Sorry, but (a) it isn't proof (I can put a watermark on any image I steal off your compuer- that doesn't "prove" it's mine any more than it "proves" it's yours. Also, you can certainly uncrop an image- depending on what's in the cropped part i can be simulated, manipulated or generated depending on skill, computing power available and the number of other images available. It's more difficult to do, but it's certainly not impossible.
Your right about "A" it isn't proof, but it's one way of preventing someone from stealing your image, like iStock Photos grotesque watermarks. And "B" is also correct, and goes along with the first statement. If I can't prove that I pressed the shutter button, what's my next line of defense? Pull out an original and complete work.
If you steal an image off of my computer, and it's a RAW file, and I am going to have a tough time proving it's mine unless there is metadata in the file that says it mine. Also, if the copyright is large enough, there is NO way you are going to put information back into a photo that either (a) was never there to begin with or (b) you had to completely crop out because of a large solid watermark. If so I can certainly hand you an image.
I'm pretty sure Aperture allows full EXIF viewing..
Not the image comment that the camera records and is extremely hard if not somewhat impossible to do. The only app that I can use to get that info is Photo Mechanic, which is why many journalists use it.
Not saying you're wrong, but copyright isn't as cut and dry as you make it seem. There are parts that deal with fair use or intellectual property, archiving for social purposes, and transfers of copyright. It applies to every photog out there, not just for hire, or journalists.
Then there are laws that deal solely with putting your image on the web, and in many cases that strips you of your exclusivity solely because you placed it in an undisclosed (still in debate) domain where everything is up for grabs.
The laws change if you take a photo in a public place, or where the person is the sole subject, or of children, or of public figures. The safest way to obtain a copyright is to send for a legal document from the copyright office. Hitting the shutter and sticking a layer on the photo just won't cut it.
You should add to your reading a book about Mass Media Law, and Ethics in Journalism. Which state many of the loose copyright laws you mention, but also tell how they won't help you when someone takes your work.
Well I should have been more clear. They were lifting entire web pages off my personal website, including text I'd written and photos I'd taken, and posted the entire page on their website.
Addendum: After reading the material on copyright.gov (posted by compuware), I think my initial assumption was correct - I should have implicit copyright simply by taking the photo, just as I do when writing original text.
And both you and him are forgetting that these laws still leave you to bear the proof. Or in other words, YOU still have to bear the proof that it's your work if it goes any further than, "can you please take this down."
With writing there is an implicit copyright that comes simply with the creation of the work - in the US anyway. I assumed (apparently incorrectly) the same was true of photographs.
This simply isn't true and will get you burned. There is no implicit copyright that comes with creation of the work with writing or with photographs. By that I mean, there is no veil of protection because you where the originator. You still have to give facts that will hold up against your infringer that you are the original creator, and simply having a copy isn't going to cut it.
Read this and see what saved her
You have to have documented proof.
And both you and him are forgetting fair use.
Read all of the "THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998" and "The Intellectual Property Protection and Courts Amendments Act of 2004" and apply it to what you will read about in Mass Media Law, and Ethics in Journalism and you will get the sad truth.
