first copyright infringement

[JDB]

Is it odd that this feels like some sort of rite of passage? :confused:

I shoot a considerable amount of radio control model racing (don't ask ;)), and I was looking for some information when I found this:

http://jbphotography.smugmug.com/photos/151527996-L.jpg

I took the two photos pointed out by arrows at an event about a year ago (http://www.jbphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1535262#73949219 and http://www.jbphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/1535262#73949329), and I'm not quite sure what to do. If these photos were used as advertising, it'd be one thing, but they were only used in the "news" section of the site (would that be considered editorial use?). I think I'm going to email them and ask for compensation, either monetary or in the form of merchandise. Checkpoint is a fairly large company in the rc industry, and I've traded photos (for the exact usage as seen above) for merchandise before to much smaller mom and pop-style companies... only seems fair that they would pay up as well, no?

This isn't something I'm going to lose sleep over... I'd just be curious to hear any thoughts or opinions.

[DizzyV6P]

Yes to contacting them and asking for some sort of compensation. Since its in the news section, they should have at least asked permission. I like the in-kind trade for free products idea. Many times in these situations, those end up being a lot more valuable to YOU and less valuable to THEM, so it works out great for both parties.

If they were using your pictures to advertise and to make boatloads of money...well, that's another ball game. That's when you start screaming "Show me the money!" like Cuba Gooding Jr.

Good Luck and be sure to update us on what you got out of it :) I used to be an RC Car fanatic, many, many, many eons ago...LOL.

[amonline]

Publishing is publishing... without consent is... well, I think you get the picture.

[Dorado]

Maybe consider watermarking your images on your site?

Putting images on a website is considered publishing. So your images were published illegally without your release. Register the images with the copyright office immediatly. Send them a letter and politely advise them they have illegally published your copyrighted images, and payment is due. Include an invoice with the letter. If they ignore you, a letter from an attorney might help.

[JDB]

Thank you for the advice!
I've got a question about registration. I basically understand the process, but there's one little thing I'm unsure about. I know you can register a group of images, and my understanding is that if you register a group of images, when you fill out the form, you use the "date published" of simply the earliest published photos. Is this correct? By this thinking, could I submit all the photos I've taken in, say, the past year, and only have to worry about the date of the earliest published photos in the group? I publish photos on my website generally 4-5 times a month, so if I had to fill out separate forms for each set of photos published on a certain day, both the cost and time required would be pretty substantial.

If what I've said above isn't clear... Let's say last year the first date that I uploaded photos to my site was January 2, 2006. Could I send in a group registration of all the photos taken and published after that and just put January 2, 2006, on the form? That'd be great if I could, but I've got a feeling this isn't the case.

Thank you!

[amonline]

Yea, I'm not sure which form you use, but you will list them as previously published and the date you created them, drop them all on a CD and mail it with the form for $45.

Google: "copyright"

[bieber]

Register the images with the copyright office immediatly.
Doesn't the whole extra damages thing only come into play if they were registered before the infringement? In any case, it's really not worth that much trouble for a couple of images attached to a news story. Contact them about it, and if they're dicks, then consider legal action.

[JDB]

Yes, the registration only applies if you register before the infringement or 90 days after first publication, which in this case was about 11 months ago. I agree with bieber... this isn't something I'm going to lose sleep over. Had they used my photos in advertising it'd be different, but with what they did, it isn't as big of a deal.

[lingham]

Doesn't the whole extra damages thing only come into play if they were registered before the infringement? In any case, it's really not worth that much trouble for a couple of images attached to a news story. Contact them about it, and if they're dicks, then consider legal action.

agreed

be nice then if they wont be then take it further

[Monito]

0) Advice to first approach them nicely, but firmly, is good.

1) You have up to 90 days after first publication to bulk register photos with the Copyright Office and obtain the fullest protection of the law: attorney's fees and statutory damages.

2) Infringer's actions do not constitute publication.

3) An offer to sell is publication (settled law). I think that presentation in a publicly accessible (linked) part of a website is also publication (my considered opinion and also that of the Director of the Copyright Office, but not settled law).

4) Any publication use is use and needs to be licensed. Editorial, commercial, prints, promotion, advertising, ... it doesn't matter.

5) Bulk register your photos in batches routinely. I've done it twice now and will again and again. http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/copyright/ The Copyright Office is introducing online registration sometime this summer and will be a little cheaper ($35 a batch instead of $45).

[sfaust]

There is no settled law from everything I've read on whether or not simple 'display' on a website is publication if there is no clear intent to sell the images.

Regardless, without statutory damages and attorneys fee's included since its past the 90 day window, the OP will have to pay for the legal costs if he decides to pursue this as a legal matter. It will probably cost far more to pursue the case that he would ever get back.

Its probably best to try to settle this between the two parties as best he can. The idea about trade for products/services is a great idea in a small case like this. But I hate to see this happening either way. Its far to common these days, and I find many people still think if its posted on the web, its in the public domain. Argh!