This link was just posted in a discussion on another forum that I'm on and since I have prints of some of my photography for sale on Imagekind, I couldn't help but wonder if some publisher could file legal action against a photographer to take ownership and put the photographer out of business.
Imitator Sues Artist to Overturn Copyright on Sculptural Art
I know the US copyright law states that the creator possesses a copyright by simply producing a work, regardless of filing an official copyright or even simply labelling the work with the traditional © symbol and including their name and date of creation. With my own photography, I limit access to printable image sizes, but have not thought any more regarding securing an official copyright.
The problem that the court case described on this link is that it sounds like anyone desiring to use a work for their own profit is legally capable of overturning even a filed and secured copyright. We've all heard of cases where photography was stolen and used without permission of the photographer, but this seems to be on a whole other scale. I do realize that the case described pertains to sculptural art, but when things are brought in court, would the form even matter ?
Bookmarks