bmattock
Veteran
http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana
Because the author registered his copyright with the US Copyright Office, he was entitled to recover damages as well as his legal fees. His photographs (and yours, if you are in the USA) are copyrighted by you the moment you take them under law - there is no legal requirement for you to register - or even to place a copyright notice on your photographs. They are copyrighted by you no matter what.
But in order to recover damages in any meaningful amount, plus your attorney's fees, you MUST register your copyright. You can do it any time up to the moment you are infringed - then it is too late.
http://www.copyright.gov/
You can do it online - you can do it for a small fee, with lots of photos registered all at once under that same small fee.
But if you don't do it and you are infringed upon, your rights to recover are limited.
Real simple stuff. Some recent stories here on RFF have shown that to be true.
Because the author registered his copyright with the US Copyright Office, he was entitled to recover damages as well as his legal fees. His photographs (and yours, if you are in the USA) are copyrighted by you the moment you take them under law - there is no legal requirement for you to register - or even to place a copyright notice on your photographs. They are copyrighted by you no matter what.
But in order to recover damages in any meaningful amount, plus your attorney's fees, you MUST register your copyright. You can do it any time up to the moment you are infringed - then it is too late.
http://www.copyright.gov/
You can do it online - you can do it for a small fee, with lots of photos registered all at once under that same small fee.
But if you don't do it and you are infringed upon, your rights to recover are limited.
Real simple stuff. Some recent stories here on RFF have shown that to be true.
colyn
ישו משיח
bmattock said:
Not true..
I have recovered damages plus attorney fees 2 times for copyright infringement without my photos being registered.
bmattock
Veteran
colyn said:
Beg pardon. Here is what I read from the Copyright Office's FAQ. I may be reading it wrong.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#automatic
I don't dispute your word. Would you agree that copyrighting your photos is the way the US government recommends one should protect their work?
charjohncarter
Veteran
There is a lot to read there, it will definitely take me a while to get though it. But with what happened to the RFFer that had his girlfriend murdered, you feel like you should do it.
colyn
ישו משיח
bmattock said:
All you have to do in court is prove you own the photo(s) and you win. It does make the process faster if you have registered your photos but are you really going to register hundreds of photos??
The Copyright Office does not make law..
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Bill -
While this is true - and it can only help your case if it comes to litigation. It is not a requirement. Unregistered works may also be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees - it's really up to the judge and jury (if it comes to that). Not having them registered does not preclude an award of damages. By the same token, having them registered does not guarantee damages and fees...
Having your works registered may however allow things to happen in summary judgement or well in advance of litigation - saving money there. Few things are as useful for annoying opposing counsel in a deposition/discovery as having a dated, sealed, government document with your case in it.
So - very helpful, but not required.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
colyn said:
You can register hundreds - even thousands at one go and with one fee. So, yes.
bmattock
Veteran
All this taken into account - and I appreciate the information from people who clearly have more experience at it than I; I remain convinced that it is never a bad thing to register your copyright, and can be a very good thing. So I fail to see the downside of registering. You'll never be punished for doing so, and may find an easier go of it in court if you have to go to court.
I don't quite understand why anyone would attempt to argue people out of protecting their own rights, unless doing so harmed them in some way.
I don't quite understand why anyone would attempt to argue people out of protecting their own rights, unless doing so harmed them in some way.
lns
Established
sitemistic said:
Okay, this is totally wrong. But I can see why this is confusing.
Here is what the copyright law provides with regard to damages: A plaintiff can seek damages in the amount of her actual losses plus the infringer's profits. Or she can seek statutory damages (basically a lump sum).
That means that a plaintiff can recover damages (plus attorneys' fees and injunctive relief) whether or not she could prove any actual monetary loss. She doesn't even have to try to prove an actual loss.
Amateur, professional, flickr or stock photo site -- it doesn't matter.
colyn
ישו משיח
bmattock said:
Do you really know anybody who registers hundred's at a time??
In reality most never register..
bmattock
Veteran
colyn said:
Let's see....me? Do I count?
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
Just start typing in names of famous photographers. Amazing.
And in any case, I am not sure I follow what appears to be some fairly tortured logic. You are stating no one should register - because no one registers.
In what way am I harmed by registering my photographs with the copyright office? If there is no downside, and a potential (however slight) for an upside, I fail to grasp what you are driving at. If you can't give a reason NOT to register, then it only makes sense to do so.
wpb
Well-known
colyn said:
"You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work." - http://www.copyright.gov