where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Here is an interesting piece that I came across via The Click. Looks like you don't be in the US to receive protection from the US Copyright Office. If you have anything worth protecting and are serious about doing it, then this article is worth the read. Just putting a (C) symbol in the metadata is not enough, this is what counts. Whether the investment is worth it, is up to you to decide.
http://www.jeremynicholl.com/blog/2011/06/13/the-10-rules-of-us-copyright-infringement/
As far as I know once you take a picture its yours and anyone using it without your permission is violating your rights to the picture. There's some exceptions like where you take a picture of someone's creation (architecture, art etc) but I don't believe there's any need to take any action in order to protect your captures.
Just my 2c...
Ah yes... Legal matters and the photographer... As Bram says, unless you sign the full rights away, all your creations are yours... until someone steals them that is - voice of experience speaking here.
There are a number of tutorials online about copyright by law firms and I recall several are referenced somewhere on here too.
Are you prepared to take a copyright case to a Federal judge, because some nut case in the middle of nowhere put a copy up on their personal web site? Remember, the costs of bringing a federal case are as much as most people earn in a year and no other (or lower) court will consider one.
Be as angry over picture theft as you like, but if you can't actually get a legal remedy, consider the value of being angry...
On the subject of action:
Should you register them (and get properly worded release forms signed by your subjects)?
Picture registration is something a lawyer will tell you it is essential and to spend loads of money on doing - through them (for a fat fee) of course... ;-) It depends on how 'formal' your registration needs to be - to stand up in a court case needs more than just putting a (c) symbol on it - even if that alone *might* help... as they say, "Your Mileage May Vary" and what you *might* get back will increase the more formal you get!
You can easily (and relatively cheaply) produce a cease and desist letter, asking that they either credit you as the photographer or take it down in a nice friendly wording that doesn't piss them off and gets you a plug online (voice of experience here again).
It all helps if you can get them to link to your web site as a result... Remember those Google stats benefit from links to your site etc... Work can come from this kind of thing...
If the offender is someone like Fox or the New York Times then there are a number of well established cases of photographers winning - as then it can be well worth it - and also of photographers losing...
You might like to read the reports in the British Journal of Photography (BJP in the UK) and it's well covered feature of the case with the photographers gallery as a typical (yes TYPICAL) example to just how dumb all this can become.
As someone who has had wasted a week of his life embroiled in legal crud about this kind of subject (a pic of mine was copied and used in some brochures some time ago without my permission), I suggest "byancave" LLC (see dot com for the link), who do a great and easy to read and use FREE 12 page primer in PDF format on this subject... We are not supposed to post links to external web sites, but you can guess what it is from this...
Bram said:
As far as I know once you take a picture its yours and anyone using it without your permission is violating your rights to the picture. There's some exceptions like where you take a picture of someone's creation (architecture, art etc) but I don't believe there's any need to take any action in order to protect your captures.
Copyrighting it with the US copyright office allows you to recuperate attorney and court costs you would not recover if you filed on your own, without first having filed a copyright. If you filed a copyright before your image was used, and later win your case, you will not have to pay anything and will be awarded infringement damages, plus court and legal fees.
Take it from bitter experience as someone who is still paying the cost of going to court over ten years ago on a "dead cert!" win, the only people who come out of court winners are the lawyers. Better to agree a 1/4 of the deal out of court, than 200% in it.
SkintBrit said:
Take it from bitter experience as someone who is still paying the cost of going to court over ten years ago on a "dead cert!" win, the only people who come out of court winners are the lawyers. Better to agree a 1/4 of the deal out of court, than 200% in it.
If you won the case then why weren't you awarded court fees? Just wondering.
iris chrome said:
If you won the case then why weren't you awarded court fees? Just wondering.
I am not sure how it works if he is in the UK, but in the US, if you didn't file the photos with the copyright office first, you cannot recover court costs or attorney fees, even if you win.
Another issue with the copyright registering system is that they free up some "companies" (the ones that pushed for its creation) to infringe as long as the picture is not registered.
iris chrome said:
If you won the case then why weren't you awarded court fees? Just wondering.
I was speaking generally rather than specifically to do with copyright. The dispute I mention was over a valuation of my company. Without going into detail our lawyers said we had an excellent chance of winning (surprise surprise!). In the end the court found in my favour, but did not award costs which by that time had spiralled to 6 figures, (we were ordered to pay our own). Our costs came to more than the disputed difference in valuation. Neither side won except the 2 lawyers.
JJump said:
I am not sure how it works if he is in the UK, but in the US, if you didn't file the photos with the copyright office first, you cannot recover court costs or attorney fees, even if you win.
If that's the case then I would think it's all the more reason to register your photos
heartyfisher said:
Another issue with the copyright registering system is that they free up some "companies" (the ones that pushed for its creation) to infringe as long as the picture is not registered.
I'm not sure I see your point clearly. Also how would a company differentiate between photographs that are actually registered versus ones that just have the © symbol next to it?
SkintBrit said:
I was speaking generally rather than specifically to do with copyright. The dispute I mention was over a valuation of my company. Without going into detail our lawyers said we had an excellent chance of winning (surprise surprise!). In the end the court found in my favour, but did not award costs which by that time had spiralled to 6 figures, (we were ordered to pay our own). Our costs came to more than the disputed difference in valuation. Neither side won except the 2 lawyers.
Yikes, sorry did not mean to pry into your business but that's one sad story...
You must log in to post.
