Copyrights for dummies

[Stocky]

“Copyrights for dummies” or “can I use this image?”

Since some people might never make it to a disclaimer at the end I will start with one: I am not a lawyer, and don’t know all of the laws about copyrights. If you have a legal question I recommend either asking a lawyer or doing some research on your own. All of the advice and links I will provide pertain to the US, but many countries currently have similar laws. I am surprised that I haven’t seen a sticky addressing some of these issues yet especially given how many questions I see and how confused people are on these topics. That being said please correct me if you think any of this is inaccurate so that I can improve the product for everyone.

What is COMMERCIAL USE?
This is one of the most misunderstood concepts I have seen here, so I am putting it at the top. Its not exactly a copyright issue exactly, but its close. Commercial use has nothing to do with selling the image itself, or selling prints of the image. It has to do with how the image is used. Commercial use means use in advertising as upposed to editorial or fine-art use. Commercial use of an image with a recognizable person requires a model release. Commercial use of an image with a recognizable building or piece of artwork can require a property release. This means that in a public location with no expectation of privacy you can take pictures of people with out their permission and sell them! In general I don’t recommend taking someone’s picture when they ask you not to, but as long as it is in a public place(street, park…) with no expectation of privacy (bathroom, changing room…) you are legally allowed to take the picture and sell prints. Nussenzweig V. DiCorcia is a great example of this in action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia). Similarly you don’t need someone’s permission to use their picture in a news story or magazine, only if it is being used to advertise a product. This only applies if the image was taken in a public place, and someone can always ask you to leave their house or business and prevent you from taking pictures on their property.

How do I copyright my work?
You already did! There is nothing special required to copyright your work, and as soon as it is created the author or photographer (I may use these interchangeably here) owns the copyright by default. The exception is “work for hire” which means that the writing or photography is part of your job. If this work is not in your contract and isn’t a service you provide for your employer regularly then you probably own the copyright. If hired for a one-off job then the best answer is to have a contract that specifically states who owns the copyright. There are lots of these forms floating around, and I won’t recommend a specific one, but as long as both parties are clear who owns the copyright, and both sign the contract then it should work out. In general these one-time events do not fall under work for hire because the legal definition of an employee requires more of a long term relationship. (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html)

So why would I register my copyright?
I already said that you own the copyright, so why bother registering your pictures? The difference here is mostly in the amount of money you could get if you sued someone for using your work. If you do not register your work then you can probably only receive what you would have received if they had purchased rights to the image. If you register your work then you can receive damages up to $150,000 in addition to the value of the image (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504). Registering your images is relatively easy, and you can do so online or submit a disk with thumbnails of your images to meet the requirement. The fees are about $50 to complete the process. There is also a way to complete the process online, but as of April 2008 the program to do this is still in the beta stage (http://www.copyright.gov/eco/beta-announce.html). You can even register AFTER the violation if it is within 3 months of first publication, but if you get to this point I recommend you get some real legal help.

Do I need to watermark or add a digital copyright notice to my work?
No, but it’s a good idea. You gain two primary benefits from this form of copyright protection. First it makes life easier for an honest person. If someone sees your image and wants to use it then it is easier for them to find you and pay you for usage rights. The other reason to add a watermark or a digital-watermark is that you can receive higher damages if someone violates your copyright. Removing the copyright information that you had in your image violates another law and provides you more money in a suit.

Selling rights vs. transfering the copyright:
In general when someone wants to buy an image from you then want to license the image, or purchase rights to it. That means that they want to use the image, but you will retain ownership of the copyright and can continue to do what you want with it. The two basic ways to license an image are Royalty Free (RF) and Rights Managed (RM). Royalty Free means that the user pays once to use the image how ever they want with the exception of reselling it. This can range from editorial use as part of a news story or personal use as a desktop background to commercial use as part of a major ad campaign. Rights Managed means that the person pays for exactly what they use. RF licenses are usually less expensive and often come from micro-stock sites while RM usage is considered higher-end and usually brings in more money per use. I won’t get into the micro-stock debate here, but professional photographers generally frown on RF and micro-stock use.

Can I use this image that I found?
The first step is to determine the copyright status of the image. There are many public domain or creative commons images that you can use for many things. Public Domain images can be used basically anyway you want including in advertisements, or selling prints. Creative Commons licenses are a little more restrictive and generally allow use an any non-commercial capacity. If you can not identify the status of an image it is safest to not use it. If it belongs to someone else then you need their permission. This could mean that you just need to ask and get approval or you may need to pay a licensing fee. If you want to discuss an in these forums, or show it to your friends then the best way to do so is to provide a link so that they can see it in the original context online. Any other use without permission can will likely violate the copyright. These copyrights generally last 70 years past the death of the copyright holder, and this even applies to copying the image for use on your website, like myspace, or copying a print for personal use in your home. (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html) cough cough AvatarsOnThisForum cough cough.

Someone violated my copyright. What’s the next step?
This is when you need to contact an attorney. Your first step should be to document the violation including printing or saving a copy of the website as evidence. You must also send a notice of violation and ask them to cease using your image. You may try to work this out with the individual by asking for reasonable compensation for the use of your images, or you can sue them and have your day in court. This is beyond the scope of this document. Note that if you typically give away your work then you will have much less grounds to demand payment for your images, so if you plan to make money from your photography then do so.

What do I do when I need REAL legal help?
A quick search for local lawyers with copyright experience is probably best. In just a few minutes a lawyer should be able to tell you how much help you actually need. Carolyn Wright of photoattorney.com also provides a blog with some sound advice and wrote “Photographer’s Legal Guide” for cases where my answers are a little too brief.

[Chandler.]

Good information. Thanks for posting.

[tomd]

;)good post, I copied it and printed it. :lol:

just kidding of course. Thanks for taking the time to assemble this information. It is very helpful.

[Stocky]

I don't mind at all actually and unlike my pictures, you are welcome to copy or print this to your heart's content. I did end up fixing the formatting with a few line breaks, but I kind of wish I could turn on "TEXT AND IMAGE EDITING OK" under my name.

[Chandler.]

Are you the author, or did you find this somewhere?

[Stocky]

This is entirely from my own research; mostly using the US copyright webpage. Don't worry, I know that the rules for written work are about the same as the ones for images.

[breal101]

Stocky, thanks for the excellent post, thought you might want to see another development in copyrights. Check out the link in this post about so called "Orphan Works".

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=489231

[Chandler.]

This is entirely from my own research; mostly using the US copyright webpage. Don't worry, I know that the rules for written work are about the same as the ones for images.

I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just curious. Thanks again for posting this, as I'm sure it will be useful to many more people who find this.

[Stocky]

Orphan Works:
Without reading the 130 pages of the US Copyright Office's report on Orphan Works I won't pretend to know too much about the issues. The US Copyright Office is currently considering a new law regarding orphan works (OW) or works where the copyright holder can't be identified or found. The intent is to allow people to use all kinds of artwork that would otherwise fall under a copyright. Currently if you see a piece of artwork somewhere, or notice an image online that you wish to use, or incorporate into your own work, and you can not identify the copyright holder you are out of luck. The Orphan Work law would allow you to use these things after searching for the copyright holder even if you are unable to find them. (http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/)

The concern for artists, including photographers, is that copyright infringements will increase under the guise of OW. Depending on how the law is written, artists of Orphan Works may have little recourse for seeking damages on stolen work. This law would also increase the burden on artists for registering their work. Currently artists are protected by law the moment they create an image, this law may require an image to be registered or entered into a database to be protected so that someone else would have a place to look for the image and identify the copyright holder.

(http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0642-PPA.pdf) This law is not yet on its final draft, so there is still the potential for it to change and anyone who doesn't like where this is headed should feel free to contact their senator or representative (http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml). The main issue I see open now is how licenses for orphan works would be issued. As long as the person wishing to use the work has to file for a usage license at the copyright office and pay for the use then I don't see any issues. People would have to prove that they searched for the copyright owner. This would only benefit people who are trying to be honest, and I always support people trying to do the right thing.

Please let me know if anyone has any more information on this subject, and I will add this to the base post at the top.

[breal101]

The concern for artists, including photographers, is that copyright infringements will increase under the guise of OW. Depending on how the law is written, artists of Orphan Works may have little recourse for seeking damages on stolen work. This law would also increase the burden on artists for registering their work. Currently artists are protected by law the moment they create an image, this law may require an image to be registered or entered into a database to be protected so that someone else would have a place to look for the image and identify the copyright holder.


Thanks again Stocky, I just wanted to urge people to take interest in this proposed change in our protection. I think this could end up causing a lot of headaches for artists. Having to register an image with the copyright office and then again (for an as yet undetermined fee) in some sort of privately held registry(s) seems to be a recipe for disaster to me. It largely depends on how the law is written, some say that corporate interests are pushing for a large benefit for themselves.

[Stocky]

So, any volunteers to write the form letter we are all going to use when we write to our representatives about the Orphan Works law?

[breal101]

Well, I ain't volunteering. I want to be fair about this, the law isn't in it's final draft yet. I think there might be a benefit if a workable central data base is established. Honest people could identify the owner and pay them for usage. The downside is, dishonest people could run a search on a body of work, find it unregistered and claim it for their own to use and sell. I really do think it is something to keep an eye on.

[tomd]

Interesting thread.
So I assume that I cannot legally take a picture of grafetti on a building and sell the image? The grafetti is considered art and I'd be selling for commercial use. Am I correct?

[Stocky]

Technically I think you are right about the grafetti, however I doubt that anyone would start a civil case against you because they would have to admit to their criminal activity in court. The thing about copyrights is that you only have to worry about the copyright holder making an issue out of it, and thats a case where you can assume you are safe.

[LBaldwin]

The EP, NPPA and the witers guild to name a few have been fighting the OW law for nearly 10 years now. For more info go to Carolyn Wrights website,
www.photoattorney.com

Also I would reccomend getting her book (sold 0n the site) it is a great read and very informative. I saw her at ISAP last year and she is bright, funny and an attorney / photographer!!

[bluesmap]

how much would it cost to copyright 10,000 of my images at one time?
i see so much about copyright but nothing states what the price is to copyright

[T2000]

"how much would it cost to copyright 10,000 of my images at one time?
i see so much about copyright but nothing states what the price is to copyright"

In the US ?

$45 for a registration last time I checked.

No limit to the number of photos in a group registration PROVIDED YOU USE A METHOD NOT INVOLVING CONTINUATION SHEETS. If you do use continuation sheets then I believe the regs limit a single registration to no more than 50 continuation sheets and nomore than 750 photos that may be identified on such sheets.

So for unpubished you are good to go with one registration but for published images use a method not exceeding the continuation sheet/750 rule.

Anyway, they may have changed the rules again so I would encourage you to go read the current rules at the govt copyright office.

[Stocky]

http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html
$45 is right, and I think you can just put as many images as you want on a DVD and send it in.

You can also test out the new online system for just $35
http://www.copyright.gov/eco/beta-announce.html

[PhotosGuy]

Embedding file info in your images:
Adding copyright notices to your digital files (http://www.adorama.com/Catalog.tpl?op=academy_new&article=082205&sid=1198531383137720)
To get the © symbol, hold down the ALT ket & type 0169 with the Numbers Keypad.

EXIF: You should also place your © info in the EXIF of your images: File > Info. Be aware that there are several areas of that dialog box that you should enter info into, & that you can save that info from that shoot & recall (load) it when you need it.
You MUST use "Save As", rather than "Save For Web" to keep the info with the image.

You don't have to type © 2008 "Name" each time, either. Just drag the text layer from one image into another to copy it.

Most later versions of PS will allow you to automate the process with an Action. I know you can do it with PS7. If you have PSCS, see the Russell Brown video in post #11:
Quick and Easy 'Watermark' (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=538681)


Ten Copyright Myths That Can Hurt You (http://blog.sessions.edu/legal-copyright-trademark/ten-copyright-myths-that-can-hurt-you/)

[tgara]

"how much would it cost to copyright 10,000 of my images at one time?
i see so much about copyright but nothing states what the price is to copyright"

In the US ?

$45 for a registration last time I checked.

No limit to the number of photos in a group registration PROVIDED YOU USE A METHOD NOT INVOLVING CONTINUATION SHEETS. If you do use continuation sheets then I believe the regs limit a single registration to no more than 50 continuation sheets and nomore than 750 photos that may be identified on such sheets.

So for unpubished you are good to go with one registration but for published images use a method not exceeding the continuation sheet/750 rule.

Anyway, they may have changed the rules again so I would encourage you to go read the current rules at the govt copyright office.

Be careful here. Registration for a group of photos extends only to the group as a whole, not each photo individually. In addition, a group registration has several additional requirements:
Group Registration of Published Photographs

A single registration for a group of published photographs can be made if:

All the photographs were taken by the same photographer, regardless of whether the author is an individual or an employer for hire.
All the photographs were first published in the same calendar year.
All the photographs have the same copyright claimant(s).

[T2000]

"Registration for a group of photos extends only to the group as a whole, not each photo individually"

What does that mean? What point are you trying to make. What is the "be careful here" ?

I don't mean what is the be careful here for meeting the requirements for a group registration, mean as to the effect on your copyright remedies with respect to images in the group, the only thing relevant.

[T2000]

PS, I read again your post to try to figure out what you could have meant. Are you suggesting that registering 10 photos seperately in 10 registrations has some different legal effect than registration of 10 photos as a gropup in one registration (assuming you jump through the group registration requirements) ? Nah. You couldn't mean that.

[Stocky]

You got me interested too. I have never heard of an issue with registering groups of images before.

[LBaldwin]

Please, if you want real legal advice from a real attorney (US) go to www.photoattorney.com

Carolyn has written a great book on the legal aspects of photography, and she is a real expert in this area.

[sfaust]

I think there might be a benefit if a workable central data base is established. Honest people could identify the owner and pay them for usage. The downside is, dishonest people could run a search on a body of work, find it unregistered and claim it for their own to use and sell.

I don't see how this would work. If the image has metadata, problem solved, the creator is identified in the medatadata with contact information.

If not, you have an image of say a person riding a bike in a park. You have a database full of millions and millions of images. How is anyone going to find that image in the sea of images, and identify the owner?

How will the owner take his images and get them in the database in such a way so that it can be found?

Will they be required to submit each image to a central database?

If so, will they have to keyword each image in such a way so that someone can search for it?

Who is paying for the cost of maintain the database?

Will each image cost the submitter a fee?

What about all my existing work? Digital images? Film images? Slides? 4x5 transparencies?

Will I have to pay a fee to submit each one of my 180K+ images?

Even at .50cents a piece, thats a $90K fee I would have to pay, not counting scanning all the slides, 5 minutes an image to keyword and submit (tens of thousands of man hours).

If I don't spend the $90,000 and thousands of hours to register all my previous works that are currently registered or covered under copyright, will they become orhpans?

You can see the issues and concerns with the Orphan Works bills. It works great for a company looking for orhpaned images. It's real easy to show you did a reasonable search and found nothing, which lets you off the hook. But what a burden it puts on the photographers in order to keep their work from becoming an orphan.

And even if you did your due diligence, if someone searched and came up empty, and then used the image, they may be off the hook for any damages because they tried to find it but didn't. So the artist again gets the short end of the stick.

I can see why there is a rumbling through the industry :(

If we don't fight it, we should be prepared for all our images to become orphans, loose the 'copyrighted at the time of creation', and need to register every image taken to get even a modest form of copyright.

It really sucks for artists!

[breal101]

Stephen, I agree with what you are saying. The key word in my post was "workable". It seems someone has developed software to search for images like google searches for words. How effective that may be is questionable. ASMP proposed a member database some years ago, I don't think it got very far. The question of registries is one of my main concerns. I sent my letters to Washington, I don't know if we stand a chance of quashing this thing but at least I tried.

[tgara]

PS, I read again your post to try to figure out what you could have meant. Are you suggesting that registering 10 photos seperately in 10 registrations has some different legal effect than registration of 10 photos as a gropup in one registration (assuming you jump through the group registration requirements) ? Nah. You couldn't mean that.

Yes, I did mean exactly that. I'll explain.

If you register 10 photos as part of a Group Registration, the "work" for copyright registration and legal purposes is the group of 10 photos taken as a whole. Now suppose someone copies one of those 10 photos and uses it without your permission. Legally, they are infringing only 1/10th of the work, since the registered "work" is a group of 10 photographs. A court would have to decide if that 1/10th infringement was worthy of damages, how much, jail time, etc.

Now contrast this with 10 photos registered individually, e.g., each photo was registered using a separate form and for which separate fees were paid. If someone copies one of those photos, you have the entire registration to fall back on since each photo was registered as a separate work. You have a much stronger case.

Think about it this way: Suppose you wrote a book and registered the copyright. Now suppose someone took one paragraph out of that book and used it without your permission. Since the registered work in this case is a whole book, and someone used a single paragraph out of that book, a court would have to decide what damages are appropriate for using a single paragraph out of an entire book. As a practical matter, its not workable for an author to register his work paragraph by paragraph, but with photos it might be possible to do it photo by photo.

So, it may be cheaper to file group registrations, but you ultimately may be diluting your enforcement capabilities if you want to enforce your copyright rights on an individual photo. Also keep in mind there is a difference between copyright itself (which arises on creation) and registration of copyright (the latter being required if you want to enforce your copyright rights).

[breal101]

Image search software in beta is available. I would hope that this might help our problem, it would seem there would be no need for paid registries, a copyright tagged pic on any site should be able to be found. It wouldn't get rid of all the labor and expense in uploading an entire body of work though.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=518922

[T2000]

"Yes, I did mean exactly that. I'll explain."

You don't have any experience whatsoever practicing law, do you. No, you don't. You may want to keep your pet theories about copyright law to yourself. The book example was particularly amusing.

[T2000]

I'll elaborate.

Group registration of photographs was introduced in response to complaints by photographer advocates that it was too burdensome on photographers both administratively and financially to register individual images.

It achieves the same end as registration of each image but saves time (both for photographer and the copyright office) and money by doing it with one registration.


You have some mistaken notion that separate "works of authorship" (i.e., each image) are, by the act of filing a group registration, somehow transformed into a single aggregate work ("Legally, they are infringing only 1/10th of the work, since the registered "work" is a group of 10 photographs. A court would have to decide if that 1/10th infringement was worthy of damages, how much, jail time, etc.").

[sfaust]

It achieves the same end as registration of each image but saves time (both for photographer and the copyright office) and money by doing it with one registration.

Thats the same understanding that I've had based on everything presented to me by those 'in the know' within the industry. Although, lets not be too harsh either. Copyright is not the most straightforward thing you can wrap your head around. Published vs unpublished vs 90 day window vs published but after the 90 day period, even what is considered published and not. Lots of viewpoints on many sides, and some without case law to clarify it either way. So its not surprising that tgara came to his conclusion with all the mis-information being spread around.

[sfaust]

Image search software in beta is available. I would hope that this might help our problem, it would seem there would be no need for paid registries, a copyright tagged pic on any site should be able to be found. It wouldn't get rid of all the labor and expense in uploading an entire body of work though.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=518922

I don't want to drag this thread down with Orphan Works, but will comment on this and hopefully we can continue in another thread devoted to this important bill.

The beta software mentioned searches the internet to find matches based on files submitted to it. I haven't played around with it enough to tell yet, but if it can't handle finding images after they have been cropped, resized, color adjustments done, converted to black and white, etc., I can't see it being much help. Even the act of displaying an image, then capturing the screen, cropping to eliminate the extraneous bits, could leave that file unrecognizable, and thus turn up an empty search.

Take it a step further. Doesn't Orphan Works also cover negatives, slides, prints, etc.? If so, how does a potential buyer perform a search? If they scan the image that was printed, then used that for the search it could look totally different to software when compared to the original digtal file scanned negative. I just don't think the technology is there yet in order to handle all these circumstances. And if it isn't.... ??


The other point is the registrations. It's not going to be free for the photographer, even if it is offered as a free registration process. Scanning alone will be extremely expensive for people with film archives that are already registered and protected under copyright. If the photographer doesn't spend the thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of his time to scan and re-register his works, they will be orphaned since they will not be in the registry, unsearchable, and will people then be able to use those images without recourse? From my understanding so far, I think that is the case (I hope I am proven wrong!).

I think they are trying to solve a reasonable issue, but the solution wreaks havoc on the industry as it stands.

Anyway, I'd love to see another thread pop up to have these sorts of discussions because I feel its such an important topic and many are still not aware of how it will effect them. I've posted a couple replies to generate some issues, but everyone would rather figure out what lens to get next so they can take more soon to be orphaned images ;)

Image the day they wake up and figure it all out if this bill passes.

[PhotosGuy]

I haven't played around with it enough to tell yet, but if it can't handle finding images after they have been cropped, resized, color adjustments done, converted to black and white, etc., I can't see it being much help It does. There's a video that shows that. From my understanding so far, I think that is the case (I hope I am proven wrong!). That's not how it works.

Is someone else using and profiting from your photos? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=518922)

[tgara]

"Yes, I did mean exactly that. I'll explain."

You don't have any experience whatsoever practicing law, do you. No, you don't. You may want to keep your pet theories about copyright law to yourself. The book example was particularly amusing.

As others have noted in many other threads on this board, you are a rude SOB.

Thats the same understanding that I've had based on everything presented to me by those 'in the know' within the industry. Although, lets not be too harsh either. Copyright is not the most straightforward thing you can wrap your head around. Published vs unpublished vs 90 day window vs published but after the 90 day period, even what is considered published and not. Lots of viewpoints on many sides, and some without case law to clarify it either way. So its not surprising that tgara came to his conclusion with all the mis-information being spread around.

Thank you Stephen. I'm not questioning the registration process. I'm questioning the value of it in the context of actually enforcing the copyright, which is ultimately what you want to do.

It achieves the same end as registration of each image but saves time (both for photographer and the copyright office) and money by doing it with one registration.

I'm not so sure. Its one thing to register the copyright. Its a totally different thing to enforce it. I think there are many factors that that give rise to uncertainty when one goes to enforce the copyright rights with respect to a group registration. One basic question is: What is the work with respect to a group registration? Is it the collection of photographs as a whole? Is it each photo individually? What about the one-registration-per-work rule? A group registration is one registration for a group of photos, so doesn't that make it a single work? When you add in the fact that the laws and regs talk about "work" in the singular tense, it suggests to me that a group of photos is a single work. So if the group is a single work, and someone rips off one photo, what are the consequences? Does the infringer have a defense under Fair Use? One factor there is "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". Like my book example above, copying one photo in a group of 500 is one thing; copying one photo in a group of two is totally different. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions about group registrations, and its not be-all and end-all for photographers trying to protect their work.

Since T2000 fancies himself to be a lawyer, perhaps he can cite a case or other example for us where someone holding a group registration for a group of photos was able to enforce their copyright rights when someone copied a single photo from the group.

[sfaust]

It does. There's a video that shows that.

That will help some, if they can apply that technology to the registration process as proposed in the orphan works bill.

That's not how it works.
Is someone else using and profiting from your photos? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=518922)

I do understand how it works. My concerns are regarding how the technology wold help with the registration required under the orphan works bill. Costs, process, requirements on the photographer and person searching, etc.

Since I would be required to re-register my negatives for example in this image database, would I have to scan it? How much would it cost? What if i had 50K slides?

And for the person that run across an image in print, and they want to see if it is an orphaned work, do they have to scan it? Search? Fees? etc.

As a photographer with lets day even a modest collection of works over the last 20 years, they may have 32K slides and negatives, 900 manipulated final prints, 30K digital images, etc. What is required of them to make sure their work doesn't become orphaned, people can find it in the database so they can identify the owner and arrange licensing, etc.

I don't think half of this is addressed yet in any manner that would be acceptable or not cause an undue burden on both parties. And those are my concerns.

The other part has to do with the actual searching. If someone comes across an image they want to use, and do a search to find the owner. IMO, that search must be ~98% accurate and return the owners information for that image. If its only 70% lets say, then 30% of the photographers will be screw when it comes to their copyright. To me that is unacceptable.

There is also the fraud aspect. If there are situations that the software can't detect the image reliably, that is a great loophole for unscrupulous types to get around licensing all together. Ie, if all they have to do is modify the image in such a way that a search fails, they can then prove a search was done and the results were null, this its an orphaned work and use it without recourse. Maybe all it takes is some basic editing on an image to change it enough to drop it out of the search.

For example, an editor takes a picture of a gorgeous beach scene, adds a palm tree or two from another image, changes it to duo tone image, adds a vignette, then submits the image for a search. If the results are null, he's got a ticket to use it without harm unless someone can prove he was the one that modified it, rather than him finding the image already modified. Its these types of scenarios that I don't think have been addressed, and could leave many images that are copyrighted without the protection we currently have today.

[T2000]

The CT bar seems to fancy me one as well.

If you think that I'm now going to waste effort reeducating you on basic principles of copyright then you're mistaking me for not only an SOB but a schmuck as well.

[sfaust]

A group registration is one registration for a group of photos, so doesn't that make it a single work? When you add in the fact that the laws and regs talk about "work" in the ...

Could you be confusing collective works, or compilation, with group registration? Everyone in the industry that I've spoken with, or heard talk about registration, suggested that a group registration is nothing more than a way to register each image with one submission form and fee, but not as a way to register the images as a collective group which you are suggesting.

I only question because it seem to fly right in the face of what everyone else in the industry is saying. And that makes me want to question and validate it somehow. I know there are a few people associated with the major organizations (EP, APA, PPA, etc) that have some first hand experience with this, and I'll see if I can get their take on it.

[Stocky]

Tgara:
As best I can tell the group registration was created in order to give the same coverage as individually registering each image. The only difference is that the process is easier. The process is even evolving with digital images. Around 2001 they eliminated the 500 image limit per application since many people create more than that many images each day.
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2001/66fr37142.html
This is different from collective works where the person registering the collective work may not (and usually doesn't) own the copyrights to the individual pieces.

T2000: I really appreciate having someone with a little legal experience on here. Thanks for your help confirming what I thought I knew about the registration process. Do you happen to do IP law, or is this just a side interest since you are into photography yourself?

[PhotosGuy]

Since I would be required to re-register my negatives for example in this image database, would I have to scan it? "That's not how it works." You do NOT have to register to use the TinEye tool. It searches the web like Google & builds it's own data base.

[sfaust]

The TinEye tool is not part of the orphan works registration that I am referring to. Under that bill, registration will be required, and will need to include a digital image of the works. So yes, scanning will be required.

To protect yourself from your images becoming an orphaned work, you would need to register it. In order for a person to search the registry, there must be an image representation to compare it against. So a negative, print, slide, magazine copy, etc, would need to be scanned or digtized. To link the image to the copyright owner, there must be contact information, registration status, etc., and that info will need to be keyed into the database. The registry is proposed to be privatized , which means its not going to be government paid, so there will be fees. How much will that cost us photographer to register the images that we have already paid to register? Not counting the scanning, keying data, etc.

This is quite different than the way TinEye works, which allows someone to search the web and see if their images are being used. What the orphan works proposals mention is a central database that can be searchable by users to find and identify the copyright holders. If they can't find the copyright holders info, its considered an orphaned work, and can be used freely by the person searching, even if your image is registered and in the database.

It's kind of like proving a negative. Ie, "I searched the registry, I didn't find the image, so I used it. Sue me! Oh wait, you can't ;) because I tried!"

Its worth taking the time to do some research on the orphan works bills because they will have a significant impact on whether or not you have to register all your images to have any copyright protection, where as today its automatic basic protection and at no cost.

TinEye is totally different than whats proposed and how it will be implemented. I do understand the differences. We are jsut talking about two different but similar issues.

[PhotosGuy]

The TinEye tool is not part of the orphan works registration that I am referring to. Sorry.

[jbimages]

http://www.copyright.org.au/information/specialinterest/g101.htm is a writeup on the two Orphan Works bills by the Australian Copyright Council, and how they would effect Australians. I would hazard a guess that the effect on the non US part of the world would be similar.

a couple of points from the article:
A further issue concerns the 'notice of use' which, if the House bill were passed, would require users of orphan works to file a notice with the Copyright Office, as outlined above. If the Senate bill were passed, the user would not be obliged to file notice, and the copyright owner would face much greater difficulties finding out about the use and taking legal action.

If the House bill were passed, you could find out whether someone had used your work in reliance on the “orphan works” provision by checking the archive of “Notices of Use” at the US Copyright Office. You could then contact the person and they would have to pay you reasonable compensation. You might also be entitled to take legal action to prevent them making further uses of your work. However, if their use of your work involved incorporating it into a new work, you might not be able to stop such use. Nor would you be able to claim “statutory damages” for infringement (although statutory damages cannot be claimed in any case unless the work has been registered with the US Copyright Office).

[PuR HART]

I have a ? forgive me if I missed the answer.
lets say you have registered a straight right out of the camera image.
then you finally get around to levels,layers,curves, sharpening burning and dodging.
Is that image still protected under that same bland dull image that you registered?
thanks

[Pinto]

I have a ? forgive me if I missed the answer.
lets say you have registered a straight right out of the camera image.
then you finally get around to levels,layers,curves, sharpening burning and dodging.
Is that image still protected under that same bland dull image that you registered?
thanks

Maybe someone more knowledgeable will jump in but I would say yes, because the author's copyright covers any and all derivatives of the original work.

[sfaust]

Maybe someone more knowledgeable will jump in but I would say yes, because the author's copyright covers any and all derivatives of the original work.

It's covered either way with basic copyright protection, just like an image right out of the camera prior to registration. But for full protection of the copyright law, it may have to be registered as again if there are substantial changes to it, enough so to make it a separate derivative work. I don't think changes things such as levels, curves, tones, basic retouching, would require re-registering.

But if for example, you took a basic image and created a heavily altered image with HDR, tone mapping, and removing objects, etc. I would think registering it as a separate work would be important. I haven't run up against that question, so I really can't answer with any certainty.

[PuR HART]

excellent thanks this really helps me out