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 ..
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.
Yes, what a crime that in the US we have a simple, legal, and documented way to protect our rights. It is something that one can avail themselves of, not a requirement. That apparently seem lost on you. In any case, you are by volume of assertion, of course, right again.
Q.G., since I spent a few years in the US and live in Europe I can tell you the big difference: folks in the US actually care about the copyright. I, being a naive Eoropean, once went into a Kinko's and wanted to make a color copy of some playing card. No, not for commercial purposes, just to create a birthday card for someone, and I wanted it to include that figure. The guy at the copy shop, when he heard what I tried to do, was shocked and pointed at the copyright sign on that card. He almost yelled me out of his shop. The typical comment from my american friends went along the line "well of course he can't do that, why did you even ask?".And (just to make sure) is it indeed lost to you that most of the rest of the world does perfectly well without?
If someone infringes on your copyright in Europe, what damages can you collect from the infringer? Can you collect any damages beyond the actual value/benefit received by the infringer?
If you file a tort case, a judge will see the case. If you are filing criminal charges, it would be up to the prosecutor/judge to decide if the case is worth pursuing.. In a civil case you get your day if you file the suit. How well it goes depends on how good a case you have.
[...] The registration is your evidence, it is a recorded PUBLIC RECORD. Without it you have no case in a tort (civil) proceeding except some cease desist leverage and a hope and a prayer the offender complies.
And that is what is particular to the U.S.
It says about registration is that it may be "considered prima facie evidence in a court of law". Which is rather puzzling, since you can't register copyright in the E.U.
With all due respect, sorry to disagree here and on a few of your other points. Have you ever in your life seen a infringement case of a photograph handled as a criminal case? No I think not, because it is a civil matter not criminal, which means tort law is the avenue of pursuit. If it's criminal as you say point me to the example you seem to perhaps be relying on to base your comments? Every infringement case I have ever seen or heard of is always a civil case, or show me the statute, any statute that makes such a case criminal. If there is one I will shut up. You or anyone would have to show me how you would be heard on any attempted suit over infringement on a photograph in the US without the image in question having been registered prior to any court action you would attempt to initiate. A consultation with a copyright attorney anyone? The registration is your evidence, it is a recorded PUBLIC RECORD. Without it you have no case in a tort (civil) proceeding except some cease desist leverage and a hope and a prayer the offender complies.
O gee, I don't know...how bout this one?
Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
..
§ 506. Criminal offenses6
(a) Criminal Infringement.
(1) In general. Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
It goes on for a page from there, with certain requirements and stipulations, like the person must have profited, each 180 days of infringement is a separate offence, things like that.
I myself have been involved in a copyright case that was prosecuted civilly and criminally, so yes, I have. The case involved an image of mine that was published in a book, without my permission. The image wasn't registered with the copyright office, however I had published the image prior. That was enough for the judge. I was awarded triple the compensation from the previous publication of the image, plus my expenses (I never saw a dime, collect-ability is a separate issue). There was a separate criminal case in which I was to be a witness, because the person had willfully stolen every image in the book. In my case the person plea bargained, and so never went to trial. I'm not sure (can't remember) how and by whom the person was charged. It was some time ago. I do have about five pounds of documents concerning the whole thing. It went on for over a year.
There have been more than a few prosecutions. I'm not going to look them up for you. As a matter of fact I'm done with this whole baby photo-lawyer thread, and it's armchair experts.
I would still like you to steer me directly to one particular criminal case so I can review the facts surrounding the case. I would think yours would be an easy one to direct us to. Thanks.
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?