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.
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.
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
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.
Technically, as TT states, the US has adopted the same laws.
In practice however, in order to get the maximum allowable statutory damages which are in 6 figures, the work must be registered. If it's not registered, the creator is entitled only to their typical license fee for the offending use. Depending what that fee is, the attorney either won't take the case or the creator will be spending way more money than he will receive in court.
Check out the first two links, then check out the next two links...
OH MY GAWD!!! U GAVE AWAI MAI CASE ON THE INTERNETS!!!!
Perhaps my judgment was off. My intent was to get pressure from the Kotaku staff who have direct contacts with pretty much everyone in the gaming industry. Most of their posts that expose this sort of nonsense carry a lot of weight, which in turn brings about a positive result (THQ contacting the OP and trying to get this matter resolved ASAP), as Kotaku is widely read, and generally well respected in the gaming world.
Now that we've gotten this straightened out...I'm flattered that you would consider being my friend--even though you ultimately had to have someone else make that decision for you, but I have to confess: I don't befriend people who aren't clever enough to come up with their own personal insults.
Relying on 15 year old information with respect to legal matters is probably not prudent.
You don't have to register or place a notice on your work to establish a copyright in the US (though there are other reasons to do both).
Copyright in the US is a statutory creation and requires no action by the author of the work.
The Copyright Act states in Section 102(a) "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression..."
Bingo !
The real beef might be directed to the fact that it's expensive to bring a lawsuit in a federal district court and that is the only place you can bring a claim in the US relating to copyright. But it's offset somewhat by the fact that if you register (which you have to before using the court to sue) you can get statutory damages (you don't have to prove the amount of damages to request up to $30,000 per non-willful infringement or $150,000 per willful) and recover attorney fees.
Those are some pretty big numbers. And may allow even the weakest litigant to go after the largest, strongest defendant. Though it equally allows the strong (see, e.g., RIAA) to go after the weak (some kid downloading and distributing a song) for similar amounts.
Copyright legislation is biased towards the benefit of the offender.
Imagine: Steal a car; get caught; your fine is the depreciation incurred while the car was in your possession. Steal the Mona Lisa; your fine is the amount that the Louvre lost in ticket sales due to a decline in ticket sales to people that specifically wanted to see the Mona Lisa while you had it. Steal your your neighbor's old TV; if you only use it to show the technology of the 70s to college kids, you won't even get fined.
Basically, if you don't register your images within 90 days, you are entitled only to what the thief should have paid you in the first place. Pretty neat deal for a crook.
I actually tried the "So I go to your house and steal your car while you sleep" argument on the oppositions lawyer in december.
Total and abolute blank.......
He made no connection to the images the company he was working for and their unlawful use of my images, a total and absolute intellectual dead end.
He did settle two months later but he never mentioned his car though. Maybe I should have dragged up my sleeves and let the tattoos peek out while I mentioned his car...... who knows
A corporation started to produce the same product my Gpa protected through copyright. 3 years in court. Grandpa finally won with $28,000 compensation (think in the 1950's now...)
Though...court and lawyer costs were exactly 28k as well. Made nothing to justify the right.
Now, I'm not telling you to NOT go after him -- do so, and justify yourself -- but think about overall costs. Big companies are tricky in court...
