A federal court in Minnesota has ruled that a business that allegedly copied copyrighted photographs from a Web site and used the images in advertisements is liable for the removal of embedded digital watermarks from the images. The court said that the watermarks were copyright-eligible as “copyright management information.” Accordingly, their removal was an actionable copyright violation, the court said. Case name is Gregerson v. Vilana Fin. Inc.
Roy barry, 7 months ago
I hope they have their spleens’ removed without anaesthetic…....
Karl Denton, 7 months ago
So were they found liable for using the photograph unauthorized or for removing the digital watermark?
Judith Oppenhe... in reply to Karl Denton’s comment, 7 months ago
Both: “liable for the removal of embedded digital watermarks from the images. The court said that the watermarks were copyright-eligible as “copyright management information.” Because of this, their removal was an actionable copyright violation, the court said.
GlennRoger, 7 months ago
Catching somone using your work could prove to be alot more profitable than trying to sell it then. Interesting! Only joking, in truth the thought of these b**ds profiting from someone elses work makes my blood boil. I think everyone should use the largest watermark possible on the large images. Why make it easy for them. The problem is that most people don’t realise what the right image is worth to a given buyer.The people steeling our images are making a small fortune because they know exactly were to sell it. I hope everyone on red bubble reads your thread Judith and I hope they take heed. Make the thieving beggers go out and work for a crust like the rest of us. ok rant over. Great posting BTW.
Judith Oppenhe... in reply to GlennRoger’s comment, 7 months ago
I wish the watermarks were available for the smaller images too. There are services that can enhance and enlarge low resolution small images, even from cell phones. Nothing is safe.
Joe Beasley IPA, 7 months ago
More info on the case here
Jan Piller, 7 months ago
I have images on another web site and had approximately 24 of them were stolen and are currently being used on a website called playcomet or pic.playcomet.com. These people took photos from me and several other photographers off that forum and you wouldn’t believe how difficult it is to get them to remove them. Some site out of China – nobody can afford international legal action – so these scums can actually get away with what they’re doing. Thanks for bringing this one to our attention – it was a good idea. If others out there are considering taking images that don’t belong to them, perhaps this article will make them think twice.
lewis caley, 7 months ago
any ideas what website?
Jo Hoden, 7 months ago
Thanks for info Judith,I know it cant be stopped in a lot of cases,but at least like the others say lets make it as awkwad as poss.Just made mine bigger,thanks again.
Its unbelievable really,they cannot have any morals.
JOSEPH VALCOUR..., 7 months ago
The Chinese government in general has no regard for intellectual property rights. You may have legal rights here, but internationally it’s a pirates world.
Helen Bascom, 7 months ago
Copyrighting the copyright mark. Sheesh.
Joe Beasley IPA, 7 months ago
As I understand the law, it’s not copyrighting the copyright mark, but the removal of the copyright (ownership) information. (like removing the vin # from a car) that is a seperate crime
Watermarks Can Be Music To Your Ears
While many photographers place watermarks including their name and/or the copyright notice on their images to prevent someone from infringing them, it’s fairly easy to crop or clone over the mark. Fortunately, the DMCA section of the Copyright Act provides an even better reason to use watermarks.
Section 1202 of the U.S. Copyright Act makes it illegal for someone to remove the watermark from your photo so that it can disguise the infringement when used. The fines start at $2500 and go to $25,000 in addition to attorneys’ fees and any damages for the infringement. The pertinent part of the statute is included below:
Section 1202. Integrity of copyright management information . . .
(b) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION.
No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law:
(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information . . .
(3) distribute . . . copies of works . . . knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner . . . knowing . . . that it will . . . conceal an infringement of any right under this title.
(c) DEFINITION. . . . “[C]opyright management information” means any of the following information conveyed in connection with copies . . . of a work . . . or displays of a work, including in digital form . . . :
(2) The name of, and other identifying information about, the author of a work.
(3) The name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner of the work, including the information set forth in a notice of copyright. . . .
Section 1203. Civil remedies
(b) POWERS OF THE COURT. In an action brought under subsection (a), the court . . .
(3) may award damages under subsection©;
(4) in its discretion may allow the recovery of costs by or against any party . . . ; [and]
(5) in its discretion may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party . . .
(c) AWARD OF DAMAGES. (1) IN GENERAL. . . . [a] person committing a violation of . . . 1202 is liable for either
(A) the actual damages and any additional profits of the violator . . . or
(B) statutory damages, as provided in paragraph (3).
(3) STATUTORY DAMAGES. . . .
(B) At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.
And the even better news? You don’t have to have registered your photo in advance to recover under this statute.
http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/07/watermarks-can-be-music-to-your-ears.html