I'm assuming that the Game is sold worldwide, sue in multiple market areas, US copyright laws suck compared to the rest of the civilized world where as soon as you press the button the image is yours completely and remains so for your heirs until 70 years after your death, no need to register and this right can not be transferred to others, you can release the economic right to someone else but the copyright is yours for that period of time. Before you settle for US compensation only see where you stand internationally. I just settled a local matter where 8 of my images were used without my permission and all I can say it was worth any time I spent on the issue, tens of thousands times over in fact
Stand up for your rights, all too many of us lay down and just get angry without action.

Nice image and very nice choice of subject matter by the way.

Good luck and go get'em.

Yeah I agree, this is in my opinion (though I'm only used to Finnish copyright, which is a whole lot better than the US) a clear cut case in your favor. If someone was to use my images without my permission, I'd beat them till they bleed literally speaking of course.

Meeting with an Intellectual Property Lawyer on Tuesday.

Baldur wrote:
I'm assuming that the Game is sold worldwide, sue in multiple market areas, US copyright laws suck compared to the rest of the civilized world.

Right...

Try asking what Canadians think of their copyright laws...

No kidding, HinduG. Every job I do has it written into the contract that I own the image.

Ken

Baldur wrote:
I'm assuming that the Game is sold worldwide, sue in multiple market areas, US copyright laws suck compared to the rest of the civilized world where as soon as you press the button the image is yours completely and remains so for your heirs until 70 years after your death, no need to register and this right can not be transferred to others, you can release the economic right to someone else but the copyright is yours for that period of time

Uh, in the US, as soon as you take the picture, you own the copyright until 70 years after your death...sounds like you Swedes just stole your copyright laws from the US.

It is now 11 days since the original post and no letter has been sent to the infringer by an IP attorney. That is simply lazy. If this were my image (has happed 3 times to me), I would have had an attorney reviewing my case on the 6th of March and a letter sent that day. At the same time I would have been registering the image with the USCO - (yes Hindu and Baldur) it is required that the image be copyrighted prior to litigation as the attorney will not take the case if he/she cannot recoup their fees and expenses.

This is just plain lazy and quite frankly if I were their attorney viewing this thread I would be thrilled as it clearly defines your weakness and lack of conviction in collecting what is due to you.

Duncan

Hindu - why would you screw over a photogrpher on FM? Sending this information to the potential defenders of the case only gives them the upper hand.

I'm glad we aren't friends or colleagues.

Duncan

Tagging along for the ride,
Michael

Duncan Staples wrote:
Hindu - why would you screw over a photogrpher on FM? Sending this information to the potential defenders of the case only gives them the upper hand.

I'm glad we aren't friends or colleagues.

Duncan

Did I send this information to THQ? I wasn't aware that I did. Also my friends know how to spell photographer.

Hindu, seriously....

you took the guys court case and threw it to the public.

I, as well, am glad that you and I are not friends or collegues.

Duncan Staples wrote:
Hindu - why would you screw over a photogrpher on FM? Sending this information to the potential defenders of the case only gives them the upper hand.

I'm glad we aren't friends or colleagues.

Duncan


I think this is a misperception. I looked up Kotaku (and I am glad I could make them laugh), and it is does not have anything to do with the manufacturer of the game. It is an open forum to discuss video games. They are completely independent of any video game maker as far as I can tell. I believe HinduG was trying to gather support from another area and try to help add pressure to video game company in question.

Let's not take someone trying to be helpful and rake them over the coals...


(Mitchel...jump on the bandwagon much?)

NickyD wrote:
Duncan Staples wrote:
Hindu - why would you screw over a photogrpher on FM? Sending this information to the potential defenders of the case only gives them the upper hand.

I'm glad we aren't friends or colleagues.

Duncan


I think this is a misperception. I looked up Kotaku (and I am glad I could make them laugh), and it is does not have anything to do with the manufacturer of the game. It is an open forum to discuss video games. They are completely independent of any video game maker as far as I can tell. I believe HinduG was trying to gather support from another area and try to help add pressure to video game company in question.

Let's not take someone trying to be helpful and rake them over the coals...


While I agree with this it still would have probably been polite to check with the OP beforehand.

Anyway, I'm also interested in seeing how this turns out.

NickyD wrote:
(Mitchel...jump on the bandwagon much?)

I quoted Duncan,only for the part he put perfectly.

I didnt quote him, however, when he said that Hindu sent the info to potential defenders.

I looked up Kotaku as well and yes, it is a community of gamers, I know. The 'report' has a very news-like look to it, and it details the picture, the companies in question, and the photographer who is involved. Included is a link to this post which details a timeline of events regarding the photographer and his actions, advice from other photographers and on attorney i.e. who may or may not have a strong part of the case (folgers allusion), some good moves to make for success....and the whole rest of the story.....

I dont know what size this gaming company is, but if they are of a decent size, they may have already caught wind of the story and begun work on SQUASHING the case before settlement, resulting in completely ripping off the photographer. I bet some serious money went into the gear, time, and talent for this shoot, not to mention other costs and taxes later on...

When I first read the post:

HinduG wrote:
Wow. I just sent this in to Kotaku. Hopefully they follow up on it.

I was suprised. It could be true that Kotaku has a history of protecting a photographers rights in the misuse of a photo, ya never know right? I doubt it. I dont really know the details of what Kotaku does, however, I thought it was a bad thing because the OP is beginning a legal case with this! I would consider it quite rude to spread around the details of anyone's new and growing case.

I feel like Hindu, in essence, has said, "Hey world [including the gaming company in question]! Check this out! There will probably be a lawsuit here! Whaddya think?"

In defense of the gaming company which, in my opinion is thieving from the OP, violating copyright law and being plain down-and-dirty, the OP might have wanted to keep the entire case secret. But he began by asking advice......

So there are my knowledge and my thoughts on the issue.

My feelings?
I would not really like to be the collegue of someone who would blunder like that to my detriment. Friends? nah. There just as much confidentiality between friends as there is between collegues, just a different subject matter.

So, I quote Duncan

Duncan Staples wrote:
Hindu - why would you screw over a photogrpher on FM? Sending this information to the potential defenders of the case only gives them the upper hand.

I'm glad we aren't friends or colleagues.

Duncan

No, I dont jump on the bandwagon much.

Thank you.

Mitch

p.s. I would like to state again that it is probably quite rude to spread around the details of anyone's legal cases. Photographers at times on FM do have legal cases and discuss them with each other and include details. IMO those are not details that we should not disclose to other media/forums. That is, of course, my opinion......

Edited by Mitchel107 on Mar 21, 2008 at 12:45 PM GMT (Reason: added p.s.)

Mitchel107 wrote:
NickyD wrote:
(Mitchel...jump on the bandwagon much?)

I quoted Duncan,only for the part he put perfectly.

I dont know what size this gaming company is, but if they are of a decent size, they may have already caught wind of the story and begun work on SQUASHING the case before settlement, resulting in completely ripping off the photographer. I bet some serious money went into the gear, time, and talent for this shoot, not to mention other costs and taxes later on...

When I first read the post:

HinduG wrote:
Wow. I just sent this in to Kotaku. Hopefully they follow up on it.

I was suprised. It could be true that Kotaku has a history of protecting a photographers rights in the misuse of a photo, ya never know right? I doubt it. I dont really know the details of what Kotaku does, however, I thought it was a bad thing because the OP is beginning a legal case with this! I would consider it quite rude to spread around the details of anyone's new and growing case.

I feel like Hindu, in essence, has said, "Hey world [including the gaming company in question]! Check this out! There will probably be a lawsuit here! Whaddya think?"

In defense of the gaming company which, in my opinion is thieving from the OP, violating copyright law and being plain down-and-dirty, the OP might have wanted to keep the entire case secret. But he began by asking advice......

So there are my knowledge and my thoughts on the issue.

My feelings?
I would not really like to be the collegue of someone who would blunder like that to my detriment. Friends? nah. There just as much confidentiality between friends as there is between collegues, just a different subject matter.



Yet, you have no problem when we discuss here on Fred Miranda for the world to see... nice recovery though.

This is almost a full page of off topic crap. my first post in this thread was only 3 lines.

I typed out all of my next post to try and explain why I said what I said.

Are you trolling?

Yeah, US copyright law is great, in essence you don't have any rights unless you register the image, until then you can get #%€#ed over by all and everyone.

I'm not Swedish and I'm not talking about Swedish law, I'm talking about the Geneva and Berne conventions on copyright which the US has not agreed to but most of the civilized world has and there you are the creator of any work you do from the moment of capture, the burden of proof is easier for the creator, we have tens of thousands of images in our collections, do you register every single one of them?

I agree with Baldur.
Even though it really strengthens your hold on copyright to register every image, and even though you can register copyright in bulk, I think it would end up costing photographers tens of thousands of dollars per year to register each and every photo....

Mitchel107 wrote:

I agree with Baldur.
Even though it really strengthens your hold on copyright to register every image, and even though you can register copyright in bulk, I think it would end up costing photographers tens of thousands of dollars per year to register each and every photo....

Absolutely correct.

If we could only get EVERYONE to play by the rules ... we wouldn't even need copyright laws .... or lawyers.

*ahem*

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-register.html#multiple

It's $45 for regular filing or $35 on-line for a *collection* of work. You can register one year's worth of photos on a CD labelled "Photos 2007", if you could fit them all on one cd-rom and none of them were previously published (or if not published more than 90 days before filing) for $45.

Let's not try to mislead anyone on how much registration costs.

You have the same rights whether you register or not. You have the option of certain additional remedies for infringement (statutory damages and recovery of attorney fees) if you register in a timely fashion. There are other procedural advantages to both a copyright notice and/or registration.

The US signed on to Berne around 20 years ago. Berne would not regulate matters of burden of proof in a copyright action.

If you file a timely registration of US copyright then the copyright certificate is prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

You can do a group registration. $45.

Only on an internet board like this would the US be chided for having TOO WEAK ! copyright protections compared with the rest of, to quote Baldur, "civilized world".

The US is apparently the modern day boogeyman. Whatever you want it to be. Too strong. Too weak. Too anything or not enough. The cause or cure of anything and everything.

It is not my intention to insult you and your countrymen TT but the fact is that one as a single person going up against large companies in any legal matter is not made easier when you have to register (for a payment) your rights to the work you create. The fact is that the US did not sign the Berne convention until 1989, that is a 103 years after the establishment of the convention and then did not implement all the rights that the Berne convention established.

"The United States only provided copyright protection for a fixed, renewable term, and required that in order for a work to be copyrighted it must contain a copyright notice and be registered at the Copyright Office. The Berne Convention, on the other hand, provided for copyright protection for a single term based on the life of the author, and did not require registration or the inclusion of a copyright notice for copyright to exist. Thus the United States would have to make several major modifications to its copyright law in order to become a party to it. At the time the United States was unwilling to do so."

The US still does not comply to the full Berne convention since they did not sign the original agreement but only the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 and does not follow the Universal Copyright Convention adopted in Geneva in 1952 in full.

This is no small matter to us as photographers and that I think is the issue, as for what else the US stands for in modern times is beside the point and a subject which is interesting in itself but this is hardly the forum for that discussion.

The process of having to register your work that according to international law is yours is what I alluded to and there the US is behind the curve in the western world, the fact that there are huge nations that ignore this is also a fact but also beside the point. My simple intention was for the OP to look into his rights on a wider basis since the game is probably sold outside of the States and therefore he may well have the option to demand a higher settlement.

I assure you I took no insult and can't imagine why you thought I did but appreciate your comment anyway.

Not sure why you included the quote. It's historical.

The US complies with Berne which sets out certain minimum protections.

What is the "THIS" in "this is no small matter"? What SPECIFIC PROVISIONS of Berne are you under the impression the US has not adopted ?

"The process of having to register your work that according to international law is yours is what I alluded to and there the US is behind the curve in the western world"

Please read my original post. You are simply incorrect. Registration is not required. You get all the rights of copyright from the moment your work is "fixed in tangible form." Or in the case of photography, as Joe McNally might say, from the moment you click.

As for registration. We get to fill the stacks of the library of congress and in return we get access to the courts and ADDITIONAL remedies. We don't have to prove actual damages. We can petition the court for statutory damages. Focusing the legal minds of even the largest corporations who may otherwise conclude that actual damages are too puny for the little guy to warrant a lawsuit in a US District Court. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

NickyD wrote:
*ahem*

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-register.html#multiple

It's $45 for regular filing or $35 on-line for a *collection* of work. You can register one year's worth of photos on a CD labelled "Photos 2007", if you could fit them all on one cd-rom and none of them were previously published (or if not published more than 90 days before filing) for $45.

Let's not try to mislead anyone on how much registration costs.

Awesome. I'll go and check out www.copyright.gov and find out how much it costs to back up your copyright more often. Thanks for the link
Mitch

Hi again TT, good to know I didn't step on your toes.
My impression has been that there are certain hoops you have to jump through in order to get the same copyright protection in the US that we take for granted on this side of the pond, while I was at school (this was 15 years ago so much may have changed) in the States we were informed that we needed to assert our copyright by using the © mark on all of our images and that we needed to register the image otherwise our right as the Intellectual Property Creator was not established and that the property was up for grabs.

The "This" I was referring to was the whole copyright issue as a whole and the impact it has on our rights as creators of intellectual property and works of art, although much of what we do isn't masterpiece standard but often filler material in catalogues and junk mail the right we have to that work should be written in stone, in the presentation of material you find on copyright it appears that the US has chosen not to follow all of the agreements that have been reached about international copyright although they are part of most of the agreements, albeit with reservation and certain separate clouses that have to do with the fact that US copyright law was and is to my understanding different than many of those agreements.

"Please read my original post. You are simply incorrect. Registration is not required. You get all the rights of copyright from the moment your work is "fixed in tangible form." Or in the case of photography, as Joe McNally might say, from the moment you click."

I stand corrected, if this is true then all the better.

I'm actually waiting for the mailman to deliver a nice five number check from a large company that decided it "owned" my images and used them in their annual reports and websites for 4 years, after 7 months of harsh letters to and fro a settlement was reached a couple of weeks ago and I'm taking a vacation this summer for the first time in 4 years.