OOh all I will do is post a picture of blackness and they are welcome to pinch that.

Bazza

That is unbelievable!
At the moment I put my initials on my images. Is that enough or do I need to watermark more heavily?

Here's an update on what is happening with the bill.....

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=873585

Thanks for the update Moonie!

If the only search they are going to do is via "licensing bodies, association of publishers or authors, systems for identifying works of the type concerned, published library catalogues and indexes and public databases" then an awful lot of pics are going to fall through the search, and be able to be used.

[b]"We feel everyone should be aware that should the bill pass in its current form, any creative work, including photography, is potentially open to political, social, religious or commercial gain by anyone; if the creator of that work cannot be easily identified and traced."

"The organisation also advises photographers to put "a copyright symbol and your name in the actual picture itself. Whilst this won’t stop someone cropping that picture, it makes it a deliberate act of creating an orphan work," which is punishable by law." Association of Photographers

So putting your name in a corner isn't much good in reality, the only way really is to put it through the main body of the picture

I would think a good compromise would be to put your watermark as usual (or url to your profile on a website - ie making it easy for you to be contacted) along with a relatively transparent © in the middle - that way the image is unusable, you have your details on it and it's better than a big fat watermark in the middle.

Btw, I am trying to get the forum software guys to add this functionality so it is done automatically to all images uploaded

So at the moment I have my initials on all my pictures. Does it actually need to be by name?
I haven't got a photography blog so can't add those details but as my images are just on flickr (except the ones on here), I am traceable / contactable.
Is that enough?
So confusing!

According to what they're saying, a name alone isn't enough - hence why I said use a profile url, as that way they can find the site and contact you from there. I wouldn't use an email cos you'll just get a tonne of spam and will prob stop checking it so kinda besides the point.

It hasn't been brought in yet tho - fingers crossed it doesn't get thro!

The way I am understanding it, if they are lifted from Flickr, you will be fine,as there is Flickr mail,plus you could put under your pictures in the description section "This is copyright of Emma blah blah blah.Do not use without my permission etc" Then copy and paste it each time you upload a pic. I think that is what I am going to do from now on. You could also do it small letters under any work you post on a website.

I don't think having a blog or website will make a difference, as there is nothing to stop someone nicking your pics. The only way I see it to protect your images online, is to put a watermark through the main body of the picture.

Tbh a visible © in the middle alone would prob put most people of using it