Copyright registration

[cyrus]

So a full year after I sent in my copyright application along with a CD containing the images to be registered, I get a letter from the "Triage" division of the LOC telling me that they so radiation-zapped the letter that the CD is now unreadable.

Oh well, there goes $45. I also sent printouts of the images so I am assuming that the copyright was registered nonetheless, thought they don't mention that.

The good news is that they say it will soon be possible to register your copyrights online. I highly recommend this but I think it would be better to send in a hard copy -- archival, too. It will last longer than jpegs ever will.

but in the meantime, don't bother sending electronic media. I can't imagine what sort of radiation they use, but if it damages CDRoms then nothing else can survive it either.

[Joanna Carter]

I don't know where you live, but here in the UK, there is no need to "register" copyright. Copyright always rests with the photographer and can be proven by keeping the original image in a safe place. Why would you want to pay someone to register an image that you can already prove is yours ?

[gregstidham]

cyrus,
I'm curious how you sent your registration into the district, USPS or ? Thanks.

[tim atherton]

I don't know where you live, but here in the UK, there is no need to "register" copyright. Copyright always rests with the photographer and can be proven by keeping the original image in a safe place. Why would you want to pay someone to register an image that you can already prove is yours ?

In the US, registration gives the creator a huge advantage in the case of taking an infringement case to court (in fact without registration, there's almost no point in going to court)

Among several other things, registration allows for the finding of statutory damages (up to $150,000? per infringement)

[jetcode]

In the US, registration gives the creator a huge advantage in the case of taking an infringement case to court (in fact without registration, there's almost no point in going to court)

Among several other things, registration allows for the finding of statutory damages (up to $150,000? per infringement)

Can you point to specific cases where this is true? If an image can be traced to an original source and imaging seems reliable in this aspect the evidence should be obvious in a court of law.

[tim atherton]

Can you point to specific cases where this is true? If an image can be traced to an original source and imaging seems reliable in this aspect the evidence should be obvious in a court of law.

which bit Joe?

[tim atherton]

There's some good links to copyright info for photogs here

http://www.editorialphoto.com/copyright/

and Pt 2 of this page has a bit on why register

http://www.editorialphoto.com/copyright/primer.asp

basically, if the work is unregistered and you are some form of professional photographer, you win an infringement case (no sure thing), you will probably be awarded something like the usage fees for that image if they had paid for it up front. Among other things, you will have to prove what the actual damages to you are.

Now, your legal fees will probably be way more than that. (in my experience you will be hard put to find a lawyer who will take on such a case).

But if it's registered and you win, depending on the circumstances, the damages will probably be somewhat higher ( to much higher, if you are lucky, depending on a whole range of circumstances), they aren't necessarily related directly to any damage you suffered, and your costs are usually covered.

That's some of the benefits.

Basically, by registration, a whole set of extra protections come into play over and above the normal, basic (Berne Convention level) copyright protection.

It's sort of like buying that extra 5 year insurance plan when you buy your big screen TV - only it costs far less....


Of course, all this is aside from the normal legal/courtroom machinations and any infringer making successful use of any one of the many legal exceptions to copyright infringements.

[tim atherton]

another good explanation here:

http://www.publaw.com/advantage.html

(makes a further good point I'd forgotten, which I've experienced first hand with a photo agency I was part of - most cases are settled out of court. Images where the copyright has been registered will give you a much bigger hammer and a greater chance of a positive settlement)

[claudiocambon]

basically, if the work is unregistered and you are some form of professional photographer, you win an infringement case (no sure thing), you will probably be awarded something like the usage fees for that image if they had paid for it up front. Among other things, you will have to prove what the actual damages to you are.

Now, your legal fees will probably be way more than that. (in my experience you will be hard put to find a lawyer who will take on such a case).

But if it's registered and you win, depending on the circumstances, the damages will probably be somewhat higher ( to much higher, if you are lucky, depending on a whole range of circumstances), they aren't necessarily related directly to any damage you suffered, and your costs are usually covered.

I concur with Tim. If you have a valid case for copyright infringement, a registered copyright is your ticket to a swift judgment. If you pull that out in front of a judge, the defendant won't have much to say, and you are more likely to walk away with either a quick settlement or a summary judgment.

Not having registered copyright is not a bad thing, like not having homeowner's insurance or some other risky exposure to a liability, because you are very protected anyway, but without a registered copyright you are more likely to get bogged down in an expensive and cumbersome legal process that is time and money -inefficient.

[cyrus]

I don't know where you live, but here in the UK, there is no need to "register" copyright. Copyright always rests with the photographer and can be proven by keeping the original image in a safe place. Why would you want to pay someone to register an image that you can already prove is yours ?

That's true in the US to -- the creator automatically has copyright protection. However, as others have point out, by registering the copyright with the government, you get certain other benefits that are well worth the price (especially since you can register an unlimited number of photographs with each single registration fee.)

For example, registering copyright makes it much easier to assert a copyright claim in court against a copyright violator since you don't have to prove that you're the creator of the photo (you enjoy the legal presumption of being the copyright holder.) Note that just because you happen to have a photograph - or even the original negative -- doesn't really "prove" that you own the copyright in that photograph (the photo itself, and the legal copyright claim to the photo, are two different things - you can potentially own one but not the other. I own an Evans print, I don't own the copyright to it) and anyway paying a lawyer to prove that you own the copyright (even if easily provable) is a lot more expensive ($300/hr) than simply registering your copyright in the first place.

AND if you register the copyright, you don't have to prove damages (aka money) caused by a copyright violator -- rather, you're entitled to pre-set statutory damages that are quite substantial. Proving damages can be quite hard and expensive (imagine having to hire an accountant and economist to determine how much monetary harm you suffered as a result of someone misappropriating your photograph - if at all.)

Thus, it is always a good idea to register your copyright claims.