[Recovered Thread: 43057]

[MrPogo]

eric s wrote:

-If you want to sue, you need to have registered your picture.

I really, really didn't think the last one was right, but it is listed exactly as Bradg said. In very plain English. I could swear that I've heard of people suing who didn't actually register their picture. I know someone I can ask about this who has a copyright lawyer on retainer.

Though the way I understand it there is you can register your work at any time, so there is no real need to until you intend to sue.



Kalypso wrote:

I have seen an article (not sure where, but I will try to find the link), that claimed you can submit an unlimited number of items for registeration. I believe the author stated that you could submit a CD full of thumbnails all for the $30.00 fee.

I didn't see it on the US Copyright site...here's what they say:

Two or more individual works may be registered with one application and fee as follows:

Unpublished Works

A group of unpublished works may be registered as a collection if all the following conditions are met.

* The elements of the collection are assembled in an orderly form.
* The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole.
* The copyright claimant or claimants for each element in the collection are the same.
* All the elements are by the same author, or if they are by different authors, at least one author has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element.

And to me that says the article is correct. A CD full of thumb nails (though it would be sensible to use the full size images in a selection of CDs) could all be registered wth one fee if labled collectively as "John Smith's Photography Archive" or similar.



EDIT: as the site you linked to says. Should have read it earlier

[eric s]

My friend with the copyright laywer on retainer suggested (to him) that it was "better" (i.e. you can sue for more) if you register them one at a time, but that being so expensive they suggested doing it in small batches.

Now, was that the laywer speaking or the legal precident speaking I don't know. But it stuck in my mind as both useful info and odd.

Registering after the infraction seems a little like bolting the barn door after the horses have left. In other words "well, I hadn't declared that they were worth enough to me to register until after I found out that others found value in them and stole them." That just sounds like iffy legal grounds.

But I'm certainly no lawyer, so what do I know?

Kalypso, thanks for that link. I'll try to read it later tonight. Looks very interesting.

Eric

[Kenny_Leong]

eric s wrote:

*snip*
Registering after the infraction seems a little like bolting the barn door after the horses have left.*snip*

Eric

yah...but on the other hand..you could just say you registered (ie ..you register after you find someone violating), and THEN say that somebody had violated the copyright, even though you know that they violated before you registered.

[MrPogo]

eric s wrote:

Registering after the infraction seems a little like bolting the barn door after the horses have left. In other words "well, I hadn't declared that they were worth enough to me to register until after I found out that others found value in them and stole them." That just sounds like iffy legal grounds.

But I'm certainly no lawyer, so what do I know?

Kalypso, thanks for that link. I'll try to read it later tonight. Looks very interesting.

Eric

To quote that website:

"By registering works with the Library of Congress within either three months of the first publication or before the infringement occurs, copyright owners become eligible to recover statutory damages and attorney fees against infringers."

So the law gives you three months to register them after your copyright has been infringed, so they obviouslyconsider it perfectly validforpeople to register just to then persue a case.

[eric s]

MrPogo
Either you made a typeo, or you misspoke.
The text of that post says "... or before the infringement occurs" This could be an argument of linguists (a great thing for the courts!) but I would read that to mean that you must have already regsitered before the infringement.

But with my dyslexia, I certainly don't claim to be an english scholar. (And having to register 3 months before an infringement doesn't make sense either... so I don't exactly like my interpretation.)

Either way, this has been a useful and informative thread.

Eric

[bradg]

i doubt i am right, but maybe it means you have 3 months to register after it happened?

[Kenny_Leong]

I reckon that if you have the largest resolution original (and the culprit has the reduced sized one) then you should have everything wrapped up. I mean... if somebody posts their largest resolution original onto the internet without stamps and things etc, then they're just asking for it right?

[photosbyvito]

hmm...3 months after would be pretty tough for the guys using your images without permission!

if it were like that (not saying it isn't!) then you wouldn't have to copyright until you know someones stole it...

then you can spend the 30 bucks to register it, and then make the money in the sue...

lol, it sounds like we need to find a friend in the copyright office

Vito

[MrPogo]

eric s wrote:

MrPogo
Either you made a typeo, or you misspoke.
The text of that post says "... or before the infringement occurs" This could be an argument of linguists (a great thing for the courts!) but I would read that to mean that you must have already regsitered before the infringement.

But with my dyslexia, I certainly don't claim to be an english scholar. (And having to register 3 months before an infringement doesn't make sense either... so I don't exactly like my interpretation.)

Either way, this has been a useful and informative thread.

Eric

Fully it says "within either three months of the first publication or before the infringement occurs". In this case the first publication referred to is the first publication of the infringing copyright (as indicated by the "OR before infringement occurs"), so if someone infringes your copyright on January 1st, you have until April 1st - three months after the infringing item was published - in which to register with the copyright agency.

And yes, that is pretty tough on the guys infringing on the copyright, exactly the way it should be

MrPogo wrote:

Fully it says "within either three months of the first publication or before the infringement occurs". In this case the first publication referred to is the first publication of the infringing copyright (as indicated by the "OR before infringement occurs"), so if someone infringes your copyright on January 1st, you have until April 1st - three months after the infringing item was published - in which to register with the copyright agency.

And yes, that is pretty tough on the guys infringing on the copyright, exactly the way it should be

Wow...this preoccupation of misunderstanding clearly written english is becoming weird!

PUBLICATION does NOT equal INFRINGMENT!

Publication is when an image is published (MADE PUBLIC)! Infringement is when someone actually USES an image for which they DO NOT OWN THE COPYRIGHT!