Article

Section 01

Why ownership is the first thing questioned

When a website operator receives a notice about a photograph, the first reply is often not about the use at all. It is about the claimant: who are you, how do I know this is your picture, and why should I believe it. The question is legitimate. A responsible operator should not pay a licence fee to anyone who simply says an image is theirs, and a host or platform is entitled to expect a notice that identifies the work and the person entitled to act.

Under US law, copyright vests in the author from the moment the work is fixed (17 U.S.C. § 102 and § 201). In most countries, across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, the author’s right likewise arises from creation itself, and some national laws also protect simple photographs that are not original enough to qualify as works. Under art. 5(2) of the Berne Convention, the enjoyment and exercise of rights are not subject to any formality. But a right that exists is not the same as a right that can be shown. Someone still has to demonstrate, calmly and with documents, that the person behind the claim created the image or holds the rights to it.

References17 U.S.C. §§ 102, 201 · Berne Convention

That demonstration rests mostly on two kinds of material: the source files that only the creator normally has, and the metadata embedded in those files and in published copies. This article explains what each one shows, where its limits lie, how the law treats certain metadata, and how to keep these records so that they still carry weight years after the shoot.

Section 02

What counts as a source file

A source file is any record produced during the making of the image that sits upstream of the published version. The published JPEG on a website is the end of a chain; the source files are the links before it. The more of that chain a rights holder can produce, the harder it becomes to argue that someone else made the picture.

• The camera original: a RAW file (for example CR3, NEF, ARW, RAF, DNG) or, for cameras that only record JPEG or HEIF, the untouched file as it came off the card.
• The full-resolution master: the edited file at its full pixel dimensions, usually larger and more detailed than any copy found online.
• The series of frames: the shots taken immediately before and after the image in question, with consecutive file numbers and timestamps, often showing the same scene from slightly different angles or moments.
• The edit history: catalogue entries and sidecar files from editing software (for example Lightroom catalogues or XMP sidecars), layered PSD or TIFF files, and the export settings used for each version.
• For film: the negative or transparency, contact sheets, lab envelopes and high-resolution scans with their scan dates.
• Delivery records: the e-mail or transfer that sent the image to a client, a publisher or a stock agency, with the file attached or referenced.

A series of frames is often more persuasive than any single file. A copier can take one image from a website; it is much less plausible that they also hold the eleven neighbouring frames in RAW format, with the uncropped edges that the published version does not show.

Section 03

Metadata: EXIF, IPTC and XMP

Metadata is information stored inside an image file, alongside the pixels. Three families matter in practice, and they overlap in most modern files.

EXIF data is written by the camera at the moment of capture. It typically records the date and time, the camera make and model, the lens, exposure settings, and in many cameras the body serial number and a shutter count. If location services were active, it may include GPS coordinates.

IPTC fields are descriptive and rights-related fields defined by the press and photo industry. They are usually filled in by the photographer or agency, either in the camera through a preset or later in editing software. XMP is a more flexible container, created by Adobe and now an ISO standard, that carries the IPTC fields and many others, either embedded in the file or in a separate sidecar.

The fields most relevant to a rights case are the following.

• Creator (the photographer’s name) and, where used, the creator’s contact details.
• Copyright notice, for example the © symbol, the year and the name of the rights holder.
• Credit line, the wording the rights holder wants used when the image is published.
• Rights usage terms or a web statement of rights pointing to licensing conditions.
• Date created, which may differ from the EXIF capture date if the image was a scan or a composite.
• Camera serial number and lens serial number, recorded in EXIF or maker notes.
• Unique identifiers such as a document ID or an agency’s image number.

The camera serial number deserves particular attention. If the serial number in a file matches a camera body that the photographer can show they owned at the time (a purchase invoice, a warranty registration, an insurance schedule, a repair record), that is a concrete link between the file and the person. It is one strong indicator among others, not proof on its own: cameras are sold, lent and shared, and some models do not write the serial number at all.

Section 04

What metadata proves, and what it does not

Metadata is useful because it is specific, but it is not tamper-proof. Anyone with free software can change the creator name, the copyright notice or the capture date of a file in seconds. A careful file never presents metadata as conclusive, and the other side’s lawyer will point this out if it does.

What metadata can do is support a coherent account. When the capture date in the RAW file matches the date of a trip the photographer can document, when the serial number matches their camera, when the file numbers run in sequence with neighbouring frames, and when the creator field in published copies names the same person, these points reinforce each other. Faking one field is easy. Faking a consistent set across dozens of files, matching external records, is far harder and far less likely.

Metadata also has practical limits that have nothing to do with honesty.

• Many social networks, content management systems and image optimisation tools strip some or all metadata when an image is uploaded or resized. A copy online with no metadata is common and, on its own, says nothing about who removed it or why.
• Camera clocks are often wrong by hours or set to the wrong time zone, so a capture time may need to be read alongside other evidence rather than taken literally.
• Fields can be filled in incorrectly by the photographer, an agency or a client, for example an old template left in place.
• Screenshots and re-saves create new files whose metadata describes the copy, not the original.

The right way to use metadata is therefore as one layer of a file that also includes the source files, external records and the history of publication. If the metadata of a copy found online still contains the photographer’s name or copyright notice, that is valuable: it shows the information was present when the copy was made. If it does not, the case rests on the other layers, which is why they need to be kept.

Section 05

Copyright management information: 17 U.S.C. § 1202 and article 7 of Directive 2001/29/EC

Some metadata has a specific legal status. US law calls it copyright management information, and EU law calls it rights-management information. In both systems it covers identifying information conveyed with a work, such as the author’s name, the name of the rights holder, the title, the terms of use, and identifying numbers.

Under 17 U.S.C. § 1202, intentionally removing or altering copyright management information, or distributing works knowing that such information has been removed or altered, can create liability separate from infringement of the copyright itself. The statute sets demanding conditions: the conduct must be done knowingly and with the required intent regarding infringement, which in practice means knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement. Providing false copyright management information with that intent is also covered.

References17 U.S.C. § 1202

Article 7 of Directive 2001/29/EC requires EU Member States to provide legal protection against the knowing, unauthorised removal or alteration of electronic rights-management information, and against the distribution of works from which such information has been removed, by a person who knows or has reasonable grounds to know that this will induce, enable, facilitate or conceal an infringement. Each Member State implements this in its own law.

ReferencesDir. 2001/29/EC

Three practical consequences follow.

• These rules protect information that was actually there. A rights holder who never embedded a name or a notice has nothing to point to under these provisions. Filling in the creator, copyright notice and credit fields before delivering or publishing an image is therefore worth doing every time.
• Absence of metadata in a copy online does not, by itself, establish removal, let alone knowing removal. Platforms strip data automatically. A responsible claim under § 1202 or its European equivalents needs facts, such as a copy in which a visible watermark has been cropped out, or a file whose creator field has been replaced with another name.
• A visible credit or watermark on the image itself can also be relevant information in some contexts. Whether a particular watermark qualifies, and in which jurisdiction, is a question for counsel.

References17 U.S.C. § 1202

Atlantic records the metadata found in each copy it captures, alongside the image file and its fingerprint. Atlantic does not assert a violation of § 1202 or of national rules implementing article 7 on the mere absence of metadata; where the facts suggest deliberate removal, that observation is noted in the file for counsel to assess.

References17 U.S.C. § 1202

Section 06

Registration and other dated records

Registration is the most formal ownership record a photographer can hold, but its role is often misunderstood, in both directions.

In the United States, a certificate of registration made before or within five years after first publication is prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate (17 U.S.C. § 410(c)). For a United States work, registration (or a refusal) is needed before filing an infringement action (§ 411(a)); foreign works are exempt from that requirement. Statutory damages and attorney’s fees are generally available only when registration was made in time under § 412. Where they are available, § 504 allows a court to award either actual damages and profits or statutory damages, and where infringement is found to be willful, a court may increase statutory damages.

References17 U.S.C. §§ 410(c), 411(a), 412, 504

None of this means that an unregistered photograph is unprotected. Copyright exists from creation, the Berne Convention bars formalities as a condition of enjoyment and exercise, and most countries have no registration system for photographs at all. For a rights holder outside the US, the absence of a US certificate is normal and does not prevent a claim. For a US photographer, the absence of timely registration affects the remedies available in a US court, not the existence of the right or the possibility of an amicable licence.

ReferencesBerne Convention

Where registration exists, keep the certificate, the deposit copy or the list of works included in a group registration, and the application record with its effective date. Where it does not, other dated records carry real weight:

• the first publication of the image on the photographer’s own site, portfolio or social account, with the date visible or archived;
• delivery e-mails to clients, editors or agencies, with the file attached;
• stock agency upload and acceptance records, contributor dashboards and sales reports;
• contracts, commissions and invoices referring to the shoot;
• for agencies and employers, the written transfer or licence under which they hold rights. Under § 201 the author owns the copyright unless the work was made for hire, and under § 204 a transfer of ownership requires a signed writing.

References17 U.S.C. §§ 201, 204

Section 07

How to store and back up originals

Evidence that cannot be found, or that was overwritten during a later edit, is no evidence at all. A simple, consistent routine is worth more than an elaborate system applied occasionally.

• Keep the camera originals untouched. Import RAW files into a dated folder structure and never overwrite them; do all edits non-destructively or on copies.
• Embed rights metadata at import. Most editing software lets you apply a preset with creator, copyright notice and credit line to every file as it arrives.
• Keep the whole shoot, not only the selected frames. The rejected frames are often what proves authorship later.
• Follow a three-copy rule: at least three copies, on two different types of storage, with one kept off site or in a separate cloud service.
• Record a checksum at ingest. Computing a SHA-256 value for each original and storing the list with the shoot creates a fixed reference: if the value later matches, the file has not changed since the list was made. The checksum shows integrity, not the date; pairing it with storage logs or a dated archive gives it context.
• Keep editing catalogues and sidecar files with the images they describe, and back them up together.
• Keep proof of equipment: invoices, serial numbers and warranty records for camera bodies, kept with your business records.
• Check backups periodically by restoring a sample. A backup that has never been tested is a hope, not a record.
• Mind location data. GPS coordinates in originals can be useful evidence, but you may prefer to remove them from published exports for privacy, while keeping them in the masters.

For film archives, the same logic applies: keep negatives in archival sleeves, record scan dates and settings, and keep the scans with the same discipline as digital originals.

Section 08

Common mistakes that weaken a file

Most ownership problems are not caused by a lack of rights but by records that were not kept or that contradict each other.

• Deleting RAW files after export to save disk space, leaving only JPEGs no larger than the copies found online.
• Publishing or delivering images with empty creator and copyright fields, so that nothing identifies the author when the file travels.
• Leaving an old metadata template in place, so that a file names a former studio, an assistant or a previous agency.
• Relying on a single external drive with no second copy.
• Re-saving edited masters over the original, which destroys the edit history and changes file dates.
• Uploading the only full-resolution version to a platform that recompresses it, and keeping nothing better locally.
• For agencies and collectives, holding no signed document showing how rights passed from the photographer, which leaves the chain of title open to challenge under § 204.
• Presenting metadata as conclusive in correspondence, which invites an easy rebuttal and undermines the rest of the file.

References17 U.S.C. § 204

Section 09

How Atlantic uses these records

Atlantic verifies authority before any case is opened. When a rights holder submits images through the platform, Atlantic checks identity, ownership or the licence chain, and the mandate under which it will act. The source files and metadata described above are the core of that check: a RAW file or full-resolution master, neighbouring frames, embedded creator and copyright fields, and where relevant registration records, agency contributor records or a signed transfer.

Each mandate produces an authority certificate with a public verification address. A recipient who doubts that Atlantic acts for the rights holder can check the certificate independently, without relying on Atlantic’s word.

When Atlantic captures an occurrence, it records the full page URL, the image URL, the date and time, a full-page screenshot and the image file as it was served, with a SHA-256 fingerprint of each evidence file. The metadata present in the captured copy, or its absence, is noted. Comparing the captured copy with the rights holder’s originals typically shows that the online version is a smaller, cropped or recompressed derivative of the master, which is consistent with copying and not with independent creation.

When a recipient writes “prove it is your photo”, the reply is built from these records, in proportion to the question:

• the authority certificate and its verification address;
• the evidence summary in the secure case portal for the Case File reference (AID-YYYY-NNNNN), comparing the captured copy with the original;
• a description of the source material held, such as the existence of the RAW file, its capture date, the neighbouring frames and the camera serial number match, where these are relevant;
• registration details or agency records, where they exist.

If a matter is transmitted to qualified counsel, the complete file, including the evidence index with fingerprints and the ownership documents, goes with it, and counsel decides what is produced, when and in what form. Atlantic is not a law firm and does not give legal advice; its role is to organise the evidence so that the question of ownership can be answered quickly and consistently.

Section 10

Answering the usual objections about ownership

Several objections come back regularly once ownership is questioned. A file built on source records answers them without raising the tone.

“The image has no metadata, so there was nothing to tell me who owned it.” Copyright does not depend on metadata or on a visible notice. Under US and EU law, reproducing and displaying a photograph without permission can infringe the exclusive rights of the author (17 U.S.C. § 106; Directive 2001/29/EC, art. 2 and 3), whether or not the copy carried a name. The absence of metadata may matter for a § 1202 claim, not for the underlying right.

References17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 1202 · Dir. 2001/29/EC

“Metadata can be faked.” True, and that is why a credible file does not depend on it alone. The question is whether the whole set (RAW originals, frame series, camera records, publication history, delivery records) points consistently to the same author. A bare assertion that metadata could have been changed does not answer that.

“You have no registration.” Registration is not a condition of copyright and is unknown for photographs in most countries. In the US it affects the right to sue for United States works and the remedies available, as explained above; it does not make an unlicensed use lawful.

“The photo is old.” Age alone does not end protection. The term of protection depends on the jurisdiction and, in most cases, on the life of the author; dated originals and publication records also make it easier to show when the image was created.

“I found it online without any credit, so I assumed it was free.” Finding an image through a search engine or on a site that published it without a credit does not grant rights. The relevant question is whether the user can show a licence; the source records answer the separate question of who can grant one.

“Send me a court order, or have a lawyer write to me.” The amicable stage does not require one. If the matter is still unresolved and legal action becomes necessary, the file may be handed to qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction, a decision taken by a person on the documented file after the rights holder has been informed. Lawyers acting for the other side can already communicate through the platform’s request centre for counsel, where documents are exchanged between professionals.

Section 11

Starting with Atlantic

If you are a photographer, an agency or a stock contributor, the most useful step is to keep your originals and metadata in order before any dispute arises. When you find an unauthorised use, submit the image through the Atlantic platform with the source material you hold: originals or full-resolution masters, neighbouring frames where available, and any registration, agency or contract records. Atlantic verifies your authority, documents each occurrence and, where the review supports it, opens a Case File, so that when the other side asks for proof, the answer is already organised.