If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How critical is the copyright year?
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 DaveŠ" 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How critical is the copyright year?
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How critical is the copyright year?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How critical is the copyright year?
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How critical is the copyright year?
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... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How critical is the copyright year?
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:57:04 GMT, The DaveŠ 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How critical is the copyright year?
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How critical is the copyright year?
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? | Colin B | Digital Photography | 191 | January 19th 07 09:00 AM |
Critical tests for some DSLRs | Rich | Digital SLR Cameras | 45 | December 3rd 05 11:40 PM |
Feeling critical? | Pb | Digital Photography | 4 | December 17th 04 10:22 PM |
How critical is dust. 20D | Don Dunlap | Digital Photography | 38 | November 26th 04 04:42 PM |
How critical is slide film? | Nony Buz | General Photography Techniques | 7 | October 28th 04 02:54 PM |