Copyright and the law?

[cdiver2]

I was under the impression that once a photograph had a © on it was protected but after reading the link below I don't think so. It seem,s the symbol is not enough, the photograph has to be registered and a copy submitted as well. Your thoughts (after reading)

http://www.photoattorney.com/

The article also bring out the point that if you do a slide show/video clip and put music to it, show it at your dive club or post it on SB then you may be infringing on copyright if that music is copyrighted. Something to think about.

Photo competitions read the terms well. Every one has its own conditions of entry, some get the rights to winning photos some get the rights to all entry's, hear is a link to some competition's and there terms.

http://www.divephotoguide.com/contests.php

This also applies to some of the free photo album web sights, they may have rights to your photos.

 

[fdog]

My understanding, from the newspaper's attorney, is that indeed to have some teeth you have to register. However, the copyright symbol, name and date establishes your intent to register as well as the date of origination.

So, if someone infringes, you register and sue.

IIRC, the legal requirement to use the symbol and notice was waived in the late 80's. I recall a big hubub over the changes to marking prints. I still do it, though.

All the best, James

 

[fdog]

Besides, it would be my expectation that an attorney's web site would imply that you'd be defenseless without the use of their (expensive) services...

All the best, James

 

[cdiver2]

My understanding, from the newspaper's attorney, is that indeed to have some teeth you have to register. However, the copyright symbol, name and date establishes your intent to register as well as the date of origination.

So, if someone infringes, you register and sue.

IIRC, the legal requirement to use the symbol and notice was waived in the late 80's. I recall a big hubub over the changes to marking prints. I still do it, though.

All the best, James

is if it is not registered (with a copy) then its is not protected, the date again as I understand it is the date it was registered once this is done you are then protected for 75 years after your death.
You may be right about the attorney but with my knowledge of law I,m in no position to second guess.

 

[fdog]

I'm with you, cdiver2, I certainly am not an attorney, and am in no position to second gueass. So for me, he says it, I believe it.

Hey, he got me out of having to turn over all my negs once in a lawsuit. How cool is that?

All the best, James

 

[cdiver2]

I'm with you, cdiver2, I certainly am not an attorney, and am in no position to second gueass. So for me, he says it, I believe it.

Hey, he got me out of having to turn over all my negs once in a lawsuit. How cool is that?

All the best, James

the story on some one trying to get your negs?. I came across an article the other day that mentioned *International copy right* so I am now wondering if there are two forms of copy right US and International.

 

[pete340]

is if it is not registered (with a copy) then its is not protected, the date again as I understand it is the date it was registered once this is done you are then protected for 75 years after your death.
You may be right about the attorney but with my knowledge of law I,m in no position to second guess.

A creative work (writing, photograph, whatever) is born with copyright protection. You don't have to do anything to get it. The advantage of adding the copyright symbol, as that web site says, is that it makes it harder for someone to claim that they didn't know it was copyrighted. And the advantage of registering the copyright is that even if you can't prove actual damages you can still recover "statutory" damages for an infringement.

 

[ShakaZulu]

Then it should be illegal too to add the copyright symbol if it's not really protected.

 

[cdiver2]

A creative work (writing, photograph, whatever) is born with copyright protection. You don't have to do anything to get it. The advantage of adding the copyright symbol, as that web site says, is that it makes it harder for someone to claim that they didn't know it was copyrighted. And the advantage of registering the copyright is that even if you can't prove actual damages you can still recover "statutory" damages for an infringement.

Do you have any reference's to this?

 

[fdog]

Cdiver2, the story behind the lawsuit:

I shot photos at a vehicle accident. It was published in the paper. As I recall, it was a minor thing, buried at page 5 or something.

Anyway, a whopping time later, I'm served, to cough up all the negs from that accident, plus others on a fishing expedition. The newspaper's attorney advised me to refuse, so I did.

I was then sued to gain the negs. Never really made it to court, the Judge dismissed the case at the first hearing, 1st Ammendment.

A pretty scary experience overall. For all the bad reputation Gannett has as an employer, they were great; didn't cost me a dime, I actually was paid my usual salary while I was in court and depositions.

Back to the copyright thing. IIRC there was something said about images you create are your property. You don't have to register them to make them yours. This was a change quite a while ago, I remember all of us scratching our heads and saying "really?". Anyway, the same lawyer that saved my bacon told us we didn't have to stamp the copyright stuff anymore, so, he carries some credibility with me.

All the best, James