Although its not a great cost of just £67 a year, does everyone elways upload their photos to http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/ before they watermark them and publish them?
Could you not just keep a copy of them on a sealed & I'm sure the datestamped CD with all the relevant metadata, what is the advantage? I'm sure the © site have a huge dtatabase of superb photos, couldnt they be a place where we could advertise them too?
In a similar vein, what is the process of getting a person's permission to include them in one of your proposed publishable images? Do you simply just ask them to sign a form or something!?
Two issues; copyright and model releases.
Copyright; as per the other posters, buying the AOP book Beyond the Lens is better use of your cash than paying for a registration service here in the UK. If infringed, you would have more than enough proof to prove you were the photographer; RAW files, similar images taken at the same time, metadata embedded in the image, receipts and proof of going to where you took the image etc etc etc. This would be enough to compel an infringer to settle before going to court.
This may change if the Orphan Works section of the Digital Economy Bill finds its way through parliament - but there are many fighting that tooth and nail. Orphan works are images where the creator cannot be easily identified. The Conservative MP for Culture Media and Sport (Jeremy Hunt) actually suggested an "opt-out" of orphan works....but as metadata can be removed and © notices in the image be cropped, anyone can create an orphan then there is no safeguard. How could anyone know I own an image....and if I have "opted out"? Its a paradox I cannot figure.
In light of Orphan Works, now more than ever has the need to be identified as the creator of an image been important - particularly online. Anything you post must have copyright and contact details embedded AND a "©
Your first name and last name. All rights reserved" displayed. Do not use nicknames, company names, or website addresses behind the © as this could infer that someone else may own the image rights. Just like a car door lock, it won't stop thieves, but it slows them down or makes them go elsewhere.
Model releases; UK specific advice follows. For editorial use (newspapers and magazines) then no model release is required. For advertising then they are a very good idea indeed. People can object to their face endorsing a product. Actually recovering damages is difficult unless your "image" has proven value and you can prove loss. For example, my face (great for radio) has no value, but a professional model could prove the value of their image and thereby demonstrate loss. At least that is my understanding.
Hope this helps.
