so the letter+invoice was sent yesterday. I think the amount was fair considering all the circumstances, if they pay then great, if they don't then that would suck if I have pinned myself to that amount after a court battle... we will see what happens. I was feeling good about it last night but not so much now that I have read the most recent responses.
The person who wrote the article was actually sent the link to my site from a friend of mine, so I would be pretty certain that he got it directly from me.
I thought those of you following this thread would like to read these articles written by Dan Heller, a photographer with a lot of experience in copyright infringement, which speak directly about what your options are and what you can expect when you find yourself in the situation f00sion is in:
f00sion, pay particular attention to the "Opportunities for Everyday Photographers" in article 1. After quickly reading through this thread, it sounds like you had watermarks on the image, but you have not registered the image with the copyright office. According to Heller, you would not be able to collect statuatory damages (the big $$) since it is not registered, but you could collect compensatory damages if you can find a lawyer who will take the case (should it proceed that far).
-Edit-
Actually, I read that wrong. If you've registered the image OR watermarked it (and they willfully removed it), you are entitled to statuatory damages, according to Heller.
Scott, are you considering redoing your watermark to prevent this in the future?
There is no way a watermark can prevent a copyright violation, without outright ruining the image. A faint watermark over the body of the image can be cloned out with little effort - a more prominant watermark injurs the photographer more than it hinders stealing. If they are determined to use the image without paying for it, they will.
This is a fundamental situation with copyright and digital media - the technology to edit and copy outstrips (and will always outstrip) the technology to "protect" digital media. If you can hear a song being played on your computer, you can copy it. If you can view a photo (or video) on your computer, you can copy it.
Scott, have you heard back from the magazine yet?
JC Dill - Equine Photographer, San Francisco & San Jose http://portfolio.jcdill.com "Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams "Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
Cropping or any other action a violator takes to remove a watermark eliminates any defense of "I didn't know" and subjects the violator to substantially greater penalty and damages.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Antrix: Thanks for posting the links. The author mistakenly states you need to register the work prior to the infringement. I am %99.9 sure you have three months after you are aware of the infringement.
JC: I agree with your comments here, but according to the article, and in keeping with Icebar's comments, while a small unobtrusive watermark will not stop copyright infringement, it can apparently add legal teeth to your claim of deliberate infringement.
I personally HATE large watermarks, and will generally leave the site immediately. That said I think I will when I have an on line site add a very small unobtrusive water mark to a bottom corner.
Oh, and PLEASE let us know what the out come of your letter is. I believe I know what it will be, but who knows, I was wrong once.
Antrix: Thanks for posting the links. The author mistakenly states you need to register the work prior to the infringement. I am %99.9 sure you have three months after you are aware of the infringement.
The wording from the copyright.gov website regarding punitive damages and lawsuits is "If registration is made within 3 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.". I would think that publication would refer to when your work (be it book, photograph, sound recording) first gets into the wild. Most judges would probably interpret posting to a publicly accessible website, or in a forum post somewhere, as publication and start the 3 month clock ticking from there.
The wording from the copyright.gov website regarding punitive damages and lawsuits is "If registration is made within 3 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.". I would think that publication would refer to when your work (be it book, photograph, sound recording) first gets into the wild. Most judges would probably interpret posting to a publicly accessible website, or in a forum post somewhere, as publication and start the 3 month clock ticking from there.
Interesting...................I need to some additional research on this.
Perhaps you could take an initially amiable approach and if it is resolved well you could get more work with them in the future.
Ryan
A photo teacher I had burns a CD of thumbnails when it's full or every three months to register her copyright. Sounds like a good plan to me and worth the money.
The fact that these dudes used his photo doesn't mean that, for instance, he can't continue to use the photo as well
Actually, yes it does in this case as the magazines own publishing policy states that published works become their property, so they have claimed intellectual rights.
thanks for the articles antrix, those are excellent reads.
I used to have a larger watermark but I definitely like the smaller one better, even if it is super simple to crop out. There's no amount of protection that makes it impossible to steal the image, and I would rather have the image look nice for all the other visitors.
I'm sorry to hear about the "theft" of your image. Hopefully you will get a postive response and resolution to your issue without the need of going to court. However, one positive aspect of hiring an attorney is that they could find out if this magazine has been sued in the past for similiar infractions. If so, the judge could impose a large fine to make a strong statement.
Another factor is that when they receive an image from a 3rd party source, they may require them to sign a release, to protect them from potential law suits like your situation. I'm not an attorney, but I suspect the magazine has a good attorney that was paid to draft such documents.
My experience has been to hire an attorney at let them do the research, and write the letters. If your in business, you should already have an attorney.
"The point in life isn't to arrive at our final destination well preserved and in pristine condition, but rather to slide in sideways yelling.....Holy cow, what a ride."
Your rights exist whether or not credit is given....
I guess, technically, you retain your copyright. But how can you charge someone for use when if you've allowed the work to enter the public domain?
It's my understanding that this is why folks put so much effort into defending the right. Not because they loose the copyright itself, but because they just might loose the right to control (and charge for) use of the work?
It's always been my understanding that works enter the public domain not only X years after the death of the creator, but also if the work is repeatedly distributed in public without copyright notice and without that copyright being defended.
Many poster and other publishing companies base their business on public domain works, simply because there's no need to pay royalties or comply with reproduction limitations of the works involved.
...You can't 'lose' your rights
If someone else 'proves' copyright belongs to them (by, for instance, registering the work before you), you HAVE lost copyright. That's what registration is all about. It's simply a way to prove that you claimed copyright before anyone else.
Some folks send themselves a copy of their work by registered mail, then file it away unopenned, thereby depending on the post mark to set a copyright date in case of dispute, but that is now questionable, expensive and unweildy.
I always try to remember that 'moral' copyright and 'legal' copyright are not always the same thing.
Copyright
I had a similar situation happen a few years ago. You do NOT have to register your photos with the US Copyright Office to prove ownership. A copyright belongs to the photographer at the time the photos were taken
Also, we will be able soon (if not already, I haven't checked in a few weeks) to register our work via computer, instead of burning CD's or DVD's and sending them in to the copyright offices. It took them WEEKS to process a single DVD of images. Hopefully, this will be cheaper.
The author seems to be the responsible party for snatching the photo for use. They are obviously uninformed as to copyright law and photo usage. I would send them an invoice for the standard infringement amount of $500.00 per image.
US Copyright office
The copyright office is conducting a beta test of their eCO platform now.
From the US Copyright Office page:
The Copyright Office is conducting a beta test of its web-based registration system, electronic Copyright Office (eCO). Participants in eCO beta testing will file [URL="javascript:pop('eco-registrations.html')"]basic registration claims[/URL] online at a reduced fee established for electronic filings ($35).
Currently, eCO beta testing covers basic registration claims for literary works, visual arts works, performing arts works, and sound recordings. At a later date system testing will expand to cover additional registration claim types and services including serials, group registrations, vessel hull designs, mask works, renewals, and corrections and amplifications of existing registrations.
There was an article about it in Popular Photography this month.
It's always been my understanding that works enter the public domain not only X years after the death of the creator, but also if the work is repeatedly distributed in public without copyright notice and without that copyright being defended.
The copyright still exists, you have to actively give up your copyright for it to pass into the public domain.
"The point in life isn't to arrive at our final destination well preserved and in pristine condition, but rather to slide in sideways yelling.....Holy cow, what a ride."
I don't think I quite understand. how much dose it cost to have your photos copywritten.
Great Thread
Nothing. Your photos are copywritten the minute you take them. You do not need to take any action.
Registering your photos with the US Copyright office simply provides documentation should you enter into litigation over your copyright, but is not required. For those making their living with photography, it likely makes sense to register work to ensure you have all available options to ensure your livelihood.
Nothing. Your photos are copywritten the minute you take them. You do not need to take any action.
Registering your photos with the US Copyright office simply provides documentation should you enter into litigation over your copyright, but is not required. For those making their living with photography, it likely makes sense to register work to ensure you have all available options to ensure your livelihood.
I guess I am wondering what the cost is to copyright a dvd of images
Comments
Washington Post: Hey, Isn't That . . .
my words, my "pro"pictures, my "fun" pictures, my videos.
The person who wrote the article was actually sent the link to my site from a friend of mine, so I would be pretty certain that he got it directly from me.
Inquiring minds want to know all the details!
Michael
Excellent
Perfect Pix
Article 1
http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/making-money-from-your-stolen-images.html
Article 2
http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/glass-is-neither-half-empty-nor-half.html
f00sion, pay particular attention to the "Opportunities for Everyday Photographers" in article 1. After quickly reading through this thread, it sounds like you had watermarks on the image, but you have not registered the image with the copyright office. According to Heller, you would not be able to collect statuatory damages (the big $$) since it is not registered, but you could collect compensatory damages if you can find a lawyer who will take the case (should it proceed that far).
-Edit-
Actually, I read that wrong. If you've registered the image OR watermarked it (and they willfully removed it), you are entitled to statuatory damages, according to Heller.
http://www.knippixels.com
There is no way a watermark can prevent a copyright violation, without outright ruining the image. A faint watermark over the body of the image can be cloned out with little effort - a more prominant watermark injurs the photographer more than it hinders stealing. If they are determined to use the image without paying for it, they will.
This is a fundamental situation with copyright and digital media - the technology to edit and copy outstrips (and will always outstrip) the technology to "protect" digital media. If you can hear a song being played on your computer, you can copy it. If you can view a photo (or video) on your computer, you can copy it.
Scott, have you heard back from the magazine yet?
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
JC: I agree with your comments here, but according to the article, and in keeping with Icebar's comments, while a small unobtrusive watermark will not stop copyright infringement, it can apparently add legal teeth to your claim of deliberate infringement.
I personally HATE large watermarks, and will generally leave the site immediately. That said I think I will when I have an on line site add a very small unobtrusive water mark to a bottom corner.
Oh, and PLEASE let us know what the out come of your letter is. I believe I know what it will be, but who knows, I was wrong once.
Sam
The wording from the copyright.gov website regarding punitive damages and lawsuits is "If registration is made within 3 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.". I would think that publication would refer to when your work (be it book, photograph, sound recording) first gets into the wild. Most judges would probably interpret posting to a publicly accessible website, or in a forum post somewhere, as publication and start the 3 month clock ticking from there.
Interesting...................I need to some additional research on this.
Thanks,
sam
Ryan
my flickr
A photo teacher I had burns a CD of thumbnails when it's full or every three months to register her copyright. Sounds like a good plan to me and worth the money.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
Jamie
I used to have a larger watermark but I definitely like the smaller one better, even if it is super simple to crop out. There's no amount of protection that makes it impossible to steal the image, and I would rather have the image look nice for all the other visitors.
Another factor is that when they receive an image from a 3rd party source, they may require them to sign a release, to protect them from potential law suits like your situation. I'm not an attorney, but I suspect the magazine has a good attorney that was paid to draft such documents.
My experience has been to hire an attorney at let them do the research, and write the letters. If your in business, you should already have an attorney.
Good luck, I'll keep watching to see the outcome.
Dale
Your rights exist whether or not credit is given. You can't 'lose' your rights
www.achambersphoto.com
"The point in life isn't to arrive at our final destination well preserved and in pristine condition, but rather to slide in sideways yelling.....Holy cow, what a ride."
It's my understanding that this is why folks put so much effort into defending the right. Not because they loose the copyright itself, but because they just might loose the right to control (and charge for) use of the work?
It's always been my understanding that works enter the public domain not only X years after the death of the creator, but also if the work is repeatedly distributed in public without copyright notice and without that copyright being defended.
Many poster and other publishing companies base their business on public domain works, simply because there's no need to pay royalties or comply with reproduction limitations of the works involved.
If someone else 'proves' copyright belongs to them (by, for instance, registering the work before you), you HAVE lost copyright. That's what registration is all about. It's simply a way to prove that you claimed copyright before anyone else.
Some folks send themselves a copy of their work by registered mail, then file it away unopenned, thereby depending on the post mark to set a copyright date in case of dispute, but that is now questionable, expensive and unweildy.
I always try to remember that 'moral' copyright and 'legal' copyright are not always the same thing.
I had a similar situation happen a few years ago. You do NOT have to register your photos with the US Copyright Office to prove ownership. A copyright belongs to the photographer at the time the photos were taken
Also, we will be able soon (if not already, I haven't checked in a few weeks) to register our work via computer, instead of burning CD's or DVD's and sending them in to the copyright offices. It took them WEEKS to process a single DVD of images. Hopefully, this will be cheaper.
The author seems to be the responsible party for snatching the photo for use. They are obviously uninformed as to copyright law and photo usage. I would send them an invoice for the standard infringement amount of $500.00 per image.
Justus Photography
www.lindasherrill.com
What about the publisher details on the inside of the magazine?
-Fleetwood Mac
The copyright office is conducting a beta test of their eCO platform now.
From the US Copyright Office page:
The Copyright Office is conducting a beta test of its web-based registration system, electronic Copyright Office (eCO). Participants in eCO beta testing will file [URL="javascript:pop('eco-registrations.html')"]basic registration claims[/URL] online at a reduced fee established for electronic filings ($35).
There was an article about it in Popular Photography this month.
Jason
The copyright still exists, you have to actively give up your copyright for it to pass into the public domain.
www.achambersphoto.com
"The point in life isn't to arrive at our final destination well preserved and in pristine condition, but rather to slide in sideways yelling.....Holy cow, what a ride."
Great Thread
www.petrovphotography.com
http://petrovphotography.smugmug.com
Canon 30D
Canon 24-70mm F2.8L
Canon 70-200mm F2.8L
Canon 430EX Flash
Nothing. Your photos are copywritten the minute you take them. You do not need to take any action.
Registering your photos with the US Copyright office simply provides documentation should you enter into litigation over your copyright, but is not required. For those making their living with photography, it likely makes sense to register work to ensure you have all available options to ensure your livelihood.
I guess I am wondering what the cost is to copyright a dvd of images
www.petrovphotography.com
http://petrovphotography.smugmug.com
Canon 30D
Canon 24-70mm F2.8L
Canon 70-200mm F2.8L
Canon 430EX Flash