Ava Photography wrote:
do others see your raw photos if you copyright your raw photos?

Copyright comes into existence as soon as the image is created, irrespective of who sees the image.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
I only let people see what I consider as a finalized, edited, retouched image.

If it doesn't meet my standards, nobody gets to view it

KM

I agree...in fact, I have never copyrighted a "raw" image.

I see it as no different than a book: you don't copyright an early draft, you copyright the finished version that you publish.

I might take a photo one year, but do the final edit on it 2 years later when I decide to publish it...and the copyright date will be when I final edit and publish it, not when I took it.

I've run into people who don't agree with that, but think about it: many books may take years to complete, but the copyright date will be when you finish and publish it - not when you start writing it.

JTCrosby wrote:
As others have said you have copyright on the image if you register it or not. But I am going to guess ( and if I am wrong forgive me) you are asking about registering the copyright in RAW format. RAW formats Like NEF or CRW are not on the list of files supported by the copyright office. Here is their list

.bmp (Bitmap Image)
.dwg (AutoCAD Drawing)
.dwf (Autodesk Design)
.fdr (Final Draft)
.gif, .giff (Graphics Interchange Format)
.jpg, .jpeg, .jfif (Joint Photographic Experts Group)
.pdf (Portable Document Format)
.pic, .pict (Picture File)
.png (Portable Network Graphic)
.psd (Photoshop Document)
.pub (Microsoft Publisher)
.tga (Targa Graphic)
.tif, .tiff (Tagged Image File Format)

http://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-file-types.html
.wmf (Windows Metafile)

I think the OP is referring to "raw" (unedited/unretouched) images, not "RAW" (NEF, etc.) files.

Gary Melton wrote:
I think the OP is referring to "raw" (unedited/unretouched) images, not "RAW" (NEF, etc.) files.

Definitions and correct usage are important to effective communication.  I think.

Cursed Photography  wrote:
I read a post on a forum years ago that i found to be sound advice...
As soon as he pulled the files from his camera he burned a copy to cd
these masters prove copyright as the images and the disc(which cant be altered once
burned) show the dates...
The other plus is should there be an error and you save a touch-up you don't like
over your original on your system its easily fixed.

Hate to burst your bubble...but that would not hold up in court.  You could just as easily change the date and time on your PC to 2 years ago, then burn a CD that would show a date and time 2 years ago, even though you just burned it (and there's a couple dozen other ways the same thing could be accomplished).

This is just another urban legend, like the so-called "poor man's copyright method": mailing a sealed copy of your book to yourself as proof that you wrote a book.  The courts have never accepted that...again, too many ways to get around it.

Mark Salo wrote:
Definitions and correct usage are important to effective communication.  I think.

To quote one of my chemistry professors from college: "No intelligent conversation can possibly be had using undefined terminology." I would add that anyone who thinks otherwise is making a huge mistake, and it is from just such mistakes that 90% of all life's disagreeable events arise.

Gary Melton wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble...but that would not hold up in court.  You could just as easily change the date and time on your PC to 2 years ago, then burn a CD that would show a date and time 2 years ago, even though you just burned it (and there's a couple dozen other ways the same thing could be accomplished).

This is just another urban legend, like the so-called "poor man's copyright method": mailing a sealed copy of your book to yourself as proof that you wrote a book.  The courts have never accepted that...again, too many ways to get around it.

Well...
There are degrees of proof in court.
For instance, if you hand wrote the contents of a last year's telephone conversation directly after it was completed, it's more persuasive to a court than just recollecting the conversation. So any documentation can be evidence of an event. It's just that some documentation is more persuasive than others.
So, in the example it's actually pretty good evidence (you could even have a forensic specialist examine the CD if necessary), but it's not necessarily the absolute best. But in combination it might actually win for you.

Ava Photography wrote:
do others see your raw photos if you copyright your raw photos?

Maybe...depends.

Gary Melton wrote:
I think the OP is referring to "raw" (unedited/unretouched) images, not "RAW" (NEF, etc.) files.

That is correct.  I meant unedited images in contrast to edited images.

I also meant registering the copyrights, not copyrighting.

I would have thought that both of the above would have been fairly apparent from the context.  In any case, my apologies to everyone for the confusion.

Mark Salo wrote:

Definitions and correct usage are important to effective communication.  I think.

That is true.  My apologies.