Online Image Theft

Q.G. · Mar 18, 2010

jnanian said:
it doesn't matter if you have the film, the diapositive, the print, ... without the copyright document stating
that the image is registered with the copyright office ( at least here in the usa )
you are left high and dry. good luck getting a lawyer to defend you,
... the courts won't see the case ( ends up being a case of he said s/he said ) murky at best.

If so, the U.S is in violation of the international treaty they too ratified.

jnanian said:
a lot of people believe that as soon as the shutter is pressed the images
are automatically copyrighted

Those people would be correct. That is exactly how it works.

jnanian said:
but without the registration
it is not exactly true. ( again here in the states ).

And that's my complaint.
You are being robbed by a government that says that you need to pay them to get (from them, i presume) what already is yours.
And (as mentioned above) that is in violation of the international treaty, ratified by the U.S. too.

So don't don't take that BS lying down!
It too is image theft!

Q.G. · Mar 18, 2010

Rudeofus said:
To make Q.G.s statement more precise:

- If you don't register copy right, you still own the copy right as creator of some creative work. You can sue people violating your copyright in court and will be compensated for the work. If your work is deemed worth 100$, that's what you can sue for.

- If you do, however, register your work with the copyright office, you can also sue for damages beyond the worth of your work.

So registering your work doesn't give you many extra rights, just additional sue dollars.

Again, if that is so, you are being robbed.

There is only one (1) type of copyright, and that is comprehensive. Registration cannot add anything to it.

So you are entitled to full compensation, including damages (lost income, whatever) no matter whether you 'register' (= pay an extortion fee to the Chief of Thieves) or not.

John R. · Mar 18, 2010

jnanian said:
it doesn't matter if you have the film, the diapositive, the print, ... without the copyright document stating
that the image is registered with the copyright office ( at least here in the usa )
you are left high and dry. good luck getting a lawyer to defend you,
... the courts won't see the case ( ends up being a case of he said s/he said ) murky at best.
a lot of people believe that as soon as the shutter is pressed the images
are automatically copyrighted but without the registration
it is not exactly true. ( again here in the states ).

it costs 40$ or something like that to do a gang registration of as many images
as you want. while it is a pain, it is assurance that you won't get hung out to dry down the road.

i guess picking up that lucky penny could be bad luck after all

john

Once again you are correct. What some people in this thread are overlooking is that the legal burden in a litigation on infringement is the fact that the photographer claiming the image copyright is theirs must prove to the court that they created it (the "birth" of the image). This is where registration comes into play and proves to the court who is the legal copyright owner.

The simple fact that a photographer or any producer of intellectual property is granted automatic copyright on the created piece at the time the piece is made does not provide you any legal leverage in a infringement claim if you don't have a means of proving that you were the original creator. No copyright lawyer would touch a case unless you could prove the burden the court would place on you. This is precisely where registration works on your behalf as it will prove the image is indeed yours. With digital imaging this is all the more important because you don't have anything tangible like a transparency to back up your claim and prove it's indeed yours. It's silly to argue that just because you created an image you are protected. That's nonsense. That simply allows you to use a copyright symbol and state an image is protected under copyright law. It proves nothing in a litigation and does nothing but provide you an avenue to litigation. The burden remains on you to provide proof. Register if you want real protection.

Q.G. · Mar 18, 2010

Sounds like a legal system build around the "you have to register" thing.

Over here, it's easy. Like it should be.
If, for instance, you can produce the negatives from your archive (or old shoe box), the one infringing on your copyright cannot, you'll already have won the case.

In the case of digital images, if you can show other shots taken at or around the same time that give the disputed image context, while the thief cannot, you'll again have won.

And it doesn't get much more difficult than that.
And that's how it should be.

It's not silly to argue that just because you created an image, you own the copyright. That's what the treaty says.
For protection against abuse, we have to look, not at what the treaty says, but towards our legal system. And if that doesn't work, we're indeed helpless.

A legal system that does not recognize your right, unless you register it at some branch office of that same legal system, is already well under way towards a legal system that doesn't care about rights.
What it does is what i said earlier, which i'll paraphrase here as "stick two fingers in your face, and say bugger off", because you haven't 'conformed' to their definition of what proof would be.
Which is having a receipt showing that you have paid the amount due at their dispensary of proof.

And you all take that, don't find it strange (to put it mildly)? Never complain?

Vonder · Mar 18, 2010

Lots of things don't get done. Like when the crappy DVD player you bought at Walmart dies after 6 months. It cost $49. It isn't worth "my time" to send it in for warranty work. So when a loser like this creep "steals" an image from "me" I don't bother taking legal action. It simply isn't worth "my" time to fight it, even if I'm in the right.

Rudeofus · Mar 18, 2010

There are some important things the copy right office can do for you: they document your claim that the creative work was created by you, that it is sufficiently creative as to be copyrightable and establish the date you created this work (don't forget that copyright expires eventually! ). If you complain about the cost of registering a copyright, you should look at the cost of obtaining a patent ...

PS: Supposedly a common way for avoiding the cost of registering a copyright is put a copy of your work in a sealed envelope and mail it to your self (and leave it sealed! ). The USPS is considered part of the government, so the postal date stamp works as evidence in court.

ic-racer · Mar 18, 2010

JBrunner said:
Not at all. It is clear copyright infringement, and if proven substantially, clearly blatantly both illegal, and a civil tort case as well. Wedding photographers must use the net for advertising, there really isn't any other option, and the analogy to leaving the keys in the car isn't a very good one. It attempts to shift the blame from the criminal perpetrator to the victim. That's B.S. One should be free to advertise with images when one is in the image making business without fear of being censured when one is robbed by a criminal.

It is even easier to procecute for auto theft and the courts would probably consider it more of a crime than image theft, but you still don't want to leave your car out like that. I mean what do you think is going to happen. Same with images one gives out for free across the internet. Its also like giving a complete stranger off the internet the keys to your car and saying "don't drive it while I am gone." Similarly "here are my photographs; download them to your personal computer in the privacy of you home but you can only look at them."

Q.G. · Mar 18, 2010

Rudeofus said:
[...] establish the date you created this work (don't forget that copyright expires eventually! ).

It indeed does.
After 70 years, counting from the next 1st of january following your demise.

As you see, copyright is linked to the creator of the work. The date the work is created is not important.

removed account4 · Mar 18, 2010

Rudeofus said:
PS: Supposedly a common way for avoiding the cost of registering a copyright is put a copy of your work in a sealed envelope and mail it to your self (and leave it sealed! ). The USPS is considered part of the government, so the postal date stamp works as evidence in court.

YES!

Rudeofus · Mar 18, 2010

Q.G. said:
It indeed does.
After 70 years, counting from the next 1st of january following your demise.

As you see, copyright is linked to the creator of the work. The date the work is created is not important.

If an author decides to stay anonymous, copyright in the US holds for a time frame based on creation or publication time.

Allen Friday · Mar 18, 2010

Q. How do I copyright my works?

A. A copyright originates at the moment a work is created. For a written work, the copyright comes into existence as the words are typed, printed, or saved to a computer disk. For a photograph, the copyright is created at the moment the image is developed. If a photograph is taken with a modern digital camera, the copyright originates at the time the image is saved on a computer disk or on a hard drive. As long as the work exists in tangible form or can be understood or reproduced with the aid of a machine, it is copyrighted.

Q. Do I have to file anything in Washington, D.C., in order to get a copyright?

A. No. A copyright is secured automatically when a work is created. This concept is frequently misunderstood. Some people still believe that there are formalities required in order to create a copyright. This is not true. Under the latest version of the Copyright Act, neither publication nor registration with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is required in order to secure full copyright protection. When a work is created, it is automatically copyrighted.

Q. What is registration?

A. Although a copyright is created automatically when a work is created, there is a procedure for registering a copyright with the Library of Congress. Remember, registration is not required for copyright protection.

There are three benefits to registering a copyright. First, registration creates a public record of a copyright. Second, registration of a copyright is required in order to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Third, if a copyright is registered before there is an infringement or within three months after the first publication of a work, the owner of the copyright can claim certain alternate damages plus attorneyís fees. These alternate damages are called statutory damages and they can be awarded in a sum of up to $100,000 for willful infringements. The registration process itself, does not alter the fact that the owner of a copyright is always entitled to his or her actual damages plus any profits earned by the infringner. However, the suggestion that statutory damages and attorneyís fees are available can act as a catalyst for the quick settlement of a copyright infringement claim.

From: http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html. An excellent site for non-lawyers; it explains the copyright laws in layman's English.

Allen Friday · Mar 18, 2010

One more thing: "Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation."

From the US Copyright Website: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

removed account4 · Mar 18, 2010

allen

this all may be true ...
but in my own experience no lawyer will help you
without the paper that says it was registered at the copyright office.
( or an unopened POSTMARKED envelope with a cd. proof sheets and images ) ...
no lawyer with the asmp will do it and no one else who practices law will either ( that i contacted ),
... the lawyers want a **guarantee** that you will win, and without the registration, there IS doubt that the legitimate person
who created the image actually created it.

yes, i speak from personal experience, sad but true....

all i have to say, and i won't pollute this thread with my experience,
is that people who steal + use other people's images for commercial gain
( not downloading and looking at on their monitor, or ink jet printing and putting
a crude copy of the work on their bulletin board, but on their commercial website, in their collateral et C. )
can be crafty enough to cover their tracks and blatantly lie and
if the circumstances allow it, they will get away with it.

so protecting oneself by mailing things to washington,
or to oneself, is the best protection there is for 40$ or a stamp.

Allen Friday · Mar 18, 2010

jnanian: I put up my post to correct a bunch of the posts in the previous pages regarding the creation of copyright and the rights that attach there from. It was not dealing with your individual situation.

As to your individual case, you were not able to find a lawyer to take your case. But, that is one example, based on specific facts. I would hate for people not to protect or enforce their copyright because of advice on the internet. Personally, I know many lawyers who specialize in copyright law, I even did some when I practiced law in California--in a previous lifetime, 20 years ago.

removed account4 · Mar 18, 2010

Allen Friday said:
jnanian: I put up my post to correct a bunch of the posts in the previous pages regarding the creation of copyright and the rights that attach there from. It was not dealing with your individual situation.

As to your individual case, you were not able to find a lawyer to take your case. But, that is one example, based on specific facts. I would hate for people not to protect or enforce their copyright because of advice on the internet. Personally, I know many lawyers who specialize in copyright law, I even did some when I practiced law in California--in a previous lifetime, 20 years ago.

you are right, advice on the internet is kind of crazy
kind of like buyer beware on ebay

thanks allen !

David A. Goldfarb · Mar 18, 2010

Looks like the site is gone, so I haven't seen it, but it sounds like the copyright issue--which is certainly legitimate and serious--is secondary to the fact that he's representing his own services with work belonging to other people. Realistically, unless he's in the same market competing with the people he's stealing images from, it seems like any clients he attracts with those images are more likely to be harmed than the photographers he's stolen from, since he's obviously not capable of producing the work, or he could have used his own.

accozzaglia · Mar 18, 2010

Allen Friday said:
Personally, I know many lawyers who specialize in copyright law, I even did some when I practiced law in California--in a previous lifetime, 20 years ago.

How did that go, by the way?

John R. · Mar 18, 2010

Not only do copyright attorneys want evidence (proof) from a person claiming infringement to represent them but so does trhe court before any decision or award will be made. It's all about proof.

Anybody can claim they created something and say they own the copyright if they are in possession of the image. What determines the outcome is who has the tangible evidence proving the history of creation and thus ownership. This is where film reigns superior, especially transparancies. Digital is fraught with opportunities for anyone to claim ownership. Registering is a photographers premium mechanism of self defense. Just because you are granted copyright at creation does not mean the law is on your side if you are challenged. You must PROVE you created it if the time comes when you are infringed upon. It's fundamental law. Evidence is what matters.

John R. · Mar 19, 2010

Q.G. said:
It's not silly to argue that just because you created an image, you own the copyright. That's what the treaty says.

That is not what I said in my original point. You are misinterpreting my comment and took it out of context. I said it is silly to assume you are protected just because you automatically own the copyright when the image is created. No one argues the fundamental point about when a person is granted a copyright. The issue is about the protection of that copyright and how you are going to PROVE you own it if and when a time of infringment occurs. This is why copyright registration is critical to defending yourself and your rights under copyright law in a court setting. Why do you think copyright registration is available? It's to protect your interests beyond any reasonable doubt! If you want to take your chances in a court setting by trying to hand the court a CD with images on it and say they are yours, good luck. Any lawyer worth his degree would laugh that situation right out of the courtroom.

John R. · Mar 19, 2010

Rudeofus said:
PS: Supposedly a common way for avoiding the cost of registering a copyright is put a copy of your work in a sealed envelope and mail it to your self (and leave it sealed! ). The USPS is considered part of the government, so the postal date stamp works as evidence in court.

Absolutely accurate..... it's about evidence, nothing else matters. Keep in mind though, registration is the prime defense.

Q.G. · Mar 19, 2010

John R. said:
That is not what I said in my original point. You are misinterpreting my comment and took it out of context. I said it is silly to assume you are protected just because you automatically own the copyright when the image is created.

I know you said that. I addressed the latter.

Being 'the owner' of a right does (or should, when it doesn't) indeed also automatically mean that the one granting you that right (the legislator) grants you protection. The two are inseparable.

The next point then, how to prove that you own a right.
That is, as is shown all around the world, extremely easy.

Why do i think copyright registration is available? Have you read my previous posts?
Do you know that you even can't 'register' copyright in the truly free world, yet still enjoy full protection, without the slightest difficulties?

So tell me, why do you think copyright registration is available?

Tell me how it is acceptable for a government to recognize that you have certain rights, yet discriminate between people who have and have not paid a 'protection fee' when it comes to granting protection against infringement of those rights?

Steve Smith · Mar 19, 2010

Q.G. said:
Tell me how it is acceptable for a government to recognize that you have certain rights, yet discriminate between people who have and have not paid a 'protection fee' when it comes to granting protection against infringement of those rights?

I posted earlier in this thread that copyright registration was a US thing not available in the UK.

This is not strictly true. There are companies who you can register your images with but they are not 'official'. They are private companies. Personally, I think this sort or registration is about as pointless as the cheap method of patenting. i.e. posting your idea to yourself by registered mail. Alll this does is prove you sent an envelope to yourself.

I do agree with the comment though about the government recognising your right but then wanting a registration fee to validate it.

Registration is not common in the UK and our courts manage to deal with infringement cases and assign damages without it.

Steve.

Steve Smith · Mar 19, 2010

Rudeofus said:
PS: Supposedly a common way for avoiding the cost of registering a copyright is put a copy of your work in a sealed envelope and mail it to your self (and leave it sealed! ). The USPS is considered part of the government, so the postal date stamp works as evidence in court.

There's a coincidence. I mentioned that before I read your post.

All that proves is that at some time in the past, you sent yourself an envelope. It may have been empty and not sealed and you could have susequently put anything into it.

Steve.

Rudeofus · Mar 19, 2010

Even if the content creators can somehow (without having them registered) prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that they really really were the original creators of these pics: how would you put a price tag on these pics? The fraudulent photographer did not try to sell them to the members of the wedding party after all. For any one else these pics are essentially stock images and may not draw all that much money. So the outcome of such a hypothetical law suit could well be: "Mr. Fraudulent Photographer, you are guilty of having violated Mr./Mrs. Goodguys/GoodGals copyright. You must pay 5 $ in compensation for using 5 images"

That's, where the copyright registration comes in: if you as a victim can claim statuory damages and legal fees, it suddenly becomes worth your lawyers time to pursue this in court.

@Q.G.: The copyright is a right your country gives you IF you do your homework. With copyright you are way better off than e.g. with patents or trademarks, where you have nothing without registration. Your copyright registration costs money to the government, too, so why should the tax payer come up for this?

Peter de Groot · Mar 19, 2010

Question when I take a photograph with my d. camera you will have the exif data with the camera's details right? If you own your camera (duh!) and save the receipts and you have the exif data on your original photo's would that be proof enough?

Online Image Theft

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency