Online Image Theft

[Steve Smith]

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.

But in the UK we can still claim for statutory damages. The registration you have isn't a right to get increased damages, it's just another method of proving the image is yours - hopefully a foolproof one. Although what's to stop someone downloading another person's image and registering it as their own? If they got their fraudulent registration in before the photographer made his legitimate registration then the system would work against the legitimate copyright owner.

And I wouldn't personally bother with using a lawyer.



Steve.

 

[Worker 11811]

EXIF data can be erased or altered. It's not that hard to do. The only sure-fire way would be to print it out and register it or publish it in a reputable publication (A newspaper, magazine, newsletter or some other dated periodical) then save a copy of that periodical as proof of publication.

I suppose one could take a photo to a notary public but that would only fix the creation date to the time and place that the notary put his seal on your documents.

There is also an alternate means of claiming rights to your on-line/digital work called "Creative Commons." It is similar to copyright and kinds of runs parallel to it. The main difference is that, with Creative Commons, you usually give permission for others to use your work under certain conditions. For instance you can specify "Non-commercial use only" or you can say "Must give attribution" or "No derivative works allowed." Even though Creative Commons does not have the same "teeth" as a copyright it is recognized in most countries and it is free.

I have used Creative Commons for some of my work that I display on the internet. It all depends on what you intend to do with your work. For me, as mostly a hobbyist, Creative Commons is a good way to be sure that I get credit for my work while allowing others to borrow under limited conditions. If my work gets shared, that's free distribution for me and I can use that as part of my on-line resume. However, I have done some work for hire and sometimes I create works which have personal meaning to me which I do not want to share without specific permission and/or payment to me. Those works I will not put under Creative Commons!

Check it out at: http://creativecommons.org/

 

[Rudeofus]

Although what's to stop someone downloading another person's image and registering it as their own? If they got their fraudulent registration in before the photographer made his legitimate registration then the system would work against the legitimate copyright owner.

I have not registered anything yet, but I would assume that when you register a copyright any false information provided would be treated as perjury. Which means if you get cought, we're talking prison, not monetary damages. It's like ditching a cop on the highway: if you succeed, you win a little, if you get caught, you're in deep trouble.

 

[removed account4]

from what i remember, the envelope has to be the same
sort of material that is submitted to the copyright office in DC.
proof sheets + prints + a sheet describing what the photographs are of.

the next time i submit, i plan on sending it to myself
and at least here in the states, if you certify mail they stamp the envelope
to show if it has been tampered with, opened, resealed &C.

as stated before, it is all about proof, and the unopened envelope
or certificate that shows the material was registered at the copyright office
is some of the best proof there is.

there are plenty of ways to lie cheat and steal ... sometimes the people
who do this sort of thing don't realize what they did was wrong,
or they are very good at it ...

john

 

[Q.G.]

@Q.G.: The copyright is a right your country gives you IF you do your homework.

Not so.

Goverments, including that of the U.S., have ratified the international treaty, making what it says national law.
That treaty says what was said before here: you don't need to do anything at all (!) to obtain copyright to a work, except create it.

Anyone telling you something different is telling you a lie. Also when that someone is part of government.

Copyright registration is a rouse to make it easier to steal copyrighted work while at the same time generating revenue for the state.

 

[billbretz]

Following QG's advice places anyone seeking real benefit from their copyright in a detrimental position. Do some simple research on the web, a few minutes with informed sources will be very educational for folks confused about their copyright and how to protect themselves.

 

[accozzaglia]

Suddenly, customizable data imprint capability on selected film cameras looks better and better every day. I think my Pentax 645 will eventually be replaced by the N or NII in part because of this (but more to get rid of that stupid rocker switch and move from buttons to knobs). As to my older cameras, hrm.

Besides, I'm in Canada, and this discussion has barely concerned itself with the question of copyright on a global scale. It's as if the whole U.S. copyright discussion here acts on a premise of U.S. exceptionalism, forgetting (or ignoring) how the internets are globally interconnected. Your problem, folks, isn't having someone nab your work in the U.S. Rather, it's having it nabbed by someone located anywhere else you are not. And as of April 7th or so, when we hit 7.0 billion people on this world, you'll need to do some math.

 

[Q.G.]

Following QG's advice places anyone seeking real benefit from their copyright in a detrimental position. Do some simple research on the web, a few minutes with informed sources will be very educational for folks confused about their copyright and how to protect themselves.

What advice?

I was (am) belabouring the point that the U.S. legal system is making things harder for you than it need be.

This entire registration business is an U.S. thingy.
Such a thing does not exist in most of the world. And without it, it is not hard to get protection, damages, etc.

So what good does it do, that registration business?

If i were to give advice, it would be to stand up to a legal system that treats people's rights according to the contribution they have or haven't made to someone's coffer, instead of according to what the law says is right and just.
Not easy though, that.


This thing does touch upon global copyright protection. But alas not in a good way, since the exceptional position the U.S. assumed makes it even harder to enforce one and the same legislation in that part of the world that agreed to treat things the same.
In the face of a growing problem, the U.S. chose to make it even more of a problem.

But the U.S. will probably not be alone in this, seeing the recent U.K. proposals about what you cannot, but most of all can, do with supposed 'orphaned work'.

 

[John R.]

Not so.


Copyright registration is a rouse to make it easier to steal copyrighted work while at the same time generating revenue for the state.

Copyright registration is a rouse? You are kidding me right? QG, I hope you never have images stolen and have to hire counsel to defend your rights. He/she is going to ask you why you did not register your work before placing it in the public domain. You need PROOF and that is what the toolof registration is for, to assist you in defending what is yours by virtue of it's creation. Good luck without it.

 

[Chazzy]

From what has been said, it sounds as if it would be prudent to register any images one intends to put up on a website. But it sounds like a big pain in the ass to pay $40 and go to the trouble of making a submission to Washington just because one wishes to upload something to the APUG gallery or to deviantART or to Flickr. I gather that a large number of images can be accumulated and submitted at the same time for the same price, but that would mean waiting months before being able to put one's photo on Flickr.

Incidentally, how did the guy who was discussed on Photo.net get caught? I can't imagine how much work it must be to scour the Internet looking for copyright infringement—the Internet is a very big place. Is there software for doing that?

 

[Q.G.]

Copyright registration is a rouse? You are kidding me right? QG, I hope you never have images stolen and have to hire counsel to defend your rights. He/she is going to ask you why you did not register your work before placing it in the public domain. You need PROOF and that is what the toolof registration is for, to assist you in defending what is yours by virtue of it's creation. Good luck without it.

I keep telling this: it is not difficult at all to get what rightfully is yours in most countries that have signed the treaty, but do not (!) demand an additional registration.
Never a problem.

It's in fact easier than when a court limits what you may ask for in court, just because you didn't pay the fee.

 

[billbretz]

Okay, QG, should people register their images? I'm not asking if the system is right or fair or properly priced. Is registration an advisable route for photographers to take to best protect their copyright?

 

[John R.]

Okay, QG, should people register their images? I'm not asking if the system is right or fair or properly priced. Is registration an advisable route for photographers to take to best protect their copyright?

Bill ..... I'll chime in on that for you. What copyright registration does for you under US law is that it creates a unquestionable public record of the ownership of your images. That empowers you dramatically in the event of infringement of your rights as the copyright holder. As a result of that registration your remedy in a lawsuit is far reaching in scope for damages and not limited. In addition, people that do not understand Copyright Registration fail to realize they would not be able to file litigation against someone in the US if the copyrighted work is not registered. How International copyright is affected in other countries by US Copyright Registration I am not real clear on and you should consult with a copyright attorney. The answer to your question is a resounding... YES if you publish your work or place it in any public domain. Otherwise, I would suggest it is optional. Keep in mind there are conditions on how a item is automatically protected by copyright when a photo for example is created. It must be fixed ( I think stable is the proper term) and that may affect the way a infringement claim might be viewed. Always a sound practice to be sure you have a printed example of any photo you wish to protect. Do not rely on digitally stored files. They may not be valid in a claim of infringement. Print anything important or just shoot film and have some peace of mind. If you put any work into the public domain you best register it or forget about suing someone if you suffer infringement.

 

[billbretz]

John-
Thanks, your explanation jives with my understanding. What I really wanted to know, though, was QC's take, as he has strong opinions on the US copyright registration process. In my opinion he is misleading folks about the benefits of registration.

 

[Q.G.]

Okay, QG, should people register their images?

If that gives them a better chance, by all means, yes.
Because that, alas, is how it works in the U.S.

Deplorable, because there is a law that says what your rights are, but despite there being that law, you have to deal with stuff both not regulated by law and in fact contrary to what law says, like "people [...] would not be able to file litigation against someone in the US if the copyrighted work is not registered."

But if that how it works, playing along with the man's protection racket would be smart.

 

[John R.]

If that gives them a better chance, by all means, yes.
Because that, alas, is how it works in the U.S.

Deplorable, because there is a law that says what your rights are, but despite there being that law, you have to deal with stuff both not regulated by law and in fact contrary to what law says, like "people [...] would not be able to file litigation against someone in the US if the copyrighted work is not registered."

But if that how it works, playing along with the man's protection racket would be smart.

QG ... There is nothing "deplorable" about US Copyright Law. Quite the contrary, in fact, it enhances a persons rights by broadening the scope of a infringed individuals rights of remedy in litigation. It seems this is what you do not understand. You don't need to sue someone to tell them to cease and desist. Evidence this by the situation mentioned on Photo.net that started this thread commentary. Those stolen images have all been taken down. Suing is for damages, the registration process is there to facilitate and streamline that process in court if and when the need arises. It is a far better system than what you have at your disposal in countries without the evidence mechanism where you would have to work very hard at proving your infringement case damages and try to convince the court to reward you damages which you would have to prove and that requires a lot of legal time and expense. Registration in the US saves you all that hassle. Also, don't overlook that US Copyright Registration is highly regarded and used as strong evidence in many foreign countries, such as England for an example. The system is hardly a "racket" as you stated it to be and that is a highly unfair characterization by you of what the US provides to us photographers and other creatives to fully protect our hard work when it is placed in the public domain. If you place your images in a public domain I wish you the best in simply relying on a fundamental copyright issuance to afford you full recourse in the event you suffer an infringement.

 

[Q.G.]

John,

It's perhaps doesn't seem likely to you, but you can get all that without the extra registration.
At least over here, where we do not even have the possibility to register copyright.
It works fine, absolutely no worries. No need for a registration.
Really!

If there is, demonstrably, no need for such a thing, but someone somewhere makes it a condition, what else but a racket would it be?


The deplorable bit is that if someone in the U.S. steals my images, the U.S. court will not take me seriously, because of some local stipulation added by the U.S. to what the treaty says.
(The same goes for U.S. citizens who have their images stolen of course. But if they chose to see it as something they can't do without, who am i to feel sorry for them? )

 

[Steve Smith]

The deplorable bit is that if someone in the U.S. steals my images, the U.S. court will not take me seriously, because of some local stipulation added by the U.S. to what the treaty says.

Especially if that person registers the stolen images as his own. The registration system doesn't prove ownership, it just proves that someone has registered an image.


Steve.

 

[wclark5179]

I used to get mad when someone would copy my photographs. Not anymore as I consider it a compliment. I spend my time on other things.

What changed me? It's a combination of getting older, changing priorities and a discussion I had with my Coach, Monte Zucker when he was alive, a long while ago. It would be hard for someone to duplicate my photographs. Yes, someone can copy them but I hope when this is done it is to learn and apply it to the photographs they make.

How do you replicate my personality? How do you replicate the rapport I have with my clients causing them to be friends with me? Can't be done because you aren't me. How do I get subjects to look natural, not nervous when being photographed? Could it be chemistry? Is there more to people photography than technicals like cameras, lighting, posing and composition? I've got clients who I was honored to tell their wedding story with photography and now have families and still want me to photograph them. Sometimes I can't believe I'm getting paid to do this!

I don't want my subjects to look like they are scared! I want to make them more beautiful than they actually are. I'm still working at it. But I'm slowing down, smell the roses, doing things like photographing my grandchildren.

Life is wonderful!

 

[JBrunner]

It is incorrect to say that in the US you cannot file a lawsuit without having registered your photographs. That is absolutely incorrect. Registration benefits your position as a plaintiff and will help you prevail and perhaps collect more damages, but in the US you can sue anybody for anything. It is prudent to register, but not doing so does not preclude legal action. It is a service that is reasonably charged for, and creates an evidential claim of ownership that is recognized by the courts. It is not "the man" charging for justice, and there are other ways to assert ownership, though not so convenient and easy as registration. According to Q.G., in the Netherlands it seems, there is no mechanism that is provided to assert your ownership in a recognized way. That is deplorable.

 

[Steve Smith]

According to Q.G., in the Netherlands it seems, there is no mechanism that is provided to assert your ownership in a recognized way. That is deplorable.

Perhaps it is deplorable but what is to stop someone registering an image he has stolen as his own?


Steve.

 

[Rudeofus]

How do you replicate my personality? How do you replicate the rapport I have with my clients causing them to be friends with me? Can't be done because you aren't me.

But that's exactly what that fraudulent photographer tried to claim on his web page! Copyright infringement was a minor part of his whole enterprise. He used other peoples work (both grabbed off the web and licensed from a stock photo agency) to promote his photography enterprise, to show off great artistic talent he does not really have. It's the customers of this guy who suffered the real damage here.

 

[JBrunner]

Perhaps it is deplorable but what is to stop someone registering an image he has stolen as his own?


Steve.

Infringement is usually actioned as tort and only occasionally prosecuted as a crime.

The scenario you envision would be a very grave criminal act that would be prosecuted federally. I think the FBI would enjoy that kind of case very much over the rather mundane and common infringement claims.

 

[removed account4]

It is incorrect to say that in the US you cannot file a lawsuit without having registered your photographs. That is absolutely incorrect. Registration benefits your position as a plaintiff and will help you prevail and perhaps collect more damages, but in the US you can sue anybody for anything. It is prudent to register, but not doing so does not preclude legal action. It is a service that is reasonably charged for, and creates an evidential claim of ownership that is recognized by the courts. It is not "the man" charging for justice, and there are other ways to assert ownership, though not so convenient and easy as registration. According to Q.G., in the Netherlands it seems, there is no mechanism that is provided to assert your ownership in a recognized way. That is deplorable.

you can file a lawsuit, but that doesn't mean that the judge will see the case.
when i had my troubles i was in touch with a good bunch of people
practicing law, and they said without the registration "see you later, and good luck getting a judge to hear the case "
maybe they just were taking me for a walk around the park, since without the proof of registration
or an unopened envelope or ... i wasn't a "sure win" and they'd actually have to work ...

i have on occasion looked up gullible in the dictionary ..

 

[Q.G.]

According to Q.G., in the Netherlands it seems, there is no mechanism that is provided to assert your ownership in a recognized way. That is deplorable.

You're wrong.

There is no government imposed registration, no.

Because we don't need it. There are many ways to assert your ownership. No problems either getting your rights recognized in court.

So what would it be that is deplorable?


You U.S.A-ians do not need it either, were it not that in the U.S. registering apparently makes a difference.
A deplorable difference.