who "needs" to formally register copyright?

ZmomZmom Registered Users Posts: 45 Big grins
edited September 5, 2008 in The Big Picture
After reading this Digital Asset Management book by by Peter Krogh, I've been faithfully adding the circle in a c to my images' metadata, with the date and a name (though I've not published or tried to sell the images, just planning ahead!).

Also, based on a scan of the US Copyright Office page, seems work is protected upon creation. Does formal copyright registration matter mostly to professionals?

Just curious. No risk of big lost bucks yet - I just want to understand how this works.

Thanks -

Zmom
Zmom

Comments

  • BlakerBlaker Registered Users Posts: 294 Major grins
    edited August 2, 2008
    Hi,
    Basically if you register your copyright you are entitled to statutory damages and lawyer's fees should your copyright be infringed. Check out this link, scroll down to part 2.

    http://www.editorialphoto.com/copyright/primer.asp




    Zmom wrote:
    After reading this Digital Asset Management book by by Peter Krogh, I've been faithfully adding the circle in a c to my images' metadata, with the date and a name (though I've not published or tried to sell the images, just planning ahead!).

    Also, based on a scan of the US Copyright Office page, seems work is protected upon creation. Does formal copyright registration matter mostly to professionals?

    Just curious. No risk of big lost bucks yet - I just want to understand how this works.

    Thanks -

    Zmom
  • DonRicklinDonRicklin Registered Users Posts: 5,551 Major grins
    edited August 2, 2008
    According to an interview with a Copyright Lawyer made recently on PhotoshopUserTV by Scott Kelby, you can't even get into court to make a claim of copyright infringement without the Registration (USA). And even with it a small claims court wont take it, only a Federal Court. Check out PhotoshopUserTV from a couple or so weeks ago for the full interview and deal! A follow up interview on the registration process is in the very next issue.

    Don
    Don Ricklin - Gear: Canon EOS 5D Mark III, was Pentax K7
    'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
    My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook
    .
  • ShepsMomShepsMom Registered Users Posts: 4,319 Major grins
    edited August 3, 2008
    Do you have to copyright every shot you take, or you can just copyright your name/logo whatnot. headscratch.gif
    But the, wouldn't it fall under Tradename?
    Marina
    www.intruecolors.com
    Nikon D700 x2/D300
    Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
  • RogersDARogersDA Registered Users Posts: 3,502 Major grins
    edited August 3, 2008
    ShepsMom wrote:
    Do you have to copyright every shot you take, or you can just copyright your name/logo whatnot. headscratch.gif
    But the, wouldn't it fall under Tradename?
    In the U.S. you should register each image with the Copyright Office. There are ways to submit your images in batch form; e.g., on CD-ROM.

    Your business name and logo can potentially be registered as a federal trademark/service mark. That is done at the United States Patent & Trademark Office. That is a whole other set of rules. In brief you must identify your source of the goods/services, and it requires a trademark attorney at the office to search names/logos of competing goods/services.
  • BlakerBlaker Registered Users Posts: 294 Major grins
    edited August 3, 2008
    What most people do is batch - copyright their photos every 3 months ( because in order to be legally protected against infringement your copyright has to have been registered within 3 months of the infringement). You can copyright a batch of photos for $35 online- check out the US gov copyright site ( I think it's linked in the resources at the top of the Mind Your Own Business forum)


    ShepsMom wrote:
    Do you have to copyright every shot you take, or you can just copyright your name/logo whatnot. headscratch.gif
    But the, wouldn't it fall under Tradename?
  • ShepsMomShepsMom Registered Users Posts: 4,319 Major grins
    edited August 3, 2008
    That's what i thought, each image. Thanks for the info!
    Marina
    www.intruecolors.com
    Nikon D700 x2/D300
    Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
  • davidweaverdavidweaver Registered Users Posts: 681 Major grins
    edited August 5, 2008
    If you don't lock your car then it is okay for a thief to steal it?
    As one that hates the intrusive watermarks that destroy otherwise good images and as a firm believer that if someone wants to steal something of yours then it will happen, I'll take the other stance that you don't have to do anything.

    You own the copyright as soon as you take the picture. No need to Circle C the image. No need to register.

    Do you get some unofficial extra protection..maybe...maybe not. That is why you get a good lawyer to send off a demand letter when you see something stolen and there is a chance of recoverable damages (fees).

    Now, that is if it is stolen and reused in the USA. We are all (mostly) SOL if someone in Croatia uses it for a newsletter.

    Most of the arguments I've read for watermarking / right-click protecting / slathering a big circle-C with your name on recent pictures follows this logic: If you don't lock your car then it is more permissible for a thief to steal your vehicle.
    Huh? That makes a whopping load of sense.

    Better to make your photos unattractive with small pixel sizes. Of course, those horrific watermarks that ruin the picture to the casual viewer will also keep a thief at bay. Nothing wrong with putting a C on the back printing if it makes you feel good or it is used as a marketing tool.

    I have had over a hundred images 'borrowed' so far this year. They have all been used for PR-Web stuff. In every case I have asked for and received a credit. Sometimes I even get a link! Now that helps me sell stuff without having to be a bad guy to all those nice folks that just wanted a picture I took to put on their promotional web site. It even gets me a free drink now and again.:D

    I just came across this on the National Geographic site:
    http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photographers/ask-photographer-answers-july08.html

    I'll bet, this answer was vetted by NG lawyers.
    Q: I have had the incredible luck of stumbling on a very rare photo opportunity. How do I copyright a photo to sell and/or publish?

    A: You don't have to copyright your photo. It's already copyrighted, and you own the copyright. You don't need to submit a form, and you don't have to use that "©" symbol or a digital watermark—those are just customary ways of identifying the copyright owner. At the moment of creation, when the artwork is "fixed" in some tangible form, copyright applies automatically. For a photographer, when you press the shutter release you are making a photo and gaining copyright to that photo at the same time. You don't have to declare copyright or file any paperwork. Copyright applies to most artistic works, such as paintings, murals, statues, TV shows, music, and for us, photography. It gives you as the photographer the exclusive right to make and sell copies of the photo....
  • davidweaverdavidweaver Registered Users Posts: 681 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2008
    Blaker wrote:
    ...in order to be legally protected against infringement your copyright has to have been registered within 3 months of the infringement...

    Could you provide a legal citation for this bit of info? I find it hard to believe that this is actually true. Basically you are saying that any action against a 'taking' of property expires 3 months after the infringement. I somehow doubt the record companies would say this about bootleg recordings of a concert done by one of their artists. Now there are some bits about statutory damages and attorneys fees in the 3 month window, [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr]. So there is some benefit to registering once in while.

    I don't want to come down on anyone in this thread. I see a lot of bad information tossed about that has little basis is real copyright law. I'm not a lawyer yet I'd suggest if you state a 'fact' about the law, or expert opinion, that it should be cited so it can be verified by an interested reader.
  • OffTopicOffTopic Registered Users Posts: 521 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2008
    rolleyes1.gif People are always getting confused over that 90 day thing and giving out incorrect information. The correct information is that your copyright needs to be registered within 90 days of first publication or prior to the infringement to be eligible for statutory damages. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412

    And as far as Croatia goes Blaker, we are not SOL. Croatia is a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and therefore covered under DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) Title I. You can check the database at the WIPO site to see the current status of any country. Now if the infringer doesn't comply with a proper takedown notice I'm sure it wouldn't be fun to pursue them, but we are legally covered.
  • OffTopicOffTopic Registered Users Posts: 521 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2008
    Making a correction to my previous post - the exact wording is within 3 months...which may be more or less than 90 days depending on the exact three months. :D
  • BlakerBlaker Registered Users Posts: 294 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2008
    Sorry if I was unclear , but my advice stands. My point was, that if you incorporate into your work flow the registration of your published images every 3 months, you will be covered in case of infringement. You won't wake up some morning to find one of your previously published photos splashed all over the place and then realize that you neglected to register within the stated time limit.


    As far as Croatia goes, Off Topic, that was brought up by someone else- I never mentioned it. Please be careful of your attributions in the future.


    OffTopic wrote:
    rolleyes1.gif People are always getting confused over that 90 day thing and giving out incorrect information. The correct information is that your copyright needs to be registered within 90 days of first publication or prior to the infringement to be eligible for statutory damages. See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412


    And as far as Croatia goes Blaker, we are not SOL. Croatia is a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and therefore covered under DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) Title I. You can check the database at the WIPO site to see the current status of any country. Now if the infringer doesn't comply with a proper takedown notice I'm sure it wouldn't be fun to pursue them, but we are legally covered.
  • OffTopicOffTopic Registered Users Posts: 521 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2008
    Blaker wrote:


    As far as Croatia goes, Off Topic, that was brought up by someone else- I never mentioned it. Please be careful of your attributions in the future.

    My apologies Blaker, that's what I get for posting before I've had my coffee in the morning. eek7.gif
  • BlakerBlaker Registered Users Posts: 294 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2008
    Hi David,
    In my post I did provide links so that people could do their own research on this, because ideally, you should take the info posted in these forums as a starting point, and then do your own research and make your own decisions, because only you know the specifics of your own situation and what you are comfortable with.
    As for the legal citation, it was from a US goverment copyright publication.
    The "protection" does not expire in 3 months. Read carefully.

    You are protected if you "register" sometime in the 3 months following publication, or, if you have registered prior to the infringement.
    SO, say you publish a photo on Jan 1. You do not register your photos within the 3 month window. On June 1, you notice your photo is being used without your knowledge or permission by a large car dealer in your area. Since the photo was not registered prior to this use, you are unable to sue in Federal court for damages and lawyers fees.

    Say you published that same photo on Jan 1, and did not register it. On March 28 ( days before the 3 month limit is up) you notice that the car dealer is using your photo in a huge ad campaign, without your knowledge or permission . Because you are still inside that 3 month window, you can go ahead and (quickly!!) register that photo. Since your photo is now registered within the 3 month window, even though the infringement occurred BEFORE you registered, you are still protected, and can sue him in Federal court for statutory damages and lawyers fees.

    If the infringement occurs on unregistered photos, you cannot sue in Federal court, you will have to pay some very hefty lawyer's fees, and you can only sue for the market value of the use of the photos. IF you win, it will be a moot victory, because after paying lawyers fees etc, you will likely be left with very little profit.

    SO there is a benefit to registering your copyright.
    Here is the US gov publication I was referring to- page 7. I have also excerpted the relevant part below.

    http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

    Copyright Registration
    In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended
    to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright.
    However, registration is not a condition of copyright
    protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for
    protection, the copyright law provides several inducements
    or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.
    Among these advantages are the following:
    • Registration establishes a public record of the copyright
    claim.
    ****• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration
    is necessary for works of U. S. origin.*******
    • If made before or within five years of publication, registration
    will establish prima facie evidence in court of
    the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in
    the certificate.
    • If registration is made within three months after publication
    of the work or prior to an infringement of the work,
    statutory damages and attorney’s fees will be available to
    the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an
    award of actual damages and profits is available to the
    copyright owner.
    • Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record
    the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection
    against the importation of infringing copies. For
    additional information, go to the U. S. Customs and
    Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import.
    Click on “Intellectual Property Rights.”
    Registration may be made at any time within the life of
    the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has
    been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to
    make another registration when the work becomes published,
    although the copyright owner may register the published
    edition, if desired.

    Could you provide a legal citation for this bit of info? I find it hard to believe that this is actually true. Basically you are saying that any action against a 'taking' of property expires 3 months after the infringement.


    I don't want to come down on anyone in this thread. I see a lot of bad information tossed about that has little basis is real copyright law. I'm not a lawyer yet I'd suggest if you state a 'fact' about the law, or expert opinion, that it should be cited so it can be verified by an interested reader.
  • BlakerBlaker Registered Users Posts: 294 Major grins
    edited August 6, 2008
    No problem Lori- enjoy your coffee!
    OffTopic wrote:
    My apologies Blaker, that's what I get for posting before I've had my coffee in the morning. eek7.gif
  • davidweaverdavidweaver Registered Users Posts: 681 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2008
    Blaker wrote:
    ...
    The "protection" does not expire in 3 months. Read carefully.
    ...

    Never mentioned it.

    Maybe the better way to put it is that you only gain the ability to obtain additional statutory damages and laywers fees (by statue) in any suit you bring against an infringing party.

    This doesn't mean you will get statutory damages or lawyer fees if you win.
    but with a lto of hard work you might! 3 years of work for $20k:
    http://www.cgstock.com/essays/copyright_lawsuit

    Here's one that was 5 years in the making:
    http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2005/06/06/daily5.html
  • BlakerBlaker Registered Users Posts: 294 Major grins
    edited September 2, 2008
    blaker wrote:
    The "protection" does not expire in 3 months. Read carefully.


    Never mentioned it.

    Yeah, you did. In post #9- which I've excerpted below.
    Basically you are saying that any action against a 'taking' of property expires 3 months after the infringement.


    Thanks for posting the chronology of the lawsuit- that was very interesting reading!!!
  • davidweaverdavidweaver Registered Users Posts: 681 Major grins
    edited September 5, 2008
    I was paraphrasing your post. I wasn't introducing any new data.

    Now back on topic.

    If you read about photographer lawsuits keep in mind that this is just the tip of the problem. People get infringed upon all the time, people get away with it.

    All the circle-c copyright protection work people spend on protecting their images is a lot of extra effort that isn't really buying them anything. Think of it as a home security system. rolleyes1.gif

    Annually submitting a dvd of images to the copyright folks isn't a bad idea but it may not really be worth it. Especially after reading some of the tales that actually hit the press. That guy that took 4 years and got a settlement (that he is still collecting) is about $100 a week for that effort over time.

    It would be really interesting to talk to a bucnh of copyright lawyers and find out what the negotiated settlements look like for all the cases that never make it to court.
  • BlakerBlaker Registered Users Posts: 294 Major grins
    edited September 5, 2008
    I was paraphrasing your post. I wasn't introducing any new data.
    Now back on topic.

    And you paraphrased wrong, thus the correction and the suggestion to "read carefully".
    If you read about photographer lawsuits keep in mind that this is just the tip of the problem. People get infringed upon all the time, people get away with it.

    All the circle-c copyright protection work people spend on protecting their images is a lot of extra effort that isn't really buying them anything. Think of it as a home security system. rolleyes1.gif

    True, many people do get away with infringing on other people's copyrights. But that's not a good reason to make it easier for them to do it and to let them get away with it! That's like saying houses get robbed so why bother putting a lock on your door and prosecuting the thief. If your work has value, then it is worth protecting, and registering your copyright is one way of protecting your work. Sure, it won't prevent some thief from stealing your image, but it will give you the means to fight it in federal court.
    ( and adding the © isn't what protects your work. Your work is copyrighted the moment you create it, however , in order to sue someone for infringing on your copyright, you need to have the registration # from when you *registered* your copyright with the US copyright office).
    Annually submitting a dvd of images to the copyright folks isn't a bad idea but it may not really be worth it.

    If you are serious about protecting your images by registering them with the LOC then annually doesn't cut it- as I discussed in my initial posts here you've got to establish a workflow which includes registering your new work every 3 months ( so at the end of March you register the photos you've made during Jan Feb and March, then during June you register the photos you've made in April , May and June, etc.)
    You can reread my post #14 for examples of how this protects you.

    As you said, some people may not think it is worth the time or the $35 to register their copyrights and that is their decision. But the OP asked how this works, not whether it was worth it or not.

    Take care : )
Sign In or Register to comment.