Advice on copyright infringement

[Dave_W]

Nobody wants to create great work and have it stolen. You deserve to be paid well for the photos you make, and the law thinks so too. That’s why your photos are automatically copyrighted the second you press the shutter release button on your camera. They have been ever since the Berne convention was adopted in 1988 (at least in the United States). The Berne convention protects the right of the author without any need of a formal registration of copyright. Your photos are protected from being used in any nation that has adopted the convention, and any breach of that copyright is enforceable internationally. If you suddenly see your photos appearing in magazines without your prior consent, you have the right to sue for copyright infringement. - See more at: Do I Have To Copyright My Photos? - Digital Photo Secrets

 

[wev]

And, my first post aside, it may be quite worthwhile, if the company has had any sort of commercial success. The current penalties include puntative damages, up to $150k per infringement, and all court and attorney fees.

And if you don't need any new lenses, I have a wish list I can send.

 

[WayneF]

Sparky is of course 100% correct. Sure, you own any work you create, but if you want to go to court about it, you MUST have registered that copyright.

Easier to read:

US Copyright office FAQ: U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright in General (FAQ)

See Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

 

[Browncoat]

Dave...I love ya, man. But I gotta side with Sparky on this one. I covered this in my image protection series, which is a sticky in this very forum.

Yes, you are correct in that a copyright is generated the moment the shutter is pressed. Yes, you are granted the same protection rights whether an image is registered or unregistered. But...

In order to sue in court, and especially for large damages, the image must be registered.

 

[wev]

But, and it is a very large but, the registration does not need to be made until one second before the suit is actually filed. Since virtually all such cases are settle before any actual trial (ie by threat alone), there is no need to register until all other avenues have been closed. Just consult a lawyer.

 

[Deezey]

So....whatever happened with this?!

 

[WayneF]

But, and it is a very large but, the registration does not need to be made until one second before the suit is actually filed. Since virtually all such cases are settle before any actual trial (ie by threat alone), there is no need to register until all other avenues have been closed. Just consult a lawyer.

Oops! My notion is this:

Of course, anyone, including the image thief, can simply buy your image(s) for $35. Nothing stops them from simply registering your image with the copyright office. No proof is required, possession is the proof. They fill out a form and send the image and $35 to the copyright office. Then if a case goes to court, YOU pay court costs and damages to defend their copyright.

Without registration, copyright (by creation) is just one word against the other (i.e., protection is imaginary since the court will not listen). The idea of registration is it is hard proof of date of ownership claim, good unless earlier claim surfaces. If they copyrighted your image a couple of years ago, and you show up now claiming it is yours, guess which way the law goes. You had your unique early opportunity, but you blew it.

If you have work of imagined worth, it would seriously behoove you to register it at the earliest possible opportunity. You can register a CD full of images for $35. That CD remains in the Library of Congress, and is formal proof of your ownership date (unless earlier claim is made). Date of registration is pretty much the whole idea.

 

[sonicbuffalo_RIP]

So what good does a watermark with the "c" and your name do for you? It might scare a few birds out of the tree, but someone who knows the laws, also knows that most photographers simply don't register there images.