Jury awards a photographer $1,315,800

[Pinto]

Another example of the importance of registering your images.

Full article:
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003650053

Excerpt:
A jury in Seattle awarded a photographer $1,315,800 in a copyright infringement lawsuit Thursday.
(The jury) awarded Shugart damages of $500,000 for removal of copyright management information and $303,000 for failure to return images. The jury also said Shugart is entitled to $500,000 in statutory damages related to the copyright infringement.

Shugart says he learned the benefits of registering his images with the U.S. Copyright Office, since he was not able to defend his copyrights in the suit without having registered the images first.

"Register your image as soon as you possibly can," Shugart advises.

[S.Horton]

Most gratifying to see that.

Thx for posting the link.

FWIW, online (C) filing services:
http://www.onestopcopyrighting.com/?ad=$74CopyrightService

(C) education/other resources for DIY
http://www.photoattorney.com/2007/09/more-copyright-resources.html

[cosworth]

Excellent. The days of copyright abuse are still with us though.

People still don't get that when you hire (me) a photographer you aren't buying images, you are buying my services to create a licensed image for you. If you want to BUY my images, then you pay more.

Lovely.

[S.Horton]

..........he got much more because they maniuplated the images in an attempt to avert paying him.

The (C) is step one, two is digital rights management.

Welcome to the second century of photography.

[cskn0125]

Excellent. The days of copyright abuse are still with us though.

People still don't get that when you hire (me) a photographer you aren't buying images, you are buying my services to create a licensed image for you. If you want to BUY my images, then you pay more.

Lovely.


Exactly.

I just had a client who told me " I will be using these for advertising/ The images are of me, this has nothing to do with rights. I've never heard of anything like this before" This by the way is after I told them seven times that rights raise the price of pictures.

I guess they expected to get away with adverising my image for $25.00.

Needless to say, the client didn't follow with the shoot - and I am glad.

[sfaust]

If he didn't register the image, he wouldn't get the statutory damages of $500,000, and it might impact the other $500,000 award as well. In his case, the $45 registration fee made a 1/2 to 1 million dollar difference!!

[Ray Marrero]

Exactly.

I just had a client who told me " I will be using these for advertising/ The images are of me, this has nothing to do with rights. I've never heard of anything like this before" This by the way is after I told them seven times that rights raise the price of pictures.

I guess they expected to get away with adverising my image for $25.00.

Needless to say, the client didn't follow with the shoot - and I am glad.


I am sure the client found someone who is willing to give away the rights for $25.00. We must educate buyers as well as producers of photography.

[jtown]

So do you guys register ALL you pictures or just ones you're "licensing" to a client? Wow this is the first I've heard of this and am quite shocked. Do you feel like you get less business when you tell the client they don't even own the pictures?

I guess if you're good/professional enough you can pull this stuff, but for most amateurs it might be flattering for them to use your images in more places than one. I know I would be.

[Picture North Carolina]

another resource (http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-copyrights/copyrights-overview.html).

[Picture North Carolina]

Any lawyers in the house?

Here's a question: if you were to assemble one of those "do-it-yourself" books and have a company such as mpix print it, then copyrighted the book, would that include each individual image in it? In other words, could you save the expense of otherwise registering each individual image? Just a question and a thought.

[ipschoser1]

$1,315,800 !!!

Now that's what I call a lens budget. :D

[PhotosGuy]

could you save the expense of otherwise registering each individual image? You're missing a point? You can © an unlimited # of web sized images on a CD for $45.

[Picture North Carolina]

You're missing a point? You can © an unlimited # of web sized images on a CD for $45.

No, actually I am not 'missing a point'. I left out a word: registered. I assumed in the context of the entire thread, that would be understood. As I read the various sources of info of services that will register an image with the copyright office for a fee, they speak in singular terms; i.e., one image. My question is that if a book of images is registered, would that registered status inherently be extended to any single image within the content of the book.

[PhotosGuy]

I left out a word: registered. I assumed... You've been here long enough to know better? :D

[Picture North Carolina]

You've been here long enough to know better? :D

Yea, maybe so. But I always try to keep posts as short and easy to read as possible. I just assume people read the entire thread and that anything already contained within the thread does not have to be repeated. :D

[bieber]

The (C) is step one, two is digital rights management.
Please tell me you're not serious. I, and a good many other consumers, will have absolutely nothing to do with anyone who decides they should get to tell my computer what to do, rather than me, simply because I happen to be viewing, watching, or listening to, something that they made...

[Picture North Carolina]

Please tell me you're not serious. I, and a good many other consumers, will have absolutely nothing to do with anyone who decides they should get to tell my computer what to do, rather than me, simply because I happen to be viewing, watching, or listening to, something that they made...

Step right up, folks. Scan your creditcard in your fancy, new mandatory usb scanner and remember: it's a dollar per view per pic and all your activity is reported back to Big Brother Central (located in Redmond, Wash.)

[mjordan]

So do you guys register ALL you pictures or just ones you're "licensing" to a client? Wow this is the first I've heard of this and am quite shocked. Do you feel like you get less business when you tell the client they don't even own the pictures?

I guess if you're good/professional enough you can pull this stuff, but for most amateurs it might be flattering for them to use your images in more places than one. I know I would be.


I register all of my images when I send in a CD to register the last group of images I've taken. The good, the bad and the ugly. And it's a good thing, because it's been a couple of not so great lighting examples that were buried away on my web site that got ripped off and used on a commercial site that made me a lot of money. Not as much as this guy got, but enough to buy a new 1DMKII, another L lens, pay for my wife to go to the Westminister dog show last Feb (just in time to get stuck at JFK for 3 days in the snow storm they had) buy a large kiln for my other hobby and a few other things. I love the copyright law and what registrations gives you. :D

Mike

[dwaynefoong]

Is it necessary to register?

In my country (Malaysia), copyright is automatically awarded to the photographer (or person who creates the image).

Why do I need to register then?

[mjordan]

In the US, our images are also copyrighted as soon as we create the image... the big difference though is that if you register them and have to take some one to court for infringement and win, the infringer gets to pay all court and legal fees for both of you. This is regardless of if you win any award or damages at all. So even if the court decided not to award the copyright holder any money, the infringer could still owe the court thousands of dollars. That's a big incentive for someone to pay off the copyright holder rather than be taken to court. That's why I register my images.

Mike

[Pinto]

In the US, our images are also copyrighted as soon as we create the image... the big difference though is that if you register them and have to take some one to court for infringement and win, the infringer gets to pay all court and legal fees for both of you. This is regardless of if you win any award or damages at all. So even if the court decided not to award the copyright holder any money, the infringer could still owe the court thousands of dollars. That's a big incentive for someone to pay off the copyright holder rather than be taken to court. That's why I register my images.

Mike

In addition to the above, you are also severely limited to the amount of damages you can collect if your image is not registered with the copyright office. I think the maximum is about $1500.00. Maybe someone else can verify this.

[jtown]

I register all of my images when I send in a CD to register the last group of images I've taken. The good, the bad and the ugly. And it's a good thing, because it's been a couple of not so great lighting examples that were buried away on my web site that got ripped off and used on a commercial site that made me a lot of money. Not as much as this guy got, but enough to buy a new 1DMKII, another L lens, pay for my wife to go to the Westminister dog show last Feb (just in time to get stuck at JFK for 3 days in the snow storm they had) buy a large kiln for my other hobby and a few other things. I love the copyright law and what registrations gives you. :D

Mike

Do all the pics need a watermark on them then?

[sfaust]

You don't need watermarks when registering. In fact, you don't need watermarks at all, but its advisable to have them in metadata at the least, and a small one on the image if possible.

[_aravena]

Ok, so I see all this talk of registering everything and then I see $$$ being thrown around. How much does it costs to continuously copyright pics? I can't quite make sense of these links.

[turbo212003]

http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html

Register!

[lakiluno]

Please tell me you're not serious. I, and a good many other consumers, will have absolutely nothing to do with anyone who decides they should get to tell my computer what to do, rather than me, simply because I happen to be viewing, watching, or listening to, something that they made...

Strongly agree. DRM is a scourge. It is in no way something positive. The law should protect our images, not DRM.

I am of the opinion that non-commercial use of my images is perfectly fine. If someone asks me to use an image, I will agree, and in fact I will eventually license my images as creative commons non-commercial. However, use of images commercially is a different story.

[sfaust]

Ok, so I see all this talk of registering everything and then I see $$$ being thrown around. How much does it costs to continuously copyright pics? I can't quite make sense of these links.

If you register them every 89 days (there is a 90 day limit), its only $45 every quarter, or $180 per year. Cheap insurance if you ask me! Or, you can register them after each job and include the cost of registration into your overhead.

But for maximum protection, you have a 90 day window from when they were created. So if you just register everything you shot every 90 days, you'll be way ahead of the game.

[_aravena]

So I pay $45 every 3 months and have unlimited registering usage? Or just save all my photos up a quarter then sned them in? And I'm assuming via CD or DVD?

[sfaust]

Here is a reasonable plan to register your images with the least amout of work.

Every quarter, put all your images on CD/DVD in a web resolution format, such as 800x600 at mid quality level. All you need is a screen resolution image for identification.

Fill out the registration form, put the CD and registration form in a Fed Ex envelope and send it in. Thats basically it. If you do it every 75 days or so, you'll always be ahead of the 90 day window from the time of capture.

You can send in everything, a tight edit, or only the keepers. Whatever works for each photographer.

[Pinto]

So I pay $45 every 3 months and have unlimited registering usage? Or just save all my photos up a quarter then sned them in? And I'm assuming via CD or DVD?

To answer your question more specifically, you pay the $45.00 fee each time you register your image(s). Whether you register one or all you can get on a CD. Go to the government site and spend a little time studying the process: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40a.html#two

[_aravena]

I get it now. Very very nice. Thanks guys!

[mjordan]

If you register them every 89 days (there is a 90 day limit), its only $45 every quarter, or $180 per year. Cheap insurance if you ask me! Or, you can register them after each job and include the cost of registration into your overhead.

But for maximum protection, you have a 90 day window from when they were created. So if you just register everything you shot every 90 days, you'll be way ahead of the game.


Not completely true, but close. You have 90 days to register them after they have been published as defined by the Copyright law and still get the special provision of having the infringer pay for legal and court costs and also possible higher awards. Published is roughly defined as having sold, rented, leased, or given someone permission to do this. I interpreter this to mean if you made money on them, then they are considered published. Just the fact that you have shown them to the public (such as on a web site or in a publication) does not mean they have been published.

You also have to have them registered before an infringement occurs to get the special benifits of being registered. But to even be able to sue, they have the be registered, you just won't get the special benifits if it's after you were infringed on.

So if you have not published your images and they haven't been infringed on, you can still register them to meet the qualifacations of registration.

The cost is $45 per form... a form can be a single image or a CD or DVD full of images. One of my CD's had over 10,000 images on it that I registered. One requirement though is that they all fall in the same catagory... i.e. all non-published, all published, all registered to the same copyright holder(s), etc.

There is also a Short VA form that is even easier to fill out if you don't have anything special about your registrations.

Mike

[jdilldesigns]

Wow.. this is simply crazy.

[Yogue]

Anyone knows how copyrights work in Canada for photos?

[sfaust]

Not completely true, but close. You have 90 days to register them after they have been published as defined by the Copyright law and still get the special provision of having the infringer pay for legal and court costs and also possible higher awards. Published is

I do understand that, and why I recommended registering everything every 90 days. That way he will always within the 90 day window for all his works, and get the full legal weight offered. He may have to register two forms, one for published, and one for unpublished, which would double the costs. But either way, if he set a reminder for every 75 days, that will leave him with a two week window in which to get the forms and cds created and send in before reaching the 90 days.

[PhotosGuy]

Anyone knows how copyrights work in Canada for photos?
Canada
Canadian Intellectual Property Office site (http://cipo.gc.ca/)
UK
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/definition.htm
Australia
http://www.copyright.com.au/membership.htm
http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/securitylawHome.nsf/Page/Publications_Intellectual_Property_A_Short_Guide_t o_Copyright#5
Australian Copyright Council links:
Freelance advice needed ASAP please!! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=358815)

[jbimages]

Is it necessary to register?

In my country (Malaysia), copyright is automatically awarded to the photographer (or person who creates the image).

Why do I need to register then?

Likewise here (Australia). There is no need to register the image. In fact, there is nowhere to register. This paying for registration is an American thing - helps with the economy there.:)
Copyright is not always automatically vested in the photographer, there are situations here where the copyright is owned by the person commissioning the images. Wedding photographs come to mind.

[GilesGuthrie]

UK link is out of date. Go here instead for the starter page: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/whatis/whatis-copy.htm

[PhotosGuy]

Thanks, Giles. This paying for registration is an American thing - Re-read post #20. Copyright is not always automatically vested in the photographer, "Work for hire". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

[jbimages]

Thanks, Giles. Re-read post #20. "Work for hire". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
I saw those, my reply to dwaynefoong was to let him know the Malaysia is not the only country that does not require images be sent anywhere on a CD to be registered. This is specifically covered with respect to America on the Australian Copyright Council website where it states that it is not necessary for Australian material to be registered in order to receive copyright protection. There is nothing there to suggest damages may be limited.

[Oneslowz28]

Ok I have a question. When you send the cd/dvd in do they send you some sort of comformation letter or something?

[pixelprincess]

Sorry, I don't get it. To me, this is just one more way the government is trying to hose us out of our money. Copyright of art is automatic. All you should have to have to prove it is yours is the original. This seems a bit ridiculous to me.

[_aravena]

If you keep records and know how to make sure there is undeniable proof it's yours, then yes. That's why i have a copy of every shot used. I keep the original and a copy of the editted to show I have an original and any edited copy used, well, it's obviously mine. It's more backup if such a thing ever occurs, but copyright is the quick and easy.

Besides, we are owned by the man no matter how we look at it really. So you can do it if you want or hope nothing is stolen and you don't need to dig up rough evidence.

[sfaust]

Sorry, I don't get it. To me, this is just one more way the government is trying to hose us out of our money. Copyright of art is automatic. All you should have to have to prove it is yours is the original. This seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Courts accept the registration as proof of copyright without much question. It's just very hard to argue anything else when its officially registered.

You don't need to register if you don't want to. You can keep your own records to prove ownership, but there are always avenues that opposing council can argue endlessly in court to cast doubt. Ie, EXIF data can be fudged, computer timestamps altered, and so on. Those will have to be argued in court to prove your ownership, and it can be expensive.

With registration, the goverment sort of steps in on your behalf with the registration as a third party verification of date, time, owner, etc. Kills a lot of the arguing over ownership.

It helps the photographer immensely if they ever have to defend their copyright. I am glad to have that available to me, knowing that I won't have to spend thousands of dollars to prove my ownership. And at $45 per quarter, its a bargain IMO.

If its a government conspiracy, its a useful one and I support it :)

[sapearl]

Been following this thread with great interest, but haven't had anything better to contribute than what I've seen here..... really good stuff!

Regarding actual REGISTRATION, I guess you could consider it a $180/yr. insurance premium. We insure our valuable gear which has a specific cost that keeps depreciating....:(.... so why not our images, many of which are priceless to us in an emotional sense, and some which may actually be priceless in a real, monetary sense. Wise words Mr. Faust ;)

....With registration, the goverment sort of steps in on your behalf with the registration as a third party verification of date, time, owner, etc. Kills a lot of the arguing over ownership.

It helps the photographer immensely if they ever have to defend their copyright. I am glad to have that available to me, knowing that I won't have to spend thousands of dollars to prove my ownership. And at $45 per quarter, its a bargain IMO.

If its a government conspiracy, its a useful one and I support it :)

[studio413]

Hello All....


I am the photographer of the subject lawsuit...I want to say that people have to watch out the information they disseminate....more specifically any implication that you don't need to register because you can prove the images are your by other means.....this is just flat WRONG.......you won't ever get infront of a jury without the registration, because the court will lack jurisdiction without the registration.

I am going to endeavor to participate in the discussion as I have time....I would ask all to post a link to this discussion on their web logs and web sites so that this may become a clearing house of proper information about the registration requirements in the US...."The Emperor Has No Cloths" and the very beginning of title 17 under the copyright laws it states that copyright is vested the instant that the image is recorded on a permanent medium, and implies that it is copyright protected from this point on. This is just flat wrong....it only has protection when it is registered, as you can not get to a trial by jury until it is registered.

I my self fell victim to all of the mis-information ....my statutory damages came as a result of the new usages that happened only after I registered....I didn't get a dime for 1,000's of infringements that were committed before registration, nor those images where the infringement was a continuation of infringement of the images that occurred before registration.

This is why I ask that all point to this discussion when ever they can so everyone endeavoring to become a photographer will be alerted to the fact that registration is mandatory if you desire to protect your copyrights.


Thanks for now....go seek legal advise before there is a problem...just like it is always cheaper to ask for permission than it is to ask for forgiveness.

Lloyd Shugart
Photographer


Courts accept the registration as proof of copyright without much question. It's just very hard to argue anything else when its officially registered.

You don't need to register if you don't want to. You can keep your own records to prove ownership, but there are always avenues that opposing council can argue endlessly in court to cast doubt. Ie, EXIF data can be fudged, computer timestamps altered, and so on. Those will have to be argued in court to prove your ownership, and it can be expensive.

With registration, the goverment sort of steps in on your behalf with the registration as a third party verification of date, time, owner, etc. Kills a lot of the arguing over ownership.

It helps the photographer immensely if they ever have to defend their copyright. I am glad to have that available to me, knowing that I won't have to spend thousands of dollars to prove my ownership. And at $45 per quarter, its a bargain IMO.

If its a government conspiracy, its a useful one and I support it :)

[sapearl]

Interesting comments Lloyd and welcome to the forum ;). Appreciate the valuable input.

[sfaust]

Correct me if I'm wrong... I am under the assumption that copyright is affixed at the time of creation, although with several limitations (statutory damages, legal fees, cap on awards, etc). That you need to register the images before the court will hear the case anyway, since you can't contest copyright without registration, regardless of the automatic copyright and/or self proof. And finally the only way to receive the full benefits of copyrght protection is to have your images registered BEFORE any infringements. Thats the understanding I've been working under based on the copyright act.

Whats your take on that from the receiving end?

[studio413]

Copyright is affixed at the time of creation...."The Emperor Has No Cloths"....The plain and simple fact is without registration an action for copyright will be dismissed untill you can show the court a certificate of registration....I have registrations pending with the Copyright Office, that I filed over a year ago...that I have not been able to claim infringement on because the court doesn't have jurisdiction. No jurisdiction No Protection other than the false since of security of the "Copyright is affixed at the time of creation..."statement, which in the end is NO Protection.

Lloyd

Correct me if I'm wrong... I am under the assumption that copyright is affixed at the time of creation, although with several limitations (statutory damages, legal fees, cap on awards, etc). That you need to register the images before the court will hear the case anyway, since you can't contest copyright without registration, regardless of the automatic copyright and/or self proof. And finally the only way to receive the full benefits of copyrght protection is to have your images registered BEFORE any infringements. Thats the understanding I've been working under based on the copyright act.

Whats your take on that from the receiving end?

[_aravena]

Sounds off from what I've legally studied and lawyer friends.

Besides, you said in front of jury. Most cases I hear of don't make it there seeing how judge has better...judgment and most lawyers I'd think wouldn't want a jury for a simple copyright lawsuit.

Eh, but what do I know.

[studio413]

Let me tell you I speak from over 20 months of actual experience...All I ask is that people seek true legal advise in advance...and that someone who is not qualified to give legal advice should withhold their opinions as all it does is further the mis-information that other people then rely on to their detriment.

Lloyd

William Patry (http://williampatry.blogspot.com/search?q=411)“[N]o action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.09&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=17USCAS411&db=1000546&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw); see also Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1160 (1st Cir.1994) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.09&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1994183914&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=Y&referenceposition=1160&db=506&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw) (“[R]egistration of the copyright is a prerequisite to suit under the Copyright Act.” (citation omitted)). This requirement is often described as a jurisdictional one.

Sounds off from what I've legally studied and lawyer friends.

Besides, you said in front of jury. Most cases I hear of don't make it there seeing how judge has better...judgment and most lawyers I'd think wouldn't want a jury for a simple copyright lawsuit.

Eh, but what do I know.

[cdifoto]

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/getting-copyright/secure-copyright.html
How to Secure a Copyright

Copyright Secured Automatically Upon "Creation"

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. Although, before 1978, a copyright notice was required to secure copyright protection, a law that went into effect January 1, 1978, made publication or registration unnecessary. There are, however, certain advantages to registration. See Copyright Registration.

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it exists in some physical form, or "fixed" in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music ("copies") or in phonograph disks ("phonorecords"), or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.

Source: U.S. Copyright Office

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/getting-copyright/copyright-registration.html
Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of a particular copyright. Registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, however, the copyright law provides several advantages to encourage copyright owners to register their copyright. Among these advantages are the following:

* Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

* Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

* If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish in court the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

* If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, the copyright owner can seek statutory damages and attorney's fees in court. Otherwise, the damages will be limited to only the actual loss suffered by the copyright owner.

Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on "Intellectual Property Rights."

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.

Source: U.S. Copyright Office

[studio413]

This is my point exactly ...."The Emperor Has No Cloths" read the entirety of this link then try to argue it!!!!!!!! William Patry (http://williampatry.blogspot.com/search?q=411) You say who is William Patry....
William Patry Senior Copyright Counsel, Google Inc. Formerly copyright counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, formerly Policy Planning Advisor to the Register of Copyrights, formerly Law Professor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; author of numerous treatises and articles (including one on fair use with Judge Richard Posner), including the new 7 volume treatise on "Patry on Copyright" (http://west.thomson.com/store/product.aspx?r=139343&product_id=40449295). The views in this blog are strictly mine and should not be attributed to Google Inc. View my complete profile (http://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363)


http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/getting-copyright/secure-copyright.html

[sfaust]

If you look at it from an actionable point of view, you absolutely have to have your copyright registered prior to any legal action. But the law is also right in that no registration is needed in order to obtain copyright.

My understanding from my IP lawyer is that the image is copyrighted once the shutter is released, and that's also plainly written in the law. Nothing further is needed to obtain your copyright.

However, an unregistered copyright is virtually worthless. You can't file an infringement claim in court until the copyright has actually been registered. And much of the weight of the law only applies to registered copyrights, and from the date of registration forward.

I understand that the law was written with automatic copyright at the time of creation as a way to temporarily protect the works until the actual copyright registration has been filed. It is not intended to protect the work indefinitely, but only as a way to protect work until the artist has the ability to formalize the copyright.

The message Lloyd is saying is clear, REGISTER YOUR IMAGES if you want protection under US Copyright law. Anything else is makeshift (mailing yourself a copy for postmark date, relying on your notes, records, client records, etc.), and is full of holes. And you'd need to register anyways, so why resist?

[cdifoto]

Can you send a CD of small images? Say, 500pixels on the long end, so as to minimize file size and maximize the quantity that fit on a single disk?

[sfaust]

Yes, absolutely.

[cdifoto]

Think I might do that then. I'm cheap so I'd want to minimize the number of disks I send. If I can use a DVD-R I bet I could fit everything I've shot so far on one disk.

[Pinto]

Can you send a CD of small images? Say, 500pixels on the long end, so as to minimize file size and maximize the quantity that fit on a single disk?

CDI, at one time I posed the minimum size question to Carolyn Wright the copyright attorney who sometimes frequents these forums, and this was her response;
"...there is no guideline given by the Copyright Office but a lot of photographers make the long side be 100 pixels."

[CyberDyneSystems]

Fabulous info!
Lloyd, thanks for joining up to help clarify the questions at hand and WELCOME to the forum!

So it's simply two steps.

1.Taking the photo you have created a copyrighted work..

2. However to benefit from the protection of a the legal system to enforce that copyright, one MUST register.

I've been diligent about step one for many years :)

Looks like I'm far behind on step two!

[cdifoto]

CDI, at one time I posed the minimum size question to Carolyn Wright the copyright attorney who sometimes frequents these forums, and this was her response;
"...there is no guideline given by the Copyright Office but a lot of photographers make the long side be 100 pixels."

Nice. Can we use DVD-R?

[mjordan]

Ok I have a question. When you send the cd/dvd in do they send you some sort of comformation letter or something?

Yes, in about 3 months you will get a letter with a certificate of registration from the Copyright Office. About 3 months after that, your registration will appear in their online database of registrations.


For the question about what size and format to put them on the CD or DVD on, I was told that they have to be big enough to be able to show without a doubt that it's your image that was registered and the format has to be one that can be viewed should it become necessary to do so. I usually make my images about 600 on the long side. I want there to be no doubt that it's my image if I ever had to go to court. So far, I've not had to go to court and only in the last one of 4 did I have to get my lawyer involved to write a couple of letters.


Mike

[Pinto]

Hello All.... I am the photographer of the subject lawsuit...Lloyd Shugart Photographer

Lloyd, I guess I'll have to be the first one to ask. Did you/will you receive the awarded amount, or is it up for a appeal/delay for a prolonged period?

[ajayclicks]

In the last few weeks, some of my friends have had their photos stolen from flickr, been published in local and national newspapers, and even used in hoarding adverts.

So, after reading this thread, I decided to check out copyright laws in India, and this is what the govt website has to say:

Is it necessary to register a work to claim copyright?

No. Acquisition of copyright is automatic and it does not require any formality. However, certificate of registration of copyright and the entries made therein serve as prima facie evidence in a court of law with reference to dispute relating to ownership of copyright.

While I do not anticiapte anyone stealing my pics from flickr (low res, and ugly copyrights stamped), there are instances when jpegs/ tiffs handed over to labs for printing have been mis-used. So I am now going to explore getting my images registered in my country (India)

Cheers
Ajay

[Binning]

Nice. Can we use DVD-R?


From everything I've read, they will only accept cd's for this type of submission.

[_aravena]

^That'd be a lot of CD's

[Binning]

^That'd be a lot of CD's

I hear ya

[wernersl]

at 300 x 200 rez jpg at med quality your average file size should be in the neighborhood of 30kb per image. that would net over 20k images per CD! shouldnt be too many CD's!

[dwaynefoong]

do i get the same benefits as you guys in the US (e.g. lawyers fee paid for, etc) if i register my images?

oh btw I'm from Malaysia. :)

[PhotosGuy]

do i get the same benefits as you guys in the US You may have to get an AK-47? :D

[redbutt]

Any lawyers in the house?

Here's a question: if you were to assemble one of those "do-it-yourself" books and have a company such as mpix print it, then copyrighted the book, would that include each individual image in it? In other words, could you save the expense of otherwise registering each individual image? Just a question and a thought.

I didn't see a direct response to this (maybe I'm blind), but this is a really good question, and the wording is really important. If you create a book, and copyright "the book", you have done exactly that...copyright the book. That means you are protected if someone copies the book. If you want the images protected individually, you must register a copyright of Visual Art Works for each image. Luckily, the copyright office allows you to register collections. So, you register all the images for one fee, and can use the book as the "copies" of the images if you want, or a CD with all the images on it. But, it's important that you register "the images" and not just "the book".