Copyright infringement protection feature

[Heritage]

It has come to my attention that software offers no acknowledgment whatsoever when there is a copyright within an image.

I specifically only sell / release low resolution digital files, so that they are not print quality, to protect my copyrights. I sell the prints and products of my images. When a client purchases an image product, including a digital file, I do not give permissions for any other reproductions, usages or modifications - including derivative.

With software doing nothing to prevent users from now adding pixels or otherwise modifying images specifically not allowed nor intended for print or any usage within Affinity at all, it is a direct loss of revenue - a substantial loss of revenue.

I believe Affinity can offer a copyright infringement protection feature. An added security measure, on behalf of the original copyright owners.

I propose that the licensed owners of the Affinity software be able to submit all of their copyright signatures to Affinity, that it be recognized just as facial recognition, and not allow images to be opened in Affinity if they are not the copyright owner (or an authorized representative.)

I believe software making changes that reflect this, and remove access to downloading previous versions missing this crucial security measure, is a viable request. It will show a more substantial good faith measure, more respect towards the seemingly impossible battle we are up against in protecting and enforcing our copyrights, for those of us who are professionals who create purely original works.

Any other professionals here agree?

(Let's be positive in the discussion here, I'm sincerely suggesting discussion of a viable solution and I believe this software company can help.)

Edited October 20, 2023 by Heritage

[Latens]

Perhaps this what you are looking for.

https://affinity.help/photo2/English.lproj/pages/Panels/metadataPanel.html

[loukash]

20 hours ago, Heritage said:

Any other professionals here agree?

My answer to this question is a definite no.

[v_kyr]

-1

[henryanthony]

The most difficult aspect of copyright protection is enforcement. Copyright infringement lawsuits, in the U.S., must be filed in Federal Court to collect damages, cease and desist, etc. This takes lawyers which takes lots of money and time. I would probably be bankrupt if I hired a lawyer to review a case let alone sue for damages.

[Old Bruce]

When I first started posting images and other work on the web I took the attitude that anything or everything I posted was going to be eventually appropriated/stolen. So I only posted stuff that I didn't care about whether or not it was stolen.

I think that what you are wanting is Digital Rights Management which is difficult to achieve. 

For the record, regarding Affinity spending time and effort to build in such a mechanism... I guess I fall in with LondonSquirrel, loukash, and v_kyr with a no or -1.

[kenmcd]

20 hours ago, Heritage said:

Any other professionals here agree?

No.
Completely ridiculous.

How much of the revenue do you propose to share to compensate the applications for policing your images, programming to support this, and any potential legal liability from users ... and from you?

[PaulEC]

Much as I hate people who steal other peoples work, I really don’t think that this is something that should be the responsibility of a software company like Serif to police. They should not have the responsibility to decide what a user of their software can and cannot open and use in that software. I would tend to agree that if something is so important to you, you should not upload it to the web in the first place. Apart from adding a copyright notice within the metadata (which should protect it from theft by honest people!) I think that any more robust copyright protection, if you feel you need it, should be provided by dedicated software.

[walt.farrell]

23 hours ago, Heritage said:

When a client purchases an image product, including a digital file, I do not give permissions for any other reproductions, usages or modifications - including derivative.

You may not grant permissions for those activities, but that is licensing, not copyright.

Copyright would prohibit the user from reproducing and distributing your images without your permission, but (for example) it does not prevent them from modifying their copy for their own personal use. And the application has no way of knowing exactly what the user plans to do when they open the digital file.

[R C-R]

On 10/20/2023 at 2:55 PM, Heritage said:

I propose that the licensed owners of the Affinity software be able to submit all of their copyright signatures to Affinity, that it be recognized just as facial recognition, and not allow images to be opened in Affinity if they are not the copyright owner (or an authorized representative.)

How could Serif possibly do that? First of all, there could be tens of thousands of users creating works with the software, each with some of their images they would like to protect from being opened & others they do not, making for millions of files for them to keep track of. And that could constantly change as more users begin using the software, or simply change their minds about which items to protect.

So at the least, this would need constant updating, which means constantly available internet access so the app could 'phone home' to see if the status of any particular image had changed.

Besides, once a client purchases a digital copy of one of your files, what is to prevent them from reusing it however they want? You are not selling native Affinity format files are you?

[GarryP]

On 10/20/2023 at 8:55 PM, Heritage said:

I propose that the licensed owners of the Affinity software be able to submit all of their copyright signatures to Affinity, that it be recognized just as facial recognition, and not allow images to be opened in Affinity if they are not the copyright owner (or an authorized representative.)

That would seem to suggest, to me at least, as it is written, that I (for example) could not even open (never mind modify), without prior ‘registration’/’authorisation’ with/from Serif:

• my own photos/images;
• screenshots taken by me of my own screen;
• images from stock websites;
• images posted to the forums which people want help with;
• images sent by friends/family/clients/employers for touch-up/modification;
• images in the public domain which have no copyright attached;
• and pretty much any other image which exists now or could exist in the future.

I would suggest that this situation would be sub-optimal at best.

On 10/20/2023 at 8:55 PM, Heritage said:

(Let's be positive in the discussion here,

I’m positive that this would be a very bad idea for a whole bunch of reasons, some of which are explained in the posts above.