...new US Government Copyright Registration rules: how will it affect you?

https://www.copyright.​gov/rulemaking/group-photographs/

https://photobusinessf​orum.blogspot.co.nz …nges-at-us-copyright.html

I don't live in the US, so even though some photographers have encouraged non-USer's to register it didn't really make financial sense to do so. And now it makes even less sense. So obviously this doesn't affect me at all: but I'm curious as to how it affects those of you in the US, and if it will change your workflow, what you charge your clients, etc.

All the changes look good except for that limit on images submitted. It used to be possible to register all the images you took within a 90 day period in one submission, in order to ensure you would benefit from the protection of statutory damages in case of infringement.

In one randomly selected 90 day period last year I shot over 4,000 images (I shoot sports).

This method of more restrictive limits on what or how many seems to be a more recurring theme with governmental processes to billboard revenue without 'raising' prices. USPS just did something similar but only a 4x increase in cost but on something smaller but occurs on a much larger scale. Thing is we all know what it is, it isn't that hidden of a tactic...

BOO!!

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18550578
All the changes look good except for that limit on images submitted. It used to be possible to register all the images you took within a 90 day period in one submission, in order to ensure you would benefit from the protection of statutory damages in case of infringement.

In one randomly selected 90 day period last year I shot over 4,000 images (I shoot sports).

Not sure how you can get around it, Dan, but I figure "close enough" will work well enough--I don't submit any near duplicates out of a job.

Simply our current government trying to get more money in thru various sources, to keep the growing deficit down in size in spite of lowering taxes and increasing spending on international walls and military spending.
Increased fees for entering our National Parks is another example.


Did these people never have to balance spending vs. income in their own households?!

RDKirk wrote in post #18563784
Not sure how you can get around it, Dan, but I figure "close enough" will work well enough--I don't submit any near duplicates out of a job.

We'll have to chose between paying for multiple submissions or spending the time to cull the collection down. I may shoot 300 images in a family session and only deliver 25. I guess I can just pick the 25 delivered, but what if I decide to play around with #26 later on and it turns out to be a great image? It was easy and simple to cut a small 800x600px jpg of all images and upload. I just got an upload done yesterday and it was only 1.04GB for about 3,000 images.

Silver-Halide wrote in post #18564079
We'll have to chose between paying for multiple submissions or spending the time to cull the collection down.

Yes, I didn't mention it, but that is indeed the tradeoff. Time for money.

Silver-Halide wrote in post #18564079
I may shoot 300 images in a family session and only deliver 25. I guess I can just pick the 25 delivered, but what if I decide to play around with #26 later on and it turns out to be a great image?

.
Just curious ..... why would you need to register copyright for family session photos?


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18564396
.
Just curious ..... why would you need to register copyright for family session photos?

.

The family posts the photos on social media and the Wile E Coyote running social media for Acme Gutters and Stormpipes decides to "share" one of them accompanied by a pithy company comment.

That's a standard way of doing business for a lot of pretty significant companies. They're only going to be caught by the copyright owner only once in a thousand times, so they pay that photographer off for a pittance. The chances of being caught by a registered copyright owner--which would incur heavy fines--are even slimmer.

However...because those fines are so stiff, there are actually a few hack photographers who are creating an income stream by putting hundreds of mediocre photographs--copyrights registered--into social media and checking closely to see if any companies take the bait.

RDKirk wrote in post #18564461
However...because those fines are so stiff, there are actually a few hack photographers who are creating an income stream by putting hundreds of mediocre photographs--copyrights registered--into social media and checking closely to see if any companies take the bait.

.
That sounds about as low down as being an ambulance chaser or a patent troll. . I guess as long as there is a way to make money easily, without doing much hard work to get it, there will be people who do these ignoble things.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18564560
.
That sounds about as low down as being an ambulance chaser or a patent troll. . I guess as long as there is a way to make money easily, without doing much hard work to get it, there will be people who do these ignoble things.

.

After thinking about it a while, I figure those guys are actually performing a public service.

First, if someone steals their image, the image must have been worth stealing...meaning that it was worth having paid for in the first place.

Basically, if nobody was stealing other people's images, nobody would get sued. If this becomes enough of a threat, at least the larger businesses might stop stealing images.

RDKirk wrote in post #18564598
After thinking about it a while, I figure those guys are actually performing a public service.

First, if someone steals their image, the image must have been worth stealing...meaning that it was worth having paid for in the first place.

Basically, if nobody was stealing other people's images, nobody would get sued. If this becomes enough of a threat, at least the larger businesses might stop stealing images.

I agree. They're trapping predators for the rest of us. Good public service.

Pinto wrote in post #18577427
I agree. They're trapping predators for the rest of us. Good public service.

.
They are "trapping predators" for themselves, not for the rest of us.

Those who steal one photographer's images are different people than those who steal another photographer's images. . It's not like the same people are stealing a bunch of photos from a bunch of different photographers. . And it's also not like getting "caught" once or twice will curtail further image theft - it won't. . At all.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18581065
.
They are "trapping predators" for themselves, not for the rest of us.

That's fine. The benefit is the same.

But they are. This is the way some businesses are doing business--it's how they do their advertising. Why would you think otherwise?

If those photographers are merely accepting a minimal pay-off, that might be true. Or it might not.

Either way, I certainly have less problem with the bounty hunters than with the thieves they're trapping.