# Is shared online "published"?



## NGH (Aug 27, 2020)

I'm have been looking into registering my images for copyright and I understand that there are a couple of options in regards to whether they are 'Published' or 'Unpublished'.  It seems to be a grey area whether sharing online is considered as Published.

I'm still looking into this but so far I've seen the the US copyright office is reluctant to comment on this point. 

So what is the opinion here? If some of my pictures were shared on Facebook and Instagram should I register them as Published or Unpublished? 

Or has there been a precedent that covers this recently?


----------



## Space Face (Aug 28, 2020)

I'm no expert in the law or copyright and these will differ from country to country I should think.  However, I'd not consider something shared on social media as published in the true or legal sense.  I may be wrong of course.


----------



## Jeff15 (Aug 28, 2020)

I agree......


----------



## weepete (Aug 28, 2020)

A lot of courts are starting to treat stuff shared online as published, so I'd say treat it as published.

There's been a rising number cases of facebook/instagram/twitter posts geting people in hot bother when they thought they'ed been having a conversation but wound up in court and the judges have treated it the same as traditional print media.


----------



## Original katomi (Aug 28, 2020)

Just be aware as soon as you post images on line, there is a chance that they can be copied


----------



## gk fotografie (Aug 28, 2020)

NGH said:


> I'm have been looking into registering my images for copyright and I understand that there are a couple of options in regards to whether they are 'Published' or 'Unpublished'.  It seems to be a grey area whether sharing online is considered as Published.
> 
> I'm still looking into this but so far I've seen the the US copyright office is reluctant to comment on this point.
> 
> ...



The problem is that you don't really understand the meaning of the word publish.
The word publish means "spread" "make public" "present" "show to the world" "distribute" "release" "show in small or large circles of viewers" and so it's not that difficult to conclude that sharing of photos, whether via the internet, email, regular mail and also via personal contact, all fall within the term publishing. Exhibiting photo prints in a gallery or, for example, showing prints in a portfolio to customers or exhibiting photos on your own (sales) website also falls strictly under the heading of publishing. So, even uploading photos here on the TPF forum is publishing, or making public. Uploading photos to Facebook etc. and sharing or distributing them, or showing them in a small or large circle of viewers is considred as publishing. 
What is usually meant by unpublished is the fact that images have not been used in printed matter (books, magazines, calenders, posters etc.) or sold or mulitplied as fine art print, have not been uploaded on the Internet or used for advertising and have not been used as an entry for competitions etc., in other words that images have never been viewed by anyone other than yourself, as it were.
It really doesn't matter whether you live in the US or in Europe etc., the term publishing has the same meaning worldwide.


----------



## NGH (Aug 28, 2020)

gk fotografie said:


> NGH said:
> 
> 
> > I'm have been looking into registering my images for copyright and I understand that there are a couple of options in regards to whether they are 'Published' or 'Unpublished'.  It seems to be a grey area whether sharing online is considered as Published.
> ...



I'm not saying I do fully understand the meaning of the word publish but I have a pretty good idea and the point here is not the meaning of the word it is how it is interpreted by the law.  The reason I say this is that the information from the US Copyright service specifically says that;

"The public display of a photograph, in and of itself, does not constitute publication."

So as I say it is not fully clear.  

I think I will go with Published in this case; not absolutely sure what difference it makes


----------



## Space Face (Aug 28, 2020)

NGH said:


> gk fotografie said:
> 
> 
> > NGH said:
> ...




That was my thinking too.  It's not the dictionary definition of the actual word that's the crux of the matter it's the legal definition.  I have a fair bit experience, knowledge and training in respect of law in my country and know that legal definitions can and do vary, sometimes greatly, from country to country, even in the UK.


----------



## Soocom1 (Aug 28, 2020)

To expand on GK's point.. 

The legal definition of published is specific to the courts and depending on the country, has specific meanings. For the US the legal definition is similar to what is below: 
Publication

But US law also extends the concept of 'copyright" and/or intellectual property as being something unalienable except if relinquished. 
Copyright Term Extension Act - Wikipedia

Also here: 
Berne Convention - Wikipedia

Translation, unless explicitly given away through whatever means, copyright is extended on the piece to the creator for the life of the creator plus fifty years. 

But in order for it to bring the full weight of law onto the work, it should be recorded with the copyright office, especially with highly unique work.  
Otherwise it becomes incumbent upon the creator to prove that they indeed was first in line with the work. 

So translation. Anything posted to social media is considered 'published work". BUT that is defined ONLY as the work itself, not work done by the same person but never shown.


----------

