A Question Related To The Copyright Of Photographs

Andol, you should put a watermark or some other such marker on your original photographs to distinguish them as your own.

The US is a signatory to the Berne convention, among other things it defines copyright from the moment of creation. US law does not require registration, although it can be more difficult to recover damages.

That does not mean Google cannot INDEX photographs, and provide links that take you to the original site. They might even get away with a thumbnail as fair use to support the indexing.

As an ex-pro photographer, I can say once your shutter clicks you own the image, no matter how or where you post it. However, that doesn't mean others can't and wont utilize it somehow. Watermarking an image used to be about the only way, today there are many pieces of software you can use that embed your image in a way that is undetectable yet allows for them to track where it may appear on the web.

You won't get very far in life trying to control of your images 100%, not least not monetarily. This is coming from someone that has images out right stolen from me (pre digital) by someone working at a photo lab, the photos I had were part of a very expensive ad campaign the client and subject paid out $50K for exclusive rights to the photos for 6 months and they suddenly appeared in another magazine across the globe negating my contract and letting my clients off of paying me for the work done. That was $50K loss in profit and cost me several thousands out of pocket for the shoot that was done (Renting the location, lights, travel, make-up etc.). A lawsuit would have taken up all that money plus much more, with no guarantees of ever winning or even getting anything back in compensation. Even criminal charges were next to impossible to prove, strictly from a legal stand-point. It stinks, but unless you have unlimited funds or can represent yourself (and have the time) to go after image thieves in court, you will likely never win.

On the other hand if you are careful and allow your images to be used fairly there is a better chance word will spread and you will get much goodwill. With the advent of digital imaging things have changed a lot since I was in the "business end of photography" but look at companies like Heritage, and PCGS, both will allow almost anyone that asks to be able to use their images for only a byline credit, with no monetary fees paid out at all. All for the greater good of the hobby in general.

rmpsrpms makes a very valid point with the "Fair Use Doctrine" covering images. To be fair there really isn't much money if any to be made in photographing coins or even things like astronomy objects (another one of my hobbies). I've had images in many magazines and even some books, I make no money from any of those. I used to feel as you did - very protective of anyone using/stealing my images, now I realize it's just the way of the new digital world and don't sweat it anymore, I also no longer do professional photography partially for that reason, it became much more difficult to compete with every person with a cheap DSLR camera calling themselves professionals and yet shooting subjects for free or next to nothing. Not a sustainable business model, and did I loose a lot of business at the beginning to the: "Why should we continue to pay your $800 per day or more rates for a basic photo shoot, when I've got a nephew or cousin that is willing to do it for $50?" Eventually many returned as they realized the difference between an rank amateur with a $300 DSLR from CostCo and a professional with years of schooling and real world experience using $30K+ worth of insured gear.

The industry has changed now that almost everyone has a pro quality camera in their pocket at all times - for better or worse? Who is to say, but the financial model sure is different than it was 25 years ago. We learn to live with it and adapt or get swallowed up by the sharks.

There is also a provision in "Fair Use" about the totality of the copied portions of a work. Photocopying one chapter of a book for your students might be OK, but half a book isn't.

Now when I went to Uni (yes, it was the dark ages, we had to park our dinosaur in the garage lit by tallow dips), my fav of that is the professor who created his "textbook" by copying one chapter each from15 or 20 books. Which to him was fair. What was unfair was the professor at the other institution in town copying a chapter from HIS textbook for the successor class instead of having students buy the book.