How critical is the copyright year?

How critical is the copyright year?

IOW, if I have photos taken in 2004 and I don't start marketing them
until 2008, does it matter legally if I put a 2004 or 2008 copyright
date on them?

Most tend to be the types of photos where date isn't really important
and could have been taken any year, so it's more of a legal question.
I know that I can leave the date off completely, but I'd rather not.

I normally put the copyright of the year the pictures were registered with
the Library of Congress. Registering your photos is basically the only way
you can get any real legal foothold if someone "borrows" your picture. You
can't register the photos after you see it "borrowed" and expect to have
your copyright work.

Granted the picture gets your copyright the moment the shutter button is
pressed, but to legally prove it's yours you need to register it.

That said, put the year that you took the picture as your copyright.

Good luck.

"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
How critical is the copyright year?

IOW, if I have photos taken in 2004 and I don't start marketing them
until 2008, does it matter legally if I put a 2004 or 2008 copyright
date on them?

Most tend to be the types of photos where date isn't really important
and could have been taken any year, so it's more of a legal question.
I know that I can leave the date off completely, but I'd rather not.

"huh?" wrote in message
...
I normally put the copyright of the year the pictures were registered with
the Library of Congress. Registering your photos is basically the only way
you can get any real legal foothold if someone "borrows" your picture. You
can't register the photos after you see it "borrowed" and expect to have
your copyright work.

Granted the picture gets your copyright the moment the shutter button is
pressed, but to legally prove it's yours you need to register it.

That said, put the year that you took the picture as your copyright.

Good luck.

Copyright "works" whether you register it or not. The difference is that if
it's registered, you can sue for punitive damages, in addition to actual
damages. For example, let's assume that your normal price for an 8x10 print
is $50. If someone makes an 8x10 print from your un-registered original, you
can sue for only $50, and no lawyer will want to be bothered with the suit.
If someone makes an 8x10 copy of your registered original, you can sue for
$50 plus punitive damages, usually ten times the actual damages, or a total
of $550. You would have a better chance of getting a lawyer to file suit if
there are punitive damages involved.

The work doesn't need to be registered to prove ownership. Generally, if you
own the negative, you own the copyright. I don't know how you would prove
ownership of a digital file, but since I shoot film, I consider te point
moot.

I don't know how you would prove
ownership of a digital file, but since I shoot film, I consider te point
moot.



If you have a higher quality image than the defendant, it shouldn't be
much of a proof problem. Simply testify that you took the image and show
the original image.

Even at $500 in damages, you'd be hard pressed to get an attorney to
take the case. I live in a small town in Louisiana. Intellectual
property attorneys even where I live will charge $200/hr for their time.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Ken Hart wrote:
The difference is that if
it's registered, you can sue for punitive damages

Can anyone confirm this? Sorry Ken but I never heard that and it makes
no sense to me at all. Why? Makes no sense whatsoever.

PS (AFAIK) the only reason to put the date is if you want your ancestors
to benefit from the 95 year limit on the copyright.

On Feb 7, 7:11 pm, Pudentame wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Ken Hart wrote:
The difference is that if it's registered, you can sue for punitive
damages

Can anyone confirm this? Sorry Ken but I never heard that and it makes
no sense to me at all. Why? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Doesn't have to actually make sense, you're talking about the law.

There's a lot of stuff in there that doesn't make sense, but somebody
got it added in there because it benefits them.

The copyright stuff wasn't put in there to benefit photographers; it's
for companies like Sony and Microsoft.

Punitive damages used to be 3x actual damages IIRC (before the DMCA),
now it's $500,000.00 per "incident".

That wouldn't amount to much in the case of one $50 8x10, but it adds up
when you're talking about software & movie piracy.

The way it was explained to me (in reference to operating a mini-lab
where someone could use our kiosk equipment to make copies of
copyrighted photos) is this:

1. The owner of the equipment used to make the copies can be held liable
for the copyright infringement. This is what is called an "equal and
several" liability, i.e. they can sue the equipment owner even if the
person who used the equipment doesn't have any assets they can go after.

2. Each copy made is an "incident"; the law allows up to $500,000
damages per "incident" of copyright infringement. It doesn't seem to
have anything to do with how much you actually would have sold the
picture for.

Again, this wasn't intended to protect photographers, it was to PUNISH
software pirates and people downloading music files from Napster et al.
Copy a song and post it to a file sharing site and you can be sued for
half a million dollars for every time the song is downloaded.

At the same time, the *owner of the site* can ALSO be sued for half a
million dollars for each and every download.

3. There are loopholes written into the law so that if the shoe is on
the other foot, i.e. if some large corporation takes your image and uses
it, they aren't liable if they've exercised "due diligence" to ensure
they're not infringing your copyright.

In this case "due diligence" appears to mean someone, somewhere, in the
corporate hierarchy asks sometime "Does anybody know where this image
came from? NO?? Ok, then it must be in the public domain so we can use it."

You *might* be able to make them STOP using your image, but you're never
gonna' get any recompense for the use they've made before you catch
them. That's assuming you can find a lawyer who can figure out which
court has jurisdiction where they have to file for a cease and desist order.

Getting back to photography, what that means is the guy at the bottom of
the food chain; the guy running the mini-lab better be taking care NOT
to sued because someone used the equipment to violate some
photographer's copyright ... because the Corporation is gonna' walk, and
the guy running the mini-lab is gonna' be left holdin' the bag.

The bottom line is this ... this ain't the place to get legal advice
about copyright law. It's an arcane legal specialty, if you need that
advice, you need a lawyer.



PS (AFAIK) the only reason to put the date is if you want your ancestors
to benefit from the 95 year limit on the copyright.

Your descendants might benefit; your ancestors are unlikely to.

That's really going to **** poor paul off.
You neglected to mention that this applies only to the USA. Foreigners
(like me for instance) can sue for punitive damages even though our
images are not registered. But then he knew this when he stole my
images and altered them without my permission, reposting them as if
they were his...

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:57:04 GMT, The Dave© wrote:

How critical is the copyright year?

IOW, if I have photos taken in 2004 and I don't start marketing them
until 2008, does it matter legally if I put a 2004 or 2008 copyright
date on them?

Most tend to be the types of photos where date isn't really important
and could have been taken any year, so it's more of a legal question.
I know that I can leave the date off completely, but I'd rather not.

Hello,
All and I mean all copyright is regulated by the Berne Convention
see
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

and a bit easier
at
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/law/copyright/faq/

However keep in mind that international treaties of which a country
has approved always prevail over national regulations.

Best regards,


it's Hadrian

Pudentame wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
Ken Hart wrote:
The difference is that if it's registered, you can sue for punitive
damages

Can anyone confirm this? Sorry Ken but I never heard that and it makes
no sense to me at all. Why? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Doesn't have to actually make sense, you're talking about the law.

There's a lot of stuff in there that doesn't make sense, but somebody
got it added in there because it benefits them.

The copyright stuff wasn't put in there to benefit photographers; it's
for companies like Sony and Microsoft.

Punitive damages used to be 3x actual damages IIRC (before the DMCA),
now it's $500,000.00 per "incident".

Ah, well maybe it's a matter of precedent. It's always a matter of who
has money to be extracted & who has the best lawyers to extract or
protect it, that makes sense. I've begun putting a small watermark on my
web images which simply has my name and web address so that people at
least know where it came from & how to contact me and it doesn't look so
ugly that they are tempted to crop that off.


Cryptopix wrote:
..stole..

No that was educational/editorial and google groups has the story.

"Paul Furman" wrote:

The difference is that if
it's registered, you can sue for punitive damages

Can anyone confirm this? Sorry Ken but I never heard that and it makes
no sense to me at all.

It's not quite accurate, but the inaccuracy is more one of form
than of substance. Registration makes a _substantial_ difference
in the remedies available for U.S. Copyright infringement.

Title 17, Chapter 5 of the US Code spells out the available civil
remedies for copyright infringement. They include injunctive relief
(section 502), impounding and destruction of infringing articles
(section 503), damages and profits (section 504), and recovery of
costs and attorneys fees (section 505).

Section 504 defines damages as _either_ actual damages and profits
_or_ statutory damages. Actual damages are often very hard (and
expensive) to prove, and in the case of a stolen photograph, can
be very small. Profits of the infringer are a little easier since
the plaintiff only has to provide proof of gross revenue, but
refuting the infringer's expenses can also be difficult.

The alternative is statutory damages. Statutory damages range
from $200 to $150,000, depending on type of infringer, "willfulness"
and the judge's discretion. In addition, there another provision
allowing for penalties of double license fees for unreasonable
claims of exemptions for performances and displays.

The combination of statutory damages, costs and attorneys fees often
make a copyright infringement action viable economically.

However, there's a kicker in the form of 17 USC 412, which provides
in part:
no award of statutory damages or of attorney's fees, as provided
by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for-
(1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work
commenced before the effective date of its registration;
or
(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first
publication of the work and before the effective date of
its registration, unless such registration is made within
three months after the first publication of the work.

I don't know of any modern cases where a court has awarded punitive
damages for copyright infringement _under that name_. Arguably, the
willful infringement provisions provide the same remedy. However, at
least two courts have allowed plaintiffs to make punitive damage
claims.

Why? Makes no sense whatsoever.

The rationale is very simple. Copyright law is primarily about
economic impact. Court resources are limited and expensive. If
something isn't worth the time, trouble, and registration fee
to you, why should the government care enough to let you use the
courts?

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.