login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Question on copyright laws Search   Reply
Photographer
Sam Dixon
Posts: 259
Los Angeles, California, US


I saw a thread on facebook tonight where a model was complaining about people stealing her pics.  One person responded with the following comment and I'm wondering if any of you know what he's talking about....

" congress changed the copyright laws effective dec 1 2012 regarding public domain and internet publishing.. make sure you digimark all your meta data with copyright codecs.."
Dec 06 12 09:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Designit - Edward Olson
Posts: 1,539
Eureka, California, US


Sam Dixon  wrote:
I saw a thread on facebook tonight where a model was complaining about people stealing her pics.  One person responded with the following comment and I'm wondering if any of you know what he's talking about....

" congress changed the copyright laws effective dec 1 2012 regarding public domain and internet publishing.. make sure you digimark all your meta data with copyright codecs.."

Congress did anything in the last two years?

No, it isn't true.

Dec 06 12 09:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 2,633
Saint Louis, Missouri, US


There's nothing about it on copyright.gov.

Besides, copyright is too substantive and consequential to warrant the attention of this Congress.
Dec 06 12 09:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GCobb Photography
Posts: 15,833
Southaven, Mississippi, US


Sam Dixon  wrote:
I saw a thread on facebook tonight where a model was complaining about people stealing her pics.  One person responded with the following comment and I'm wondering if any of you know what he's talking about....

" congress changed the copyright laws effective dec 1 2012 regarding public domain and internet publishing.. make sure you digimark all your meta data with copyright codecs.."

I wonder if HE knows what he's talking about.

Dec 06 12 09:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Paul AI
Posts: 572
Shawnee, Oklahoma, US


a copyright codec?
Dec 06 12 09:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Barely StL
Posts: 432
Saint Louis, Missouri, US


Paul AI wrote:
a copyright codec?

Digimarc is the only third-party plug-in that ships with Photoshop.

It embeds an invisible copyright notice in images that is difficult (but not impossible, I've heard) to remove.

Different membership levels are available to protect different images and provide various serivce. Professional level ($100/year) protects up to 2,000 images/year provides a web crawler that allows you to track all of the web pages where your marked images appear.

Dec 06 12 09:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
D Magi Visual Concepts
Posts: 2,072
Los Angeles, California, US


Congress has done nothing in the last 3 years, much less copyright law.
Dec 06 12 09:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 14,288
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


There is a proposal in front of Congress for some legislation related to Copyright. As far as I am aware, it has not been passed or signed into law by the President.
Dec 06 12 09:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
UltimateAppeal
Posts: 4,450
Daytona Beach, Florida, US


Barely StL wrote:
Digimarc is the only third-party plug-in that ships with Photoshop.

It embeds an invisible copyright notice in images that is difficult (but not impossible, I've heard) to remove. Digimarc's highest membership level ($100/year) provides a web crawler that allows you to track all of the web pages where your marked images appear.

Clarification here -

Professional is $99/yr - that includes UP to 2000 images

Small Business is $499/yr - up to 5000 images

Enterprise (priced based on needs etc) - contact a sales rep with Digimarc

Dec 06 12 09:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Barely StL
Posts: 432
Saint Louis, Missouri, US


UltimateAppeal wrote:
Clarification here -

Professional is $99/yr - that includes UP to 2000 images

Small Business is $499/yr - up to 5000 images

Enterprise (priced based on needs etc) - contact a sales rep with Digimarc

Correct.

We were correcting the info at the same time.

Dec 06 12 09:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
UCPhotog
Posts: 895
Union City, California, US


Sam Dixon  wrote:
I saw a thread on facebook tonight where a llama was complaining about people stealing her pics.  One person responded with the following comment and I'm wondering if any of you know what he's talking about....

" congress changed the copyright laws effective dec 1 2012 regarding public domain and internet publishing.. make sure you digimark all your meta data with copyright codecs.."

No changes to copyright, trademark or patent effective 01-DEC-2012. None. As one person noted, nothing done with this Congress at all.

"Digimark (sic) your meta data with copyright codecs?" There are no codecs for Digimarc. The meta data isn't what is copyrightable, it is the photo. Whoever replied is completely uniformed and providing bad information.

Dec 06 12 09:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Awesome Headshots
Posts: 2,164
San Ramon, California, US


Accepting some punks proof that he is the dip in the IQ bell curve by yapping about copyright law from a photographer-model networking site makes as much sense as accepting probably that same punks cheap shot on a social media site where the relevance of what you had for lunch and when you went to the gym holds more weight than Oprahs toilet seat...... Just saying.
Dec 06 12 10:08 pm  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2013 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Internet Rank | Careers