being said here, I am a supporter of embedding Copyright information into the ITPC data in your images.

If you are using Windows you can the the Photo Info application from MS:
http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/tools.aspx
With this you can edit quite a lot of EXIF/ITPC information and it runs from Explorer. It should work on both XP, Vista and Windows 7 RC - It might be build in these days.

Also check out your photo editing software to see if there are metadata editors that allow you to work with these data. As for adding the notice into images, depending on where I am posting them, I will add the text just using the text tool. I keep the text small as possible so as to not detract from the image.

One thing I do not like is where someone's copyright becomes the main point of the image. Oh - I do not use flickr either.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[Michaelina2]

Rather than slap a copyright notice on your image, consider cropping "square" to compose. It's the basic composition of the image that temps the image thief. Cropping to recompose by the thief will alter basic form relationships inherent in the final image and ruin it. Also, consider using a small display size (say, 600 pixel max). If it is small, the image will degrade when altered.

Or... if you are really ticked-off, you could, like Sam Abel... publish a YouTube Video that exposes the creep for what (s)he is...


YouTube - Photographer Sam Abell talks about Richard Prince

Cheers...

[MJB DIGITAL]

Also, keep in mind how you use your images when deciding how to do the copyright notice. If you upload to Flickr, for example, it strips out much of the metadata out of the image (I'm not sure what specifically) such as EXIF and IPTC information. Of course, Flickr records the EXIF metadata and displays it on your page, but I don't know what it does with your IPTC data. You can also set your copyright notice within Flickr, which will preserve your copyrights. If you use other distribution methods, then check what they do with this information and how to properly record it on their site.

I agree with Marc: the watermark copyright notices detract from your images, ruin them for others to appreciate, and don't really protect them. I personally believe that they change the focus of an image to be about the photographer and not about the image.

my exif is in there. i invite you to check out my flickr and look for yourself:

Flickr: More detail about Michelle and Brandon....very hip couple

[junyo]

Also, keep in mind how you use your images when deciding how to do the copyright notice. If you upload to Flickr, for example, it strips out much of the metadata out of the image (I'm not sure what specifically) such as EXIF and IPTC information. Of course, Flickr records the EXIF metadata and displays it on your page, but I don't know what it does with your IPTC data. You can also set your copyright notice within Flickr, which will preserve your copyrights. If you use other distribution methods, then check what they do with this information and how to properly record it on their site.

I agree with Marc: the watermark copyright notices detract from your images, ruin them for others to appreciate, and don't really protect them. I personally believe that they change the focus of an image to be about the photographer and not about the image.

On Flickr, you choose whether or not to display EXIF data, but it doesn't strip anything. There was a minor controversy a couple of months ago when a programmer wrote a tool that reconstructs Lightroom processing from images on Flickr based on the file's metadata.
Flicker resized image
EXIF/copyright data intact

I respectfully disagree on the matter of visible copyright notices. No, it won't stop a determined thief, but neither will metadata. It's a really trivial matter to strip the tags from a file, less trivial than removing a well designed graphical watermark. I don't buy the argument that it detracts from the image, unless you've gone out of your way to make a huge, gaudy, opaque copyright notice. If someone is viewing an image with a copyright notification they should know that that image is a preview that gives them enough information about the final image to form a first impression, not the final image. In the end, there's not perfect solution, you do what you're comfortable with.

[Marc Sabatella]

On Flickr, you choose whether or not to display EXIF data, but it doesn't strip anything.

That might be true for Pro accounts, but it doesn't seem to be for free ones. My images all show up with no EXIF when looking at the image in an ordinary viewer (ie, not display the properties from within Flickr).

I respectfully disagree on the matter of visible copyright notices. No, it won't stop a determined thief, but neither will metadata. It's a really trivial matter to strip the tags from a file, less trivial than removing a well designed graphical watermark.

This is true, and it's important to mke a few distinctions here:

- The existence of a copyright message - visible or otherwise - currently has *no bearing whatsoever* on your ownership of the copyright to the image in the US (might be different in other countries, and is likely to become different soon in the US). But as it is right now in the US, if you created the image, you own the copyright, period, whether you advertise that fact or not. So it's illegal for someone to use your image without your permission whether you include a copyright message or not.

- However, the existence of a copyright message certainly makes it more clear who owns the copyright (or claims to, anyhow), so if someone wishes to use it and they are considerate enough to want to ask permission rather than simply try to get way with using it without permission, they know who to contact. Actual contact info is better than the copyright message itself for this purpose, though. And again, IPTC metadata is your friend here - that's a good well-known (within the industry) place to store that kind of info without ltering the appearance of your image.

- Copyright message or not, the burden of proof that you own the image is still yours unless you've actually taken the time and spent the mone to *register* your copyright with the Library of Congress (again, details differ in other countries). Don't imagine that putting copyright message in the IPTC, or right on the image itself - proves you created it. For all anyone knows, you simply stole an image from somewhere else and put your copyright info on it. Of course, with a watermark, if you can produce a version of the image without the watermark and the offender can't, then at least you will have successfully demonstrated that *he* didn't create it. You won't have proven *you* did, though. I'm sure there have been court case where this has come up, but I don't know what precedents exist.

In the end, there's not perfect solution, you do what you're comfortable with.

Precisely. As I see it, people who are intent on stealing will do so if they want to and it doesn't seem unduly difficult. People intent on doing things legally and ethically will ask permission. Your task is simply to discourage the former and encourage the latter by whatever means you feel comfortable with. A copyright notice and contact info *somewhere* - IPTC or watermark - will help encourage people to contact you. A visible watermark might help discourage outright theft (by making it harder to use the image). An invisible watermark would only be effective at catching someone *after* the theft has been committed, assuming the theft comes to your attention at all. But a visible one might also create enough of a negative impression in the minds of well-meaning viewers that they don't bother to contact you but instead contact someone whose images are *not* marred by a visible watermark. Whether you personally feel the watermark detracts from the image is immaterial; the fact is, lots of viewers do, so that's something that should be taken into consideration. Maybe that's OK with you - you can't be bothered to try to impress viewers who would be turned off by a watermark. Depends on what your goals are for your images, really.