DISSERTATION TITLE

In this age of digital freedom how can digital image ownership be determined while restoring the balance to copyright and thus helping consumers to act lawfully?



CONTENTS

  1. Acknowledgements
  2. Summary
  3. Abbreviations & Glossary
  4. Note on Access to Contents
  5. Introduction
  6. Why Protect Images? Why Have Copyright?
  7. The Problem of Establishing Image Ownership in this Digital Age
  8. The Balance of Power and Problems With The Current Copyright System
  9. A Changing World, Copyright Theft, and The Problems With Photography Today
  10. Current Systems of Image and Copyright Protection
  11. Approaching The Problem With A New Perspective
  12. Conclusion
  13. References


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following people for their support with this project: Professional photographers Khara Pringle and Victoria McKeen for their open answers and insightful feedback; the staff at Jessops' High Street and Arthur Square branches for their frank and detailed replies to my questionnaires; my tutor Chris Murphy for his enthusiasm and support, including his CSS web design classes, for which I also thank Nicklas Persson. Finally I'm grateful to my mum Julia Geddes for proof reading and her endless support over these difficult months; and also my fellow colleagues, particularly Zhenia Mahdi-Nau and Tim Black for their honest opinions and continued friendship.



SUMMARY

The photographic world has been seized by a digital revolution bringing many advantages, but also significant disadvantages too. Without physical negatives, how do you establish the ownership of an image?

With the proliferation of the home computer and digital imaging software, many people are using professional copyrighted images illegally because they have no comprehension of copyright or how it affects them. Conversely many photographic shops are refusing to print amateur photographs for fear that they might be professional copyrighted images which could result in a lawsuit.

I attribute this misuse of images to lack of information, lack of understanding and deliberate unauthorised use. This project addresses the first two aspects, developing a means of helping people to act lawfully.

I spoke with two established photographers who were happy to fill in questionnaires, but unfortunately the intellectual property expert I contacted did not respond. I also circulated questionnaires around two photography shops and used the feedback to develop a visual representation of a new Photographic Rights Awareness (PRA) system.

The system is of two parts. Firstly once an image's license has expired, the PRA logo slowly fades into the image. This hinders further commercial use while acting as a reminder that the image is copyright protected. The second part is a window with three sections. An information screen displays extensive copyright details allowing the user to contact the photographer. The second screen offers licensing options, while the third is a help section which is designed to aid users in understanding how copyright affects them personally, while answering some frequently asked questions. Through education and awareness I aim to help consumers to act legally.

While acknowledging some potential technical problems, my system offers a feasible means of helping society to develop legally within the framework of the current copyright system.



ABBREVIATIONS & GLOSSARY

Clean image
A photograph without any visual or covert watermark (whether in the form of a logo or copyright details).
Copyright
The exclusive legal right granted to creators to control use and reproduction of their work for a limited time.
DMCA
Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
DRM
Digital Rights Management. This refers to any digital means of managing rights permissions.
Fair use
A provision within copyright law allowing certain uses of content that would otherwise be prohibited.
PRA
Photographic Rights Awareness. The name given to this project which among other things, aims to create a greater awareness of photographic copyright, while attempting to balance the rights of all parties involved.
Public domain
The public domain encompasses all images for which copyright has expired, been waved, or simply does not apply. These images may be freely used, although it should be remembered that a photograph of a public domain work is itself protected by copyright.
TPM
Technological Protection Measure, eg. DRM.
Watermark
A visual watermark is an identifying feature such as a logo, super-imposed onto the image. A digital or covert watermark is an identifying feature invisibly embedded within the image or image file, which identifies that image without being visually apparent.


NOTE ON ACCESS TO CONTENTS

I hereby declare that with effect from the date on which the dissertation is deposited in the Library of the University of Ulster I permit the Librarian of the University to allow the dissertation to be copied in whole or in part without reference to me on the understanding that such authority applies to the provision of single copies made for study purposes or for inclusion within the stock of another library. This restriction does not apply to the copying or publication of the title and abstract of the dissertation.

IT IS A CONDITION OF USE OF THIS DISSERTATION THAT ANYONE WHO CONSULTS IT MUST RECOGNISE THAT THE COPYRIGHT RESTS WITH THE AUTHOR AND THAT NO QUOTATION FROM THE DISSERTATION AND NO INFORMATION DERIVED FROM IT MAY BE PUBLISHED UNLESS THE SOURCE IS PROPERLY ACKNOWLEDGED.



INTRODUCTION

Technology has evolved greatly over the past few decades, and certainly the computer revolution has had far reaching consequences in almost every field of life. Within the last decade digital technology has reshaped photography as we knew it, and with it the values and certainties of the past one hundred years.

Central to my investigation was the question of how to determine ownership of an image and what rights other people have to interact with that image. Until now possession of negatives could usually be taken as evidence of copyright ownership. However in the digital world there are no negatives and every copy of the digital file is identical. So how can image ownership be established? If someone comes into a photographic store wishing to print a digital photograph, how can the employee be sure that the customer has the right to do so? Is it right that the employee should be expected to make this judgement?

My research shows that the number of people who come into photographic stores wanting to reproduce copyrighted images without permission is staggering. It also reveals that the issue of copyright has never occurred to the majority of customers and indeed many simply cannot comprehend how copyright can govern their ability to reproduce photographs depicting themselves. This raises an important question: what good is a law that is intended to maintain a balance of rights, if one of the parties involved has no comprehension of how that law effects them?

I began by exploring the concept of copyright: what it is, and why we need it. It quickly became clear that in order to reach a meaningful outcome, consideration of the benefits of copyright both to the content owner and to society would be required. I also examined the significance an image has for various user groups in an effort to understand where the conflict of interests lay and the resulting consequences.

Having looked at the shortcomings of the current framework I then considered what barred the way to a fairer system. Fair use is a concept that allows certain uses of copyrighted material in order to maintain a balanced system, aiding innovation and the progression of society. However it is a concept almost lost under the control of today's large corporations, and thus it seemed clear that I would need to restore fair use to the equation.

My research led me to conclude that the entertainment industries' response to unauthorised usage of copyrighted works was not only ineffective but also ill conceived. Through use of DRM they attempt to prevent all unauthorised use (including possible fair use) instead of trying to understand why unauthorised use takes place. This seemed to me to be crucial to the problem I was trying to solve, since appropriate action necessitates understanding of why the problem occurs.

Consider the many images 'freely' available on the internet: how can anyone be sure who owns a particular image and which images are not governed by copyright? Some means of identifying an image and the applicable copyright would make contacting a photographer or determining your right to use said image so much easier.

My key concern was in helping people to act lawfully, and it seems to me that image users can be broadly categorised into three groups: those who know of copyright but are unsure whether it applies to a particular image; those who have no understanding of how copyright relates to the visual image; and finally those who deliberately use images illegally. My main concern was with the first two groups because they are the ones who need help within the current system, and so I devised a framework composed of three main sections which are designed to help users act lawfully: information, licensing, and explanation (education).

In order to illustrate my concept I produced a demonstration using Flash which visualises how my system could work and put my theories into practice, while achieving my objectives. I must stress that this demonstration is not a prototype, and it must be clear that I am proposing an idea, not a finished product. The technological workings are not my field and thus are beyond the purview of this project. Indeed there are some technical issues such as the initialisation of my program when an image is scanned, which potentially represent difficulties for my system, and while I acknowledge them in this paper, I deem them to be technological fine-points which are for programmers to solve. Instead I focus on the concept and the implications of its implementation.

Copyright shouldn't be scary and esoteric, and unlike the current use of DRM, my system isn't about 'protecting' images in a lock-tight box. Rather I'm concerned with helping people to act responsibly and lawfully. "Significant improvements in broadband connectivity are increasing the demand for visual content [both] on the web" [1] and on other new devices. My system represents a means of aiding society to progress and meet these new developments head on.



WHY PROTECT IMAGES? WHY HAVE COPYRIGHT?

Copyright is the exclusive legal right granted to content creators to control certain uses of their work for a limited time. As copyright was created to balance the interests of both the public and content creators, we should exercise caution not to think of it solely in terms of rights afforded authors. Lawrence Lessig explains: "Its purpose is a public one, not the purpose of enriching publishers, nor even primarily the purpose of rewarding authors." [2] Copyright isn't about making money for the creator, rather it's of a higher purpose. A purpose clarified in the U.S. Constitution, showing copyright as a device designed to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." [3]

So what it boils down to is this: Society develops through the progress of science and art. In order to make it worth the while of a photographer to create imagery, he is given certain rights over his work for a limited time so that he can profit from it, both to survive and as an incentive to create. This then secures more content for the public. Thus copyright is simply the means to an end: the purpose of ensuring continued creation.

The scope of copyright today is much more expansive than it was in the past, and indeed "it is clear that the current reach of copyright was never contemplated... by the legislators who enacted copyright law." [4] However as it stands, a photographer is for a limited time, legally granted control over reproduction, distribution, public performance, and derivative works. [5] Some people feel that if a particular market isn't being exploited, then why shouldn't they use the photographer's work (without permission), however this hinders the photographer from entering that market himself should he wish to do so. Importantly an unauthorised use may have negative associations that damage the image of either the photographer himself or the specific photographic work (thus devaluing it). Photographer Victoria McKeen was particularly concerned about this when I spoke with her because not only are the images her "livelihood", but also she feels a strong personal attachment to much of her work.

With these points in mind, one can understand why the copyright of photographers should be respected. If a photographer makes his living from taking and selling pictures, then illegally copying his work is effectively eroding his ability to survive as a photographer, and thus his incentive to create new works. However at the same time it's important never to lose sight of the balance. As just stated, copyright has changed over the past couple of decades and now the public have fewer rights than ever before. Without balance, copyright loses its ability to fulfil its core purpose: that of balancing the interests of creators and the public. [6] I feel that it is important that this balance be restored, before we as a global society have gone so far down this current path, that it is impossible to turn back.



THE PROBLEM OF ESTABLISHING IMAGE OWNERSHIP IN THIS DIGITAL AGE

The copyright system today is far from ideal, and technology is changing so rapidly that the legal system has yet to catch up. The biggest technological change of recent years is the shift away from film to digital photography. While digital offers many advantages over film, there is a major problem inherent in the very nature of digital technology: each copy is identical. With film photography, the owner could usually be identified by possession of the negatives. However with digital, where the original is essentially identical to any subsequent copies, how do you determine the identity of the photographer?

This presents several significant dilemmas relating to identity including, how do you prove that you are the creator of an image and how can you be sure that the person who claims to own the copyright of an image really does own it?

There are many other similar issues to consider. If you cannot identify who owns an image then how do you determine if an image is in the public domain in which case copyright no longer applies? Without knowing the photographer, you cannot determine whether an image has entered the public domain (death of creator plus seventy years) [7], acquire a license, or ask permission to use an image under fair use.

When the law required copyright owners to mark their work with the copyright symbol such determinations were considerably simpler, however while no longer required [8] some photographers do mark their work and this helps, particularly with images found online, although you can never be sure where they originated and thus who owns the copyright. [9]

Consider this for a moment: it is one thing to post an image online with copyright details placed over the image, but it is quite another to sell it like that for publication. The image sent to a publisher can't have copyright details placed over the photograph, as this would detract from its aesthetic integrity thus compromising the effectiveness of the image. Advertising and fashion photographer Khara Pringle told me that she never places copyright information over images because she wants "potential clients to see [her] images as clearly as possible." It's simply a question of opportunity cost.

One escalating issue is that with digital cameras and editing software now aiding amateurs to create pictures of an increasingly professional appearance, many photographic shops to the dismay of their customers, are refusing to print amateur photographs for fear of breaching copyright. [10]

Thus we are presented with a major problem: "Technology means you can now do amazing things easily; but you [can't] do them legally." [11] And even were you are perfectly entitled to do so, the over-inflated pull of copyright law, both directly and indirectly, hinders you from doing so.



THE BALANCE OF POWER AND PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT COPYRIGHT SYSTEM

Lessig summarises this issue very succinctly: "The law now regulates the full range of creativity - commercial or not... - with the same rules designed to regulate commercial publishers." [12] What this means is that copyright today intrudes far more into ordinary people's lives than is really necessary to achieve the original goals of copyright.


THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IMAGERY TO SOCIETY

Why are images so important to people? In today's society of cheap and easy printing, imagery has crept into almost every facet of our lives. Imagery is a very effective way of communicating with people, however as our society embraces these images, people begin to identify with them and they can become part of their own personality, individuality and being.

To the anthropologist an image can be a historical record. To businesses they are an identity, a means of communicating an idea or concept, and ultimately a source of revenue. To the individual they are a source of inspiration, a memento, a decoration, and means of personal expression. To the photographer an image can be a means of self-expression in a fine art context, or a made-to-order representation of reality or concept in a purely commercial context.

Images speak to people in so many ways and with so many applications that it is easy to understand how they can be of value to a wider audience. Is it really ethical to exploit the single originating purpose at the expense of all these different functions? This must have been in the minds of the founders of copyright law when they decided to limit the term for which copyright could be applied. However as Rick Boucher observes, the balance that once existed "has tipped too far... [and now hampers] consumers' rights to use digital media." [13]


THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LIFE CYCLE

I have come to the conclusion that an image has a construction very similar to that of atomic structures. The photograph itself exists at the centre, separate from its purpose and values. It is then enriched by three surrounding elements: personal values, commercial values, and fair use. Although not necessarily equal, each of these elements have their place. It is through these surrounding elements that an image is enriched and gains layers of meaning and social significance. I call this an image's life cycle and I feel that it would be very wrong to unequivocally deny any element's right to exist.

If we accept that images have importance beyond their core purpose, then there is a responsibility, not necessarily to make the images themselves accessible, but rather the information necessary to determine the permissions of use easily available to those who might wish to use them. In so doing, images that people fear to use due to the current lack of copyright information would be freed from the shadow of copyright uncertainty.


BARRIERS TO A FAIRER SYSTEM

I perceive three main barriers to a fairer system. Firstly the lack of available copyright and usage information. Secondly the unethical extension of the period of protection. This is mainly facilitated by large companies who fear the loss of the continuing income from valuable copyrights. Lessig points to Disney [14] whose government lobbying is a prime example. The unfortunate side effect of one company gaining a copyright extension is that the extension locks up all the other creative works which no longer need protection and should belong in the public domain. After all "most creative work has an actual commercial life of just a couple of years," [15] after which copyright protection is really doing no one any good. Thirdly the "extreme penalties for vague infringements" [16] dissuade people from innovating with their visual culture when they are really free to do so. Looking at the current situation in this light one can't help but ask, does copyright today do more harm than good?

Answering this question is not easy and I feel that copyright is valuable both as an incentive to create and as a means of recompensing creators. However at the same time copyright has become so warped that it touches on almost every aspect of our daily lives. Are the relevant interests of creators really so important and if so are the heavy penalties that face the largely innocent populace really appropriate? When one views the motivations of these companies the answer is definitely "no." However monopoly tactics and abuse of power are beyond the scope of this paper. Rather my concern is how to achieve an equilibrium of rights between complete freedom and control, that will satisfy both the public and content creators.

The use of images is hampered by three main parties: those who wish to exercise their copyrights, those who do not but for which copyright applies, and those works for which no copyright information may be found. At present there is no real means for creators who do not wish to exercise their copyright to make this fact known. Nor is there any way to use an unknown or "orphan" image with any means of certainty as to its exemption of copyright. This is to the detriment of a visually rich and innovative society.


FACILITATING FAIR USE

Fair use is a vague and complex aspect of copyright law that allows certain uses of copyright material that would otherwise be prohibited. These include: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. [17] Since the law recognises that certain uses of images are acceptable in order to enrich our culture, then is there a way for me to facilitate this with greater ease? Instead of automatically punishing infraction wouldn't it be better to get to the heart of the problem?

DRM is a digital technology that 'manages' (or mismanages) rights. Simply put, it allows private parties to control usage of material to the extent of creating their own rules of use which are far more restrictive than copyright decrees, while legislation gives legal weight to the use of these technologies. The result of such law is that fair use is "overturned... as a default right." [18]

The Christian Bible explains that God gave man free will so that he could learn by his mistakes and grow as a person, because without free will, everyone and everything would be the same. Using DRM to prevent users from exercising their judgement is worrying in regard to innovation and the continued development of our culture.

In the past copyright law included a requirement of renewal so as to ensure that continued protection was only granted to works where it was actually wanted. [19] Without such a measure, many images which have "no continuing commercial value" [20] are locked-up within copyright that serves no good. What this shows is that we as a society are crying out for change.



A CHANGING WORLD, COPYRIGHT THEFT, AND THE PROBLEMS WITH PHOTOGRAPHY TODAY

APPROPRIATE ACTION NECESSITATES UNDERSTANDING

The entertainment industry has chosen to use DRM to restrict use of content and technologically prevent theft of their media. In so doing they also prevent a wide variety of fair use - either collateral damage, or a further extension of their desire to control.

EFF attorney Fred Von Lohmann feels that it is "unlikely that any DRM technology (at least one that will be embraced by the copyright industries for their products) will be able to accommodate the full range of fair use." [21] I feel that I can offer a vision that facilitates fair use while still asserting copyright ownership because instead of trying to prevent unauthorised use, it seeks to understand the motivation and circumstances surrounding that use.

In the previous section I explained that images have different layers of meaning to different people, and are enriched by their various uses. In 1997 Fox Television forced the closure of a fan website [22] for unauthorised use of images of one of their programs resulting in widespread outcry. [23] Website creator Gill Trevizo explained: "They just don't understand the Web... as a community." [24]

The way that people communicate has changed significantly over the past few decades. Fair use and freedom of speech allow us to communicate freely with one another. It would be silly to claim breech of copyright just because one person tells their friend the plot to this weeks episode of NYPD Blue before the friend has seen it, although in essence they have removed the need for the other person to watch the show. The internet is a means of communicating and people view websites as their personal space: somewhere to decorate and express themselves. However the internet is different from audible speech in that the very nature of placing communication online is an act of publishing and so governed by copyright.

Society needs to consider at what point does copyright, essentially a private right, inhibit our fundamental human right to communicate? And more importantly do people really understand what this means to them? The law is fundamentally a set of rules for living in mutual harmony. What good is a law that is obscure and hinders our ability to communicate? Laws pertaining to copyright (eg. the DMCA) do not adequately take into account the motivation of society and the basic need to communicate. Instead of law that financially enriches the few, we need law that culturally enriches the many. I believe copyright is essential to the continued progress of society, but it can only fulfil its role if it seeks to maintain balance.


OTHER REASONS FOR IMAGE THEFT

So far I have been addressing image 'appropriation' as a by-product of communication. Now lets examine other reasons for image 'theft'. Pirate activity doesn't really apply to the image market in the way that it does to the entertainment industry - generally one doesn't copy and mass-produce images for unauthorised resale. In terms of deliberate appropriation, private use as a computer wallpaper is much more likely. Nor is deliberate theft by print publishers really a problem since the very act of publishing would be one of self-incrimination by its very nature, and they are very unlikely to go to the trouble of removing visible watermarks. In the case of publishers a mere reminder of copyright is all that would be necessary.

Some web publishers do appropriate images from other sites. Some may do so in pure ignorance, while others may think that nobody will notice; but like print publishers, what is really needed here is some sort of indication of whether an image is copyrighted or within the public domain.

The group that I find of particular interest is the general public. Everyone can grasp the concept that taking something from a shop without paying is wrong. However the feedback I have received from photo-printers suggests that customers' knowledge of copyright is very poor. Since the penalties for copyright infringement are so high, why don't consumers have a better knowledge and understanding of copyright? After all a punishment should essentially dissuade a person from repeating an action and recompense the owner for damage to property. If someone doesn't know that something is wrong, is such a severe punishment really appropriate? This takes us back to Lessig's observation: "The law now regulates the full range of creativity - commercial or not... - with the same rules designed to regulate commercial publishers." [25]


POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

So what do we do to rectify this problem? Blanket licensing [26] could be a solution, where everyone pays a fee that is divided up between content owners. However I feel that while this solution is the best way forward for the entertainment industries, in this instance it isn't appropriate. There are millions of people, both amateur and professional with cameras and it would be almost impossible to divide the proceeds fairly. It would also eliminate the possibility of price discrimination dependant upon resolution of image supplied, value of image, and the nature of the customer group in question. This offers insufficient flexibility for a professional photographer to make a living selling his work under this system.

The proposal I will outline is very different from any DRM currently in use, and will address the problems I have just outlined much more effectively than blanket licensing. This is because I am going back to the cause of the problem to try and understand its occurrence, rather than simply trying to manage the outcome. It's the difference between understanding and management. If you smack a child for misbehaving then they know only that their action has produced a painful result. In choosing not to repeat the action, the child is merely trying to avoid the painful punishment. On the other hand if you can help the child to understand why their action was wrong, then ideally they won't repeat it because they understand the reasoning for not doing it.


UNDERSTANDING THE VALUE OF IMAGES

This is where the current copyright system fails because it hasn't yet matured enough to operate effectively in the twenty-first century. Publishers know their trade and the penalties for violating applicable copyright laws. The public largely do not. It therefore seems unfair to treat them in the same way - the punishment neither fits the crime nor helps the offender to understand what they did wrong. Strange as it may seem, I believe that if the punishment doesn't help the offender, then it is not an appropriate response to the transgression.

Thus it is my opinion that the public's 'misuse' of copyrighted images is born out of ignorance and the fact that with this sort of media there is no victim that the public can relate to. [27] It is also apparent both from questionnaire responses and online forum discussions that "people have no respect for goods where the marginal cost of production is zero or close to it." [28] One lady felt outraged that the photographer she employed was getting his printing done cheaply and charging her a much higher fee. [29] This is central to the problem. As my questionnaires suggest, the general public can't distinguish between a "snapshot" and a professional photograph - a skilled artistic creation that is the product of arduous training, expensive equipment, creative talent, and years of experience. Instead they view a professional photograph as the person portrayed rather than an artistic representation of that person. Of course Magritte highlighted this concept in the late 1920s with his painting The Treachery of Images; a painting of a pipe with the caption "This is not a pipe." [30] In other words the representation and that which is represented are two entirely different entities. This is of course the answer to a question that plagues photo-labs: "If it's a photograph of me, then why can't I copy it?" From this we conclude that the general public fail to recognise the true value of a professional image. In that knowledge it becomes clear why some people can't appreciate the reason why they shouldn't duplicate copyrighted images without permission.


DETERMINING PERMISSION TO PRINT

Professional photographers aren't the only ones getting a 'raw deal.' Many customers of photo-shops feel that they are treated like criminals [31] when they go to print images which even remotely resemble a professional image: "Who died and made Wal-Mart the Gestapo anyway?" [32] This returns us to the question I posed earlier: How do you establish image ownership in this digital age? Fair use is by its very nature enshrouded in vagueness and complexity. Considering the degree of knowledge required to determine whether someone has the right to reproduce an image or not, photo-shops really don't have the necessary skilled staff to make judgements as to a customer's right to reproduce an image. If all images automatically have copyright without the need for a copyright symbol, [33] then how can anyone really determine with any certainty whether an image can be reproduced? This leads these stores to err on the side of caution.

Digital technology has enabled more people to take increasingly professional photographs and as a result it's difficult to judge copyright status from a simple visual examination: "Who's to say what's professional-looking and what's not? ...Just because it's not all blurry doesn't mean it's a professional photo." [34]

People should be able to enjoy photography, and so I ask: how can we change things so that people don't feel victimised when they go into a print-shop? Obviously the attitude of the staff can be part of the problem, but I'm considering the wider picture where the responsibility is placed with the customer. How do we educate the public about photographic rights?



CURRENT SYSTEMS OF IMAGE AND COPYRIGHT PROTECTION

VISUAL WATERMARKS

There are currently four main deterrents employed against image theft, however none has enjoyed complete success. A simple visual watermark is essentially a logo imposed over the photograph to identify its author. With the availability of image retouching software visible watermarks can be removed with varying degrees of success depending on the extent of the watermark - but that's not really the point, is it? No matter what you do, if someone really wants an image badly enough, then they will find a way to circumvent your protection. [35] One forum contributor felt that "a watermark is only a statement, not a protective measure..." [36] I would agree with this in terms of intent, but the extent to which the watermark obscures complex areas of the image will determine how easily a clean image may be generated. Obviously the problem here is that the more extensive the watermark, the more difficult removal would be and as a result the less aesthetically appealing the image becomes. As a reminder, a watermark enjoys a much higher success rate.


DIGITAL WATERMARKS

A digital or covert watermark is a unique electronic signature buried within the image which supposedly cannot be seen, although it is widely claimed that a minor degree of visual degradation is to be expected. If an image is stolen then the service provider can track its use across the internet, and your ID will allow you to prove ownership. My problem with this service is that it's covert and is mainly of benefit retrospectively. DigiMarc's MyPictureMarc [37] also places a visual watermark over the image which displays the photographer's name and website address when clicked. However this cannot be given to publishers - it's solely an internet-based solution. Not all systems use the visual watermark in conjunction with the covert one and as a result the main casualty of this system is likely to be the 'innocent' or ignorant user who gets caught, not having realised that using the image was wrong without copyright permission. Again this is largely managing the aftermath of theft, while the prevention element is weak at best.


NOTICES, AGREEMENTS, HTML AND JAVASCRIPT

Copyright notices, agreements and warnings can be useful, however they can put people off viewing the images if they are too heavy handed. Most copyright notices on DVDs make consumers feel like criminals and very few people actually read them - like software license agreements, they are examples of poorly designed communication. Certainly in terms of websites many people will simply feel put off and go to a different site instead. [38] This is true also of HTML and JavaScript measures within a website. They can make effective reminders, however they can also cause offence, impede navigation and prevent fair use, not to mention the fact that these are fairly easily circumvented.

Therefore in employing any of these four measures, one must consider the full implications of that measure. "It's really a trade off between good design, useability and security. If you become overzealous in protecting your images then your site becomes less user friendly." [39]


OTHER METHODS OF PROVING OWNERSHIP

Other means of proving image ownership include posting a copy to yourself via recorded delivery, giving a sealed copy to your lawyer, and registering with an online registration service. All three methods can be of help in establishing ownership, however none offer a complete solution. All three attempt to address the problem after the image misuse has occurred - none of them attempts to address the root of the problem. Furthermore while copyright registration is a good idea in theory, it takes time and money which may or may not be available to everyone whose images deserve copyright protection.



APPROACHING THE PROBLEM WITH A NEW PERSPECTIVE

MOTIVATIONS FOR UNAUTHORISED USE

Considering my questionnaires it seems that unauthorised image use occurs for a large number of reasons. While the majority of consumers may not have heard of the term fair use, they have their own ideas about what is acceptable to do with another person's work. In part this is down to ignorance as well as society's accepted norms. Certainly with technological advances, ease of copying is partly responsible. For those who do have an awareness of applicable copyright, some will have difficulty identifying and subsequently contacting the photographer for permission to use an image, while others may feel that their use of the image is so minor that they are within their rights to do so. Also significant are those who cannot comprehend the expertise, training, and creative talent that separate a common "snap-shot" from a professional photographic image. My solution needed to recognise these various reasons and motivations for unauthorised use, and in light of that understanding produce a more effective outcome.

Working on this project has reinforced my belief that the photographic industry's problem is not one of protecting against theft so much as educating people, establishing ownership, and making the necessary information more easily obtained. These are the three key areas that need addressed to produce a mutually beneficial resolution to the current digital image debacle.

My solution has four main elements that address the key issues of image ownership and copyright as I see them: information, payment, understanding, and expiration.


INFORMATION

In simplest terms my proposal is this: The photographer's information is embedded into every image he takes. Universally adopted software offers the photographer a series of check boxes allowing him to choose whether or not to exercise the various aspects of copyright entitlements. This embraces the ethos of Creative Commons, a body that enables content owners to specify the rights that they wish to exercise. This crucially avoids the problems incurred through DRM where content owners could essentially write their own laws: "DRM privatises and replaces copyright law, ...undermines copyright limitations, [and] threatens the interests of users... by unjustly extending intellectual property protection." [40] My system simply allows photographers to choose whether or not to exercise a legal right so there is no question of creating additional conditions. For example a photographer may choose to release his image to the public domain in only five years time because the image will no longer be of any continuing commercial value to him.

When opening an image the user would be presented with a pop-up dialogue box stating that the image is covered by copyright. They then have the option to continue or to find out more. This is where my system really comes into play. Upon clicking "more information" a small window appears, as my Flash visual demonstration illustrates. This window lists the photographer, copyright details (including any rights that the owner is not exercising), year of creation, and date of entry into the public domain. The licensee may also be included in this screen.

Effectively my system is presenting the user with all the information necessary to contact the owner for licensing or permission to use, as well as eliminating any uncertainty as to the image's public domain status. At present this is one of the greatest banes of the photographic world for "there is no simple way to know who owns what." [41] In making this information available, users are instantly aware that the image is protected by copyright, and are then able to contact the owner with minimal fuss or expense; whereas Lessig observes at present an image would not be used for fear of the extreme penalties incurred if an image is copyrighted. [42] This makes it easier for consumers to act legally, while utilising more public domain works and benefiting the copyright owner through increased licensing opportunities.


LICENSING

The window I mentioned is the first of three sections, the second being licensing. I have proposed three simple options here which can be adapted to the commercial model of the copyright holder. The first options would be for one-off use of an image, or a fixed period. This is the world Tim Lee envisions where "consumers can purchase exactly the amount of use they need and not pay for more." [43]

The third option is the most interesting. Copyright law makes provision for certain uses of content without need for permission. Determining what constitutes fair use comes down to a complicated four factor process [44] which it is not necessary to discuss here. In having fair use as a licensing option, my system takes the form of a reminder - something that facilitates legal use rather than enforcing it. If a user believes that they are entitled to use the image for their given purpose, then my system isn't going to stop them. This was always the greatest flaw of DRM and ultimately calls for its demise: the current implementation of DRM in other markets looks solely at restricting use and enforcing an expanded warped sense of copyright. This eliminated fair use and instils many embittered users with resentment. Instead my system offers a selection of licenses, including fair use if the user feels that they have that right.

This ethic also addresses the fact nobody will ever build an unbreakable technological protection measure (TPM). This fact is unimportant because enforcing copyright isn't the purpose of the system. Enforcement is doomed to failure, partly because of the essentially vague nature of fair use. My system embraces this and uses it as a core feature.

The fair use aspect could be implemented in several ways; anywhere from giving the user a clean hi-resolution image, to offering them a lower-resolution visually watermarked image. Whether or not the image is watermarked could be left at the discretion of the copyright owner, whereas the question of resolution requires further debate.


EDUCATION

What is the benefit in punishing offenders for minor infractions when they weren't even aware that what they were doing was wrong? What is needed is a way of informing people of what copyright is and how it applies to a particular image. In other words this is a communication problem.

Having reviewed the results of my questionnaires in conjunction with the accounts of unhappy (and allegedly mistreated) print-shop customers, I felt more than ever that an essential part of my task was to facilitate mutual respect between consumers and copyright holders so that in the future consumers would be less likely to find themselves in a situation where they felt like they were being treated as criminals. This reinforced my conclusion that it was a problem of education and consequently communication.

This line of thinking runs contrary to my original supposition that this is a problem of morality. Certainly passing off someone else's work as your own, or making money from it without permission is a clear case of immorality because largely the offender had the intent to use the work of another to benefit from that person's work. But without intent, how can morality be in question? If the perpetrator doesn't realise that what they are doing is wrong, and as we all know copyright as it relates to fair use can be a tenuous and infinitely complex area, then how can their morality be in question?

Certainly in the case of someone selling light-switch covers utilizing other people's artwork, [45] there is a clear intent to profit from another's work without permission and basic human instinct should tell them that this is wrong. However one cannot accuse someone of immorality because they wanted to copy their child's school photograph. As one of my questionnaires revealed, some people don't even realise that they can purchase additional copies from the photographer. These people don't intend to misuse (as they understand it) the property of the photographer, to contravene the vague laws of copyright and fair use, and therefore their actions cannot be deemed morally reprehensible. On the other hand if they were to steal a photographic print from the photographer's home, then common sense tells us that this is wrong and thus one cannot claim ignorance. But how can consumers be expected to appreciate that copying their child's picture is theft when they haven't physically taken anything from the photographer, and in fact have only copied something which as they understood it belonged to them. We need to help consumers understand about copyright and as a result their morality will inform their understanding of copyright.

Thus the third and final screen of my system presents the user with a short series of frequently asked questions (informed by the results of my questionnaires). These questions have been very carefully designed and edited so as to address key areas of confusion, and through this small selection of questions I attempt to create a much greater awareness of copyright issues.

Both questions and answers have been kept short because consumers neither have the time nor patience to read lengthy explanations - how many of us really read software license agreements before clicking the "I accept" button? Therefore I'm not only catering for consumers who simply want the answer to a single question, but also for those who wish to read the whole section and gain a fuller understanding of the topic.

It's all about helping consumers and not just restricting them as DRM usually does. Thus this section addresses consumer perception of the photographic image, helping them to understand what it takes to create a 'professional' image, and the implications of unauthorised use upon a photographer's ability to make a living from photography.


EXPIRATION OF COPYRIGHT

At present no copy protection scheme addresses the fact that copyright expires. This is hardly surprising since the major copyright holders lobby government every time they stand to lose an important copyright. [46] The problem inherent in this aspect of copyright is how to make the user aware that copyright has expired without creating the atmosphere of resentment that DVD copyright warnings generate.

Codemasters developed an anti-piracy system for computer games called Fade. Upon detecting a copied disc, the game slowly deactivates certain features so that the user gets an increasingly limited amount of usage. The idea is that the degrading game acts as a "promotional tool" [47] so that the user will be encouraged to buy a legal copy.

My system adopts a similar attitude. As an image gets further past its licensed expiration date, the Photographic Rights Awareness (PRA) logo fades into the image. This acts as a copyright reminder while effectively preventing commercial use of the entire image. Cropping or "painting over" the logo is always an option, however that doesn't much matter since the very act of seeing the logo means that it has succeeded in its purpose. Publishing companies aren't going to waste time removing logos that could result in a lawsuit when there are so many other images available out there.

The fading watermark is a barrier between the user and free use of the image. That barrier is simply rights awareness, making people stop and think. If they still wish to use the image then I have provided them with the means to do so in the form of the fair use license option. Remember awareness is my central goal, not enforcement. The various content industries forget that if someone really wants to steal an image then they will find a way. Using DRM to create a total lock-down is an ineffective tactic born out of fear, rather than trying to understand the problem and why it occurs.

Let's not forget that licenses expire too. In this digital age, photographs sit needlessly on client's hard-drives long after their licensed use has been fulfilled. Whether as Dan Heller suggests, an image is no more likely to be misused after its licensed use than it was before [48] is a matter for debate. My system would allow the photographer to include details of a specific licensed use into the image issued to the client, and so once a reasonable period of time had elapsed, the logo could begin to fade in. It seems senseless that hi-resolution copies of an image should needlessly exist on past clients' computers, for how can you be sure that the client will take care of the image and that it won't get into he hands of an unauthorised person? My system attempts to protect the rights of a photographer while his image is of continued commercial importance.

Heller points out that some publishers create an image library and contact the photographer should they wish to re-license an image. [49] Since my system doesn't destroy the overall visual integrity of the image, it supports this use and allows the client to license a new clean image. Additionally instead of relying entirely on trust [50] my system provides a non-aggressive reminder of copyright. Consider the possibility that when an image is taken from a website the expiration feature is triggered with the logo slowly fading in. This would help to ensure photographers are accredited for their work while facilitating fair uses such as graphic designers creating layout-roughs that could potentially generate business for the photographer.


DESIGN

Copyright is generally perceived as something to fear and if I want to demystify copyright for the public then I need to change that perception as much through the interface design as by education. Thus I've used soft friendly colours to create an inviting appearance while the underlying grid system helps maintain the appearance of an official framework. Vitally I needed to create an architecture that was non-threatening, leaving plenty of space to give an open minimal appearance - my aim is to reassure consumers through design. If the interface were tonally too heavy and information dense, then consumers would instantly be put off and the project would result in failure. This is about putting people at their ease and creating a mindset were they want help.



CONCLUSION

A UNIFIED REGULATED SYSTEM

From the beginning it seemed clear that any solution would need to be a unified and regulated system. DRM is a technology that has allowed publishers and rights owners to limit usage of material far beyond what is afforded under The Copyright Act. [51] Now backed up by law, DRM restricts and destroys fair use because it "privatises copyright", [52] effectively allowing owners to write their own rules. My system could do a lot of good, but under the corrupting influence of big businesses it could be warped into becoming the self-serving restrictive tool of owners. That would do more harm than the good that this project potentially offers.

Imagine what it would be like if every time you wanted to open an image, your computer had to connect to an online database to check you have paid for the right to open it? Rights holders and publishers could exploit this system to eradicate fair use to the detriment of our society and cultural progression. Thus it is essential that this system be adopted universally in order to preserve the balanced aims with which it was designed. Regulation is not an option, but rather an integral element of its design architecture.


SIMPLIFYING THE ISSUE OF PRINTING PERMISSIONS

At present many people feel that they are treated like criminals [53] if the images they take to the printing-lab look remotely professional. My system helps to solve this problem in two ways. Firstly the lab-attendant or computer could check for the PRA watermark. Second the copyright details are easily accessible within the image. As the technology is adopted into future operating systems the need for human interaction could be lessened as the computer could read the necessary information from the image automatically. This would cut down on a lot of the embarrassment and hostility. In addition the help section of my information window would aid consumers in understanding copyright as it relates to them personally and the image they wish to print, thus reducing the number of people who try to make an unauthorised print out of ignorance. All three aspects would help to harmonise the consumer end of the photographic industry.

With the introduction of my proposal, the public domain status of images becomes much easier and inexpensive to determine, and as a result a greater amount of imagery can be used in the confidence that the user is legally at liberty to do so. Of course for images still protected under copyright, licensing would be as easy as the click of a button, while identifying and tracking down a photographer would no longer be such an arduous and expensive task. Attribution becomes easy as the photographer's details are contained within every image.

One major problem with gaining usage permission has been the difficulty of obtaining "source information for older images [where] publishers and vendors may no longer be in business, and information about specific images may no longer be available." [54] This becomes a simpler process since the photographer and copyright holder's information is provided.


FACILITATING SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENTS WHILE PRESERVING PRIVACY

One of my systems greatest strengths is that it subtly attempts to redress the balance between consumer and copyright holder. I use the word "attempts" because my system makes use of the human factor rather than being entirely technological based. Technology cannot act with rational and reasoned judgement, only with logical precision. With the essentially vague nature of fair use, an entirely objective system could not act fairly as it would be incapable of making subjective judgements on a case-by-case basis. That is a crucial part of the system I propose, and the greatest failing of DRM as we currently know it.

Perhaps even more important is that it avoids the need for consumer profiling. Websites like Amazon.co.uk use it to provide a useful customer service in suggesting other products potentially of interest. If developed without the public's best interests in mind, consumer profiling represents a clear and present danger to our right to privacy as we now know it.

A new file format could identify protected images via its file extension, eg. "ImageName.pra." This would leave standard file formats unaffected thus causing minimal disruption by its implementation.


A SYSTEM WITH BENEFITS FOR ALL PARTIES CONCERNED

Copyright owners benefit from the potential for increased licensing possibilities and publicity, while indirectly the courts will benefit from fewer lawsuits for copyright infringement. Admittedly my system doesn't prevent theft, but then that was never my intention. Deliberate theft for commercial use is a rare occurrence, therefore instead my efforts lay with helping the basically 'honest' public to act legally and to remind those who might intend infringement that a specific image is protected by copyright.

Possible negative aspects might be the additional layer of clutter to images, but then the subtle implementation of the system means that it would no more get in the users' way than a system message upon opening an image to say that there are differing colour profiles - a dialogue box familiar to most PhotoShop users. Perhaps the greatest challenge for technologists is keeping the file size down. Greatly expanded file sizes such as those suffered by covert watermark users [55] would greatly impede both the effectiveness and success of my system; but that of course would be a problem for developers to solve.


THE NEED TO REFORM THE PERIOD OF PROTECTION

Another aspect of copyright law that creates uncertainty is the term of copyright protection (death of the photographer plus seventy years), [56] because it makes calculating the date of entry to the public domain much more difficult due to lack of information. If the law were changed to perhaps date of birth plus 140 years (roughly equivalent to the current period of protection) then that would mean that copyright expiration for an image could be determined from the moment it is taken. My system anticipates such a change that would allow it to clearly state an image's date of protection expiration, while also allowing photographers to specify a shorter protection period if they wish.

The Public Domain Enhancement Act [57] recognises that the current period of copyright protection is too long and proposes a renewal fee that would ensure only work that requires continued protection would receive it. My system would support the reduction of the copyright period, even if the period of protection were staggered for commercial and fine art pieces (bearing in mind that commercially commissioned images are commercially viable for a much shorter time period than fine art images).


POTENTIAL PROBLEMS VIEWED IN THE OVERALL BALANCE

One potential problem is that someone might embed falsified information into an image and thus people using the image in good faith could be subjected to legal action because the information was falsified. This occurrence is likely to be minimal, and certainly there has been research into means of preventing attacks on watermarks. [58] I found one photographer contacted a company that published her image, only to be told that they have permission from someone else proclaiming to be the creator. [59] While this problem is worrying, it is a technological fine-point and beyond both my expertise and the purview of this project.

And so I have proposed a system that potentially offers a means of educating people about copyright and helping them to act legally. It embodies the spirit of copyright as it was at its inception and serves as a reminder to users that an image is protected. By attempting to address the root cause of copyright infringement, my system offers an effective means of battling the current image copyright debacle. As with any system there are potential problems, but these are few and largely technological. What I offer is a system that attempts to balance knowledge and free will with a view to restoring the balance between copyright holders and consumers.



REFERENCES

  1. KLEIN, J; "Getty Images Announces Top Five Imagery Trends for 2005," The Stock Photo Industry Press Release Cemetery, 2004
    http://talks.blogs.com/the_stock_photo_industry_/ 2004/12/getty_images_an.html
  2. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.131
  3. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.130
  4. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.140
  5. ANONYMOUS; "Copyright Protection: What It Is, How It Works," Stanford University Libraries, 2004
    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_ Overview/chapter0/0-b.html#3
  6. ANONYMOUS; "Copyright Protection: What It Is, How It Works," Stanford University Libraries, 2004
    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_ Overview/chapter0/0-b.html#3
  7. ANONYMOUS; "Welcome to the Public Domain," Stanford University Libraries, 2004
    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_ Overview/chapter8/8-a.html
  8. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.137
  9. ANONYMOUS; "Copyright Protection: What It Is, How It Works," Stanford University Libraries, 2004
    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_ Overview/chapter0/0-b.html#3
  10. BALINT, K; "Snap judgements," SignOnSanDiego.com, 2005
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/ personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html
  11. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.105
  12. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.171
  13. DEAN, K; "Lawmaker Revs Up Fair-Use Crusade," Wired News, 2005
    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,67853-0.html
  14. LESSIG, L; The Future Of Ideas, Vintage Books, New York, 2002, pg.107
  15. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.134
  16. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.185
  17. PAFKO, W; "Digital Watermarks in Scientific Visualization," May 2000
    http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Jcj5m9O8jWoJ:www.pafko.com/wayne/docs/ watermark_sci_vis.pdf+proving%2Bdigital%2Bownership &hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&client=safari
  18. LUCYCHILI; "Newsforge: Stallman, Torvalds, Moglen share views on DRM and GPLv3," A2K V DMCA In Australia, 2006
    http://lucychili.blogspot.com/2006/08/newsforge- stallman-torvalds-moglen.html
  19. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.133
  20. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.221
  21. LOHMANN, F; "Fair Use and Digital Rights Management"
    http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/fair_use_and_drm.html
  22. BARKER, J; "Hollywood not amused by many fan Web pages," The Globe & Mail, 1997
    http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/globe.15mar97.html
  23. ERRICO, M; "Fox Fights 'Millennium' Fan Sites," E online, 1996
    http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,379,00.html
  24. BARKER, J; "Hollywood not amused by many fan Web pages," The Globe & Mail, 1997
    http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/globe.15mar97.html
  25. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.171
  26. ANONYMOUS; "A Better Way Forward: Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing," EFF
    http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php
  27. THEATTACK in response to: SPEICHER, S; "The Clicker: Digital content -- why the sense of entitlement?" Engadget, 2006
    http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/22/the-clicker- digital-content-why-the-sense-of-entitlement/
  28. SPEICHER, S; "The Clicker: Digital content -- why the sense of entitlement?" Engadget, 2006
    http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/22/the-clicker- digital-content-why-the-sense-of-entitlement/
  29. WEATHERWAX, M; in response to: WHISENHUNT, K; "Walmart Photo Printing," Asymptomatic.com, 2004
    http://asymptomatic.net/2003/08/18/279/ walmart-photo-printing/
  30. ANONYMOUS; The Art Book, Phaidon Press Limited, London, 1999, pg.292
  31. ED in response to: WHISENHUNT, K; "Walmart Photo Printing," Asymptomatic.com, 2004
    http://asymptomatic.net/2003/08/18/279/ walmart-photo-printing/
  32. ED in response to: WHISENHUNT, K; "Walmart Photo Printing," Asymptomatic.com, 2004
    http://asymptomatic.net/2003/08/18/279/ walmart-photo-printing/
  33. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.137
  34. BALINT, K; "Snap judgements," SignOnSanDiego.com, 2005
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/ personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html
  35. WYKED in response to: HOWDEN, J; "Thwarting Image Theft: Fact or Fiction?" Evolt.org, 2000
    http://www.evolt.org/article/Thwarting_Image_Theft_ Fact_or_Fiction/25/3094/
  36. HARRIS43 in response to: HOWDEN, J; "Thwarting Image Theft: Fact or Fiction?" Evolt.org, 2000
    http://www.evolt.org/article/Thwarting_Image_Theft_ Fact_or_Fiction/25/3094/
  37. ANONYMOUS; "MyPictureMarc: How It Works: Digital Watermarking," Digimarc Corporation, 2006
    http://www.digimarc.com/mypicturemarc/how-it- works/default.asp
  38. HELLER, D; "Running a Photography Business on the Web", danheller.com
    http://www.danheller.com/ep-webuse
  39. HEIRONYMOUS in response to: HOWDEN, J; "Thwarting Image Theft: Fact or Fiction?" Evolt.org, 2000
    http://www.evolt.org/article/Thwarting_Image_Theft_Fact_or _Fiction/25/3094/
  40. BECHTOLD, S; "Value-Centred Design of Digital Rights Management," Sep. 2004
    http://indicare.berlecon.de/tiki-print_article.php?articleId=39
  41. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.288
  42. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.222
  43. LEE, T; "Confused Reasoning About The DMCA," Oct. 2005
    http://www.techliberation.com/archives/026080.php
  44. ANONYMOUS; "Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors," Stanford University Libraries, 2004
    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_ Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
  45. MICHELLE; "Stolen images sold on ebay. Better check!" Wetcanvas.com, 2003
    http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/archive/index.php /t-150671.html
  46. LESSIG, L; The Future Of Ideas, Vintage Books, New York, 2002, pg.107
  47. FOX, B; "'Subversive' code could kill off software piracy," newscientist.com, Oct 2003
    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4248
  48. HELLER, D; "Terms Related to Digital Files," Dan Heller's Photography Business Blog, 2005
    http://danheller.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_archive.html
  49. HELLER, D; "Terms Related to Digital Files," Dan Heller's Photography Business Blog, 2005
    http://danheller.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_archive.html
  50. HELLER, D; "Running a Photography Business on the Web", danheller.com
    http://www.danheller.com/ep-webuse
  51. LESSIG, L; Free Culture, Penguin Books Ltd, London, 2005, pg.151
  52. BECHTOLD, S; "Value-Centred Design of Digital Rights Management," Sep. 2004
    http://indicare.berlecon.de/tiki-print_article.php ?articleId=39
  53. BALINT, K; "Snap judgements," SignOnSanDiego.com, 2005
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/ personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html
  54. ANONYMOUS; "A Proposal For Educational Fair Use Guidelines For Digital Images," UT System, 2002
    http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/Intellectual Property/imagguid.htm
  55. ROCKWELL, K; "Digimarc, Watermarking and Image Degradation," kenrockwell.com, 2004
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digimark.htm
  56. ANONYMOUS; "Welcome to the Public Domain," Stanford University Libraries, 2004
    http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_ Overview/chapter8/8-a.html
  57. ANONYMOUS; "The Public Domain Enhancement Act," Eldred.cc
    http://www.eldred.cc/ea_faq.html
  58. RAMKUMAR, M; "Increasing Robustness of Image Watermarks to Counterfeit Attacks," New Jersey Institute of Technology
    http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/13281/ http:zSzzSzwww.rpi.eduzSzwebzSzCDVMRzSzpublic_ ationzSzgc991.pdf/increasing-robustness-of-image.pdf
  59. MEDV in response to: VANFOSSEN, L; "What To Do When Someone Steals Your Content," Wordpress, 2006
    http://lorelle.wordpress.com/2006/04/10/what-do- you-do-when-someone-steals-your-content