What are your WDW (or personal) photography pet peeves?

[DSLRuser]

I suspect most posted on BBs have not submitted their work to the US Copyright office given the current fee of $35. Yes you own it and it is technically your photo but if you didn't file the photo stop putting up the "C" logo.

Just so you know, and it is obvious you DO NOT. A photographer does not have to submit their work to any office for it to be protected under US copyright law.

All you have to be able to prove is that you are the owner of the work.

So, if you didn't take the photo, you have to have permission from the original photographer. The original photo does not need a water mark, but a small one in the corner is not a bad idea. Also, info hard coded in the exif data. So if you find someone using your work, you have several grounds to win on in a court judgment.

The watermark just deters some of the extreme amateurs.

I do agree that taking the time to register your work is the ultimate protection, but it is not 100% needed in most cases. Especially for the average hobby type person.

Now, if my picture were my sole source of income, yes, every image would be submitted.

 

[photo_chick]

The watermark thing is just a principle thing. I dont care about copyrighting or the law behind it but if i spend alot of time to get a shot I love and want to share it with people here who can actually learn from settings or how it was made Ill be damned if i leave it unwatermarked for the masses to copy off the post I post. I dont think my photo is worth any money but I would do it for the sole purpose of allowing people to learn from it.

Never post anything online that you don't want stolen. No matter how big and ugly you make that watermark on the image someone out there will remove it to use that image for something. The only way to control it in this age of instant sharing is not to post it.

Just so you know, and it is obvious you DO NOT. A photographer does not have to submit their work to any office for it to be protected under US copyright law.

All you have to be able to prove is that you are the owner of the work.

So, if you didn't take the photo, you have to have permission from the original photographer. The original photo does not need a water mark, but a small one in the corner is not a bad idea. Also, info hard coded in the exif data. So if you find someone using your work, you have several grounds to win on in a court judgment.

The watermark just deters some of the extreme amateurs.

I do agree that taking the time to register your work is the ultimate protection, but it is not 100% needed in most cases. Especially for the average hobby type person.

Now, if my picture were my sole source of income, yes, every image would be submitted.

Copyright does happen at the moment of creation. But in order to enforce those copyrights you must register the images. You have a set amount of time (I can't remember if it's 90 days or 6 months) after the first infringement occurs to register if you want to take legal action against someone. Scott Kelby has a good interview with Ed Greenberg in the archives from a few years ago on the subject.

 

[wbeem]

Just so you know, and it is obvious you DO NOT. A photographer does not have to submit their work to any office for it to be protected under US copyright law.

All you have to be able to prove is that you are the owner of the work.

Hogwash. Absolute hogwash. Tell me, how many copyright infringement lawsuits have you participated in without having a registered copyright?

Actually, I recant part of my statement. The only part of your statement that is factual is the last sentence that I quoted from you. The thing is the only way a court will accept your proof is by showing your US Copyright registration.

 

[lizabu]

One of my pet peeves is "photo bombing". I had it happen numerous times at WDW and it seems to happen a lot at places like fairs or really anywhere there are a lot of people. I won't think it's cute if you jump into my family portrait. Not even a little bit.