Rdefen

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 4, 2006

Comments

Total: 163, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

sh10453: Judgments like this are sad.
The registration requirement is out of greed.
The government wants your money in any way they can find, even when are supposed to be automatically protected.

This forces photographers to publish their work with enough watermarks to render the published image unusable.

SAD !
Very bad !
Crooked Hillary.
Fake News.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2017 at 01:04 UTC
In reply to:

Maksim Yankovskiy: This means that in reality copyright is not a right, but a privilege. A privilege that you have to pay for. Sounds like a scam to make money out of nothing.

4creatives, you're incorrect.

You only need timely file (I.e., 17 USC 412 timeframes) if you want the remedies of statutory damages and/or award of your attorney fees.

You can register anytime you want during the term of copyright and then sue. But if you register after those timeframes you only get your actual damages.

Some people do OK with actual damages as the remedy:

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/15/federal-jury-awards-900k-plant-retailer-photo-theft-lawsuit/

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2017 at 01:03 UTC
In reply to:

DjarumBlack: Fundamentally, the website q and A is misleading. It says copyright protection from creation, but then says registration is required for legal action. Isn't legal action protection? What is protection then?

In practice, it requires registration for protection.

You're conflating rights and remedies.

You have all the section 106 rights from the moment of creation. As for remedies, it depends on the remedy. The seperate DMCA action doesn't require registration. If the work is a non-US work you can sue w/o registration. If it's a US work at issue and/or you want statutory damages + attorney fees you have to register. It's a drop in the bucket as far as cost compared to the cost of even filing a complaint let alone other litigation costs and lawyer fees.

If you find it unfair you might flip the coin and ask why you should be able to threaten someone with $30,000 of damages per work (or $150,000 for willful infringement) plus reimbursement of your attorney fees when your economic damage is small or even completely speculative. In most areas you have to prove your damages but if you register in a timely fashion you no longer have to do so to recover monies.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 22:10 UTC
In reply to:

Kaso: You see such behaviours, in various shades, all the time these day: me not happy, me throw a tandrum, me get on social media, me say nasty things, me destroy, me shoot, me kill... It happens from the top down, especially the top, in the US. It stems from lack of compassion. Hatred rules. All the hi-tech and people are no better. What happened to basic human decency?

I'm so glad photography (or, is it gear trading?) is my hobby, not livelihood.

FAKE NEWS ! Many people are saying it. Who knew it would be so complicated to screw people out of health care so you can cut taxes on the super rich. SAD !

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 03:53 UTC
In reply to:

sharkcookie: This case might have turned out good in the end (let's hope), but how many businesses have failed because of angry customers raging on social media and writing bad reviews? It's a sad side effect of our free online world. Anyone can make up their story and if told with great emotion people will blindly believe it. The consequences can be horrific for individuals and companies. This photographer might get $1 million, but in most cases proving a case like this is very difficult in court.

@sharkcookie "Anyone can make up their story and if told with great emotion people will blindly believe it. The consequences can be horrific for individuals and companies."

Why bring up POTUS. SAD !

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 03:51 UTC
In reply to:

Hanoise: Finally, a trial that came to a swift conclusion in a short time. Unlike the typical months and years long battle for justice that leaves the victim broke and battered.

Wuh ?

It's not the trial, in the rare event there is a trial, that takes a long time. It's the litigation process and it's been over 2 years from initiating the lawsuit to a verdict which is about par for the course. And it's not over until the time period for filing a notice of appeal has run.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 03:45 UTC
In reply to:

LincolnB: So... photos are not copyright protected until the registration process is complete WHICH TAKES 6-8 MONTHS.

Well. I guess if you need to use your own photograph in a timely manner, such as for photojournalism, you're screwed.

Wow, that is some serious gibberish you wrote. So much so I must ask you to please excuse me for ignoring any further posts from you on this particular topic.

Your post reminds me of the maxim that it takes an order of magnitude more effort to counter BS than it does to create it.

"Uniqueness" is not an element of a copyrighted work. Independent creation is all that is required to defeat a claim of copying.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 07:01 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Strange thing you are reading. Copyright is automatic. You do not need to register anything. But ... if you do register you will be treated differently in court. Bribe, anyone? Corruption, anyone?

BTW - I am skeptic to automatic Copyright. But, if it is, why is it not? I do not understand a bit of what I am reading, really.

Your decision is not where to shoot; it's whether or not you want your work protected in the US. If you don't care about infringement in the US then no need to register in the US.

You will not be alone. Very few photographers whether US based or not register their work in the US and it gets infringed with impunity,

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 06:40 UTC
In reply to:

dgumshu: I've got several descriptive adjectives to describe that idiot judge and his ignoramus frame of thought.

I've got one for someone who has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of a particular issue but criticizes someone knowledgeable about such issue.

A Trump Man !

MAGA !

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 05:07 UTC
In reply to:

RSColo: So, if I understand all this:

1. Take photos and do what you like with them. You can post them online, or print them, offer them for sale, etc.

2. You don't need to register your copyright for any of them...yet.

3. If you find someone else is using one or more of your images without your permission then you need to register that, or those, images with the copyright office. $55 cost.

4. Once copyright has been granted, sue the thieves!

You need to register prior to infringement or within 3 months of first publication if you want to request statutory damages and/or award of your attorney fees. This has been discussed around here tens of thousands of times.

Copyright is created automatically by statue the moment you create your photo. The Copyright Office registers copyrights and the Library of Congress collects all the deposit copies and stores them like the final scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 05:01 UTC

This isn't news. This has been the rule in the 2nd Circuit. There is nothing new here.

This reads like Trump's epiphany that health care is complicated. Yup, especially when you don't know ANYTHING about it nor have ANY interest in learning.

MAGA !

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 04:10 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SandySandy: It's Amazing how some judges in the United States are he'll bent on sending it back a few hundred centuries. Also, Intellectual Properties laws are made and ruled in favour of huge corporations like Disney, that can oush their Copyright for almost a hundred years, and smaller people have in effect, almost no rights.

Long live America

Another idiotic dpreview post.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 04:00 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Strange thing you are reading. Copyright is automatic. You do not need to register anything. But ... if you do register you will be treated differently in court. Bribe, anyone? Corruption, anyone?

BTW - I am skeptic to automatic Copyright. But, if it is, why is it not? I do not understand a bit of what I am reading, really.

Do you really care ? Promptly register your work in the US that you want protected in the US and it won't concern you.

Here is the legal issue: 17 U.S.C. 411(a) says "no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title."

The Circuit Courts (Federal Appellate Courts) take one of two approaches: (1) you need to have made an application or (2) you need a completed registration. The 2nd Circuit takes the latter approach. This case was filed in a Disrrict Court within the 2nd Circuit.

Fascinating, eh ?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 03:58 UTC
In reply to:

LincolnB: So... photos are not copyright protected until the registration process is complete WHICH TAKES 6-8 MONTHS.

Well. I guess if you need to use your own photograph in a timely manner, such as for photojournalism, you're screwed.

Lincoln, copyright initially vests in the author at the moment of fixation. Period. Translation: The moment you create your photo it is copyrighted.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 03:40 UTC
In reply to:

zakk9: It's a sad development that the USA has chosen not to follow international practices in this area. In most other countries, copyright is a given once something has been created. The groundwork for this was laid already in 1886 with the Berne Convention.

Copyright is a "given" here as well. If you don't think we're in compliance with Berne or other IP treaties you can take it up with the WTO. MAGA !

More seriously, you don't have to register non-US work to sue. But you don't get the extra damages goodies. Yes, the US has always been ambivalent concerning copyright formalities.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 03:38 UTC
In reply to:

mike earussi: What this actually means is that anyone is free to steal your work and use it anyway they want, and unless you pay $35/image and wait up to 13 months it's a waste of your time to sue because you won't get anything.

Nice to know how well the government is protecting our interests.

Actually all it means is in the 2nd Circuit post-commencement of lawsuit registrations will not automatically be read into the complaint and the plaintiff should seek amendment of the complaint if Plaintiff doesn't have a completed or rejected registration. Practically, you would seek expedited registration ($800) from the Copuright Office so you can meet the Judges time frame to refile.

Yes, you do need to register to sue and register within the applicable time frame for statutory damages and attorney fees. If you don't want to pay the $55 to register then you're out of luck as far as infringement claims. You may still pursue the DMCA claim.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 03:26 UTC
In reply to:

Rdefen: That one horrendous act in 2001 seems to be paying perpetual dividends.

@cosi, because championing the alt-right lunatics while simultaneously "deconstructing the administrative state" is a tall order. So if the guy wants to try to suck his own cock and build his brand a bit -- well it's still a free country. We don't need The Port Washington Enforcer making things even more difficult for the poor guy.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 03:01 UTC
In reply to:

Rdefen: That one horrendous act in 2001 seems to be paying perpetual dividends.

Can we all at least agree that Steve Bannon has the right to try to suck his own cock ? I don't know why The Mooch (aka MiniTrumpMe) has put a target on Bannon do to an unorthodox hobby.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 01:47 UTC
In reply to:

Rdefen: That one horrendous act in 2001 seems to be paying perpetual dividends.

No, I meant the killing. The Patriot Act was the first dividend. I remember not a single member of Congress knew what the heck was in when they voted to pass it. At least with healthcare one old white turtle knows what's in it.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

barrym1966: Hmm TSA may ask all of you Nikon users why they can see Sony sensors inside

Nikon. This is what you want. Sony guts.

https://youtu.be/nb_R1VZqLcE

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 06:53 UTC
Total: 163, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »