How to change Copyright in Metadata??

[Bill Ballard]

Lightroom Version Number

LR v8.2.1

Operating System

1. macOS 10.14 Mojave

Hello everyone -

I am trying to change the copyright info for my LR catalog. In the Library Module, I open the Metadata tab, then select Edit Metadata Presets...I select the copyright I want to use for a Collection of images, then save...and when I check the metadata after the save, the copyright information is unchanged.

What am I missing/overlooking??

Thanks!

 

[clee01l]

A Metadata Preset is a set of instructions that when applied update the metadata on images that have been selected. It sounds like you have not applied the metadata preset that you created and saved.

 

[Jim Wilde]

Bill, the Edit Metadata Preset function is not retroactive, i.e. after changing it the changes are not automatically applied to those images on which you previously used the preset. After editing and saving the preset, you need to select all the images that you want to change, using the Grid, then in the Metadata panel for the current most selected image use the preset drop down to select and apply the updated preset.

 

[Bill Ballard]

Thanks to both -

However, I think I may need to rephrase the question: is there a way to change which of the copyright presets is the default copyright? That's what I want to do, as just one of the copyrights will be the one I need to use for the foreseeable future.

Otherwise, I can do as Jim suggests...

 

[Johan Elzenga]

There is no default, because nothing is applied by default. You have to choose which preset should be applied, automatically on import or manually later, otherwise nothing is applied.

 

[prbimages]

In the "Import..." dialog, you can choose which metadata preset to apply. The "default" is, I believe, the last one you used. So you should only need to set this once; thereafter, subsequent imports will use the same preset.

 

[Paul_DS256]

Also, unless I am mistaken, the copyright metadata change is only held in LR and not applied to the image file until you export it. One of the reasons I assign some base metadata outside of LR before importing.

 

[clee01l]

Also, unless I am mistaken, the copyright metadata change is only held in LR and not applied to the image file until you export it. One of the reasons I assign some base metadata outside of LR before importing.

Paul makes a good point. The nondestructive nature of LR means that the original will not get any of the metadata changes that happen in LR. However, most camera settings include a basic copyright added to the metadata of the original image file created by the camera.

In the import dialog, there is an option to include a metadata preset (which can include more than just copyright and keywords). The import dialog settings are (usually) persistent during the session but often do not persist from one session to the next.
You can create an IMPORT preset that can hold a lot of parameters including Develop Preset, Metadata preset, Destination folder etc. It is a good practice to use an Import Preset to consistently apply the same import settings for every import since it can be hard to remember what setting to use if you do not import daily.

 

[Bill Ballard]

Thanks again everyone.

The images in question were shot between 2004 and 2017, under my old business name. Through an unfortunate series of events, I had to 'reconstruct' my LR catalog...and when I did my 're-import' from my back-up files, I did so using my new/current business copyright.

I suppose it's largely a matter of personal preference. I like to keep copyright data true to the image. The images requiring the older copyright info are not too great in number; accordingly, I'll continue to do as I've been doing - changing the copyright metadata for each individual image before editing and output.

Thanks again to all.

 

[Michael Naylor]

Paul makes a good point. The nondestructive nature of LR means that the original will not get any of the metadata changes that happen in LR.

Unless you have camera that produces DNG files.

 

[Califdan]

Steps for 2004 through 2017 assuming you want a unique copyright for each year (e.g., "Copyright 2015")

1) select "All Photographs" from Catalog panel. If you have stacked images, instead create a smart collection with 1 rule stating "Rating >= 0 stars" and select that smart collection (this will include all images including those buried in stacks)

2) Use a metadata filter to filter for all images for a year (say 2004)

3) Select all images in grid

4) in Metadata Panel, fill in appropriate fields such as "Copyright Status", "Copyright" and whatever else you wish. After each change choose "apply to selected" or turn off that warning dialog

5) with all images for the year still selected, "Save Metadata to files" on the Metadata menu to force metadata into the image file for those file types that support it or to an XMP sidecar file for those that don't

6) Repeat for each year

 

[Conrad Chavez]

What I understand of US Copyright law is that the copyright date should be the date of publication, not creation.

Accordingly, my default import metadata template applies an undated copyright notice to the metadata for all images on import.
Later (e.g., just before exporting) I update the copyright metadata to add the year for any image that is about to take on the official definition of "published."

 

[Califdan]

I am not a lawyer nor do I have any credentials in law, copyright or other so this IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. However, my understanding of US copyright law pertaining to images is this.....

1) You have an automatic copyright on all images you take the instant you press the shutter button and this extends to any derivative images you later make using those images in whole or in part. The only issue involving having copyright info attached to images or registering your images with the Copyright office is proving it is your image.

2) If there is an infringement, and you have an original RAW file whose capture date predates the date the infringer published your image then you have a case. Your case is even more provable if you have dozens of other "similar" images taken at the same location at more or less the same time as the infringer is not likely to also have such corroborating evidence. If the image is tagged with your copyright info and the infringer was too stupid to delete that info, your case is stronger and easier to prove.

3) In any case, if you have not registered the image with the copyright office the damages you can sue for are quite limited and as I recall can not include legal fees involved with suing the infringer. Therefore it is rare that you would be able to find a lawyer willing to take your case.

4) If you have registered the image with the Copyright office, especially if the registration date is prior to the date of the infringement you are not limited in what you can sue for and I believe that suit can include legal fees for lawyers.

5) None of the above requires that the image have a copyright notice on it or attached to it. However, having such (if not deleted by the infringer) certainly strengthens your case and can serve as a warning to someone contemplating infringing your image to think twice about it (albeit it is rare that someone out to search for and steal an image for their own commercial use would be deterred by the presence of some copyright text in metadata ).

6) As a last point, your images may be used by anyone for non-commercial purposes (commonly called editorial purposes) without your permission, copyrighted or not. Copyright law only comes into play with Commercial use of images. There is much debate and legal precedent about what constitutes commercial use but in general it boils down to "was the image used in conjunction with something used to make money". For example, in an advertisement. Where it gets tricky, is what constitutes commercial use. For example if someone posts one of your images on their Facebook page with "isn't this a pretty flower" text , that is not infringement. However, if their Facebook profile mentions an Amazon page where they sell used books, then one could argue that the stealing of your flower image was a way to attract people to their Facebook profile and by extension their used book selling business. It gets complicated.