And their legal budget was...? I doubt any one of us on this site could afford their legal bills or would even attempt to do so.
Because... you don't always win on just one courtroom visit.
A number of illustrators and graphic designers have successfully sued the GAP, a major retailer, for copyright infringement.
And their legal budget was...? I doubt any one of us on this site could afford their legal bills or would even attempt to do so.
Because... you don't always win on just one courtroom visit.
The US has an expedited and relatively lower cost system for enforcing statutory (meaning relatively low) damages for copyright infringement. Copyright registration is required.
Most jurisdictions don't offer that, nor do they offer a registry.
Have you read any credible reports of this new system being effectively used?
What you did seems fine, but I think everything is digital. Author, copyright and caption can all be imbedded in the metadata.When I used to submit photographs to magazines for publication, I would attach a typed paper strip to the back of the print with technical details, names and location of the print.
As they were intended for publication soon, and not works of art to be stored for posterity I had no qualms about rubber stamping the reverse of the actual print with a rubber address stamp and a separate copyright logo.
That was a good few years back.
Assuming that magazines still accept paper photographs and they haven't gone completely digital what would be an acceptable format for an ownership stamp and caption information?
The US has an expedited and relatively lower cost system for enforcing statutory (meaning relatively low) damages for copyright infringement. Copyright registration is required.
Most jurisdictions don't offer that, nor do they offer a registry.
You are correct, not as new as I remembered - initiated about 2011 and enacted as CASE Act in 2020; time sure does fly. There are more recent expedited processes, like small claims expedited registration, 37 CFR § 221.2, from about 2021 that seem to facilitate that process. The recommendation to register images has been a recommendation for a very long time. But new or not, the question I asked remains a mystery to me. I've not heard of anyone using that expedited process, but I'm sure that there must be users. It would be interesting to know if it really is either expedited or effective. It should, especially because the requirement for images-in-question to be registered takes a lot of the cat-fight out of the process.I don't know that it is all that new.
All I've seen a lot of are recommendations to people that they register, because that permits access to the remedy.
In Canada where I live, whoever takes a photo owns the Copyright for the most part, and that continues for seventy years after their death.
Of course people might use your photo without permission and you never know about it.
Does anyone still stamp their photos with their "Studio Name" and Copyright as some sort of protection?
What does your stamp say?
Here's a story you might find interesting.
I shot pro sports for most of my career as a full-time job. I often shot NHL in Montreal on assignment, maybe one game a week during the season. The photographer next to me at these games was Denis Brodeur. Denis was the team photographer for the Canadiens for decades. His son was Martin Brodeur, who played goal in New Jersey, was a Stanley Cup Champion, and won Olympic gold. Denis himself played for the Canadiens and was also an Olympic Champion.
We would chat away as the game went on.
Denis mentioned that he knew all the players throughout the ages, and for years he would give the players free photos when he got a great shot. I found this interesting because I did the same. Denis said as the players got old they often wrote their auto-biography about their years as a Canadien. They would often use his photos in their books, the photos he had given them. He mentioned that rarely did any player approach him and suggest a payment for the use of the photos, although they often gave him credit. However one famous book featured a lot of his work, and not only did he not get paid, the photos were also credited "To the personal collection of the author". Not even a photo credit.
I stopped giving prints away that day.
Now, I find myself shooting some Blues and Jazz in black and white. I would like to provide a print or two to the artists, and I'm sure they would enjoy them, but I also want to protect myself and my work. I don't mind if the artist uses the work on social media but things can get away from you and you can't reel it back in. Social media is one thing but then someone else can take it and use it without compensation.
For most of my career I didn't care about this because my work was always with a big agency and they took care of it. This Jazz/Blues work doesn't involve the agency and is small potatoes anyway, but I don't want to regret having my work out there.
What are your thoughts.
-Rob Skeoch
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?