If you come across your photo on someone's website and want to sue for copyright infringement, how do you go about proving who has the original picture?

Not the exact answer you're looking for but Nolo is a great resource:
Copyright Registration, Notice, and Enforcement FAQ (http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/481F4C85-6B92-44DC-9B0914A9E9658A64/catID/DAE53B68-7BF5-455A-BC9F3D9C9C1F7513/310/276/FAQ/)

I'm confused. Is this a photo of you or a photo you claim you took?

I understood the "your photo" to imply his ownership of the photo. Otherwise the answer would be different. I see where your headed Scott if it's a photo of him, I believe leans towards the acronym S.O.L. :)

If you come across your photo on someones website and want to sue for copyright infringement, how do you go about proving who has the original picture??


If the photo is copyrighted you sue the place where you've found it and subpoena the information require to pursue the person who used it in the first place. Very possibly the final person using it had a duty to check if it's copyrighted.

There's a ton of law on this and a lot of it is circumstantial.

The photo is not of any person but taken by on of our photographers. It is in a digital library along with the others. Many are used on our websites or other places.

So if we sue, does the burden of proof fall on the person we are suing? How do we prove that we took the picture if both parties have the picture on their computer? Is there a code written into the photo file that we can use?

The photo is not of any person but taken by on of our photographers. It is in a digital library along with the others. Many are used on our websites or other places.

So if we sue, does the burden of proof fall on the person we are suing? How do we prove that we took the picture if both parties have the picture on their computer? Is there a code written into the photo file that we can use?


No, if you make the accusation you prove it and then they try to present proof why it is not true. I don't understand how the whole digital photo thing works (I'm a point and shoot type of person which explains the quality of the photos I take) so I don't know about photo files and so forth.

Somebody who does know will come along.

I do know that - I wasn't the person involved - digital photos were just not allowed as an exhibit in a NY State trial because they are easily doctored. I don't know if that's true or not or if it has anything to do with what you're asking.

There was a recent question about whether websites and their total content are some sort of automatically copyrighted - you might want to use the search feature. Honestly, I researched it but don't recall and Law.

I believe there are DRM programs that can embed codes into JPGs to to prevent copying or serve as copyright protection. But if you are asking the question, you obviously don't make use of them.

If you sue over infringement you will have to present some proof that this is an original photograph. I'm not sure what proof will be necessary. If it was a film phot then a copy of the negative would be helpful. Other photos taken at the same place showing the same scene. etc.

I would consult with an attorney that specializes in copyright protection.

you don't say how the photo was used. It could be inadvertent, they may have gotten the photo from another source and not realize it was copyrighted. So the first thing I would do is get your attorney to send them a letter requesting the photo be removed or at least attributed to your site.

If they don't then you need to decide how to proceed. You will also need to show a value of the photograph. I seriously doubt if it would be worth suing over a single picture.

Yeah, I feel somewhat the same way. Seems like a lot of effort, time, and money to invest over a single picture.

Thanks everyone for the advice

Yeah, I feel somewhat the same way. Seems like a lot of effort, time, and money to invest over a single picture.

Thanks everyone for the advice



Let us know if there's any resolution.

Oh, I can barely read your signature line - maybe it should be in bold? I had the same problem, couldn't read the blue.

Let us know if there's any resolution.

Oh, I can barely read your signature line - maybe it should be in bold? I had the same problem, couldn't read the blue.

Lol Thanks Judy... actually, when I first added that to my sig, my intention was to make it barely visible. However, it has been sometime since then and the discussions that were taking place (although the ones as of late, bare a sticking resemblance... who would have thought? Lol)

I think I will take your advice and darken it up a bit


Oh, and I will be sure to post back with how things pan out :D

lol Thanks Judy... actually, when I first added that to my sig, my intention was to make it barely visible. However, it has been sometime since then and the discussions that were taking place (although the ones as of late, bare a sticking resemblance... who woulda thought? lol)

I think I will take your advice and darken it up a bit


Oh, and I will be sure to post back with how things pan out :D



I suppose I also could have had my eyes adjusted but that just seemed so much more complicated!:)

I notice some colors don't show up on the new boards as well as they did before.

Ok, if the photo is copyrighted, then you will have paperwork from the copyright office that it is. So you prove it, you will have to prove it is in court.

No worries Judy... I shall adjust to accommodate your eyesight ;) lol


Fr_Chuck... the photo was not copyrighted but from what I understand, the new copyright laws state that copyright is secured automatically when the work is created and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.