Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/05/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank,Perhaps some more data will help explain the pain. Under current law, if an image is registered a photographer has tremendous power. Specifically, you send a demand letter for what for you is three times normal usage. If they fail to pay then you take them to court; the current default damages rate is in excess of $300,000 per instance of theft. Lawyers will take these cases on contingency as with a registered image there is almost no defense. (Congress changed the law on or about 1987 so that no marking was necessary on the work of art to prove damages; this was mostly for Disney as the mouse was going out of copywrite). The new law is in response to some unfairness in the previous revision, but again the rich and powerful do not want the expense of paying for stealing other peoples work. With some revisions it could be a useful compromise in protecting producers while finding a middle ground for those who mistakenly use an image that is copywritten. On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Frank Filippone <red735i@earthlink.net> wrote: > The copyright office is big, and registering all the photos outside the > agency sounds like outsourcing to me. > > If a legitimate user is paying you for use of your photos, then with or > without the law, he will continue to pay you. If he is not paying you > now, > he will not pay you in the future. It is an issue of ethics, not dollars. > > My point was that it standardizes registration, declares that your image > is > registered in a place, date, and with an independent "agency" that is not > subject to any interpretation. They used the photo, without looking up > the > registration, and they did that without your permission. All you ( > generic > you) have now is a cute symbol on the photo. > > So let's say that someone used your photo without your permission. You > catch them. How do you collect? You send them a bill for use. They do > not pay. You get to hire a lawyer ( money spent), sue them officially ( > money spent), and win. How do you collect beyond even the use costs? The > focus is on a) getting some cash out of them and b) getting them to stop > doing it. To be honest, I think the emphasis should be on getting them to > stop. BTW, has anyone actually successfully sued and collected over this > issue? From a legitimate user, I suspect the answer could be yes,. From > a > slimy operator? I doubt it. > > You are better off with some meat in your registration. My point. > > Now you have none. Oh, except the cute symbol. > > For Ted..... as I understand it, if you could register your life's work > for > $45, wouldn't you do it? To legally protect your $1.2M of value? How much > do you spend in a year maintaining the location and contents of your image > files ( before your donation to the Canadian University (?) that you > donated > your work to)? > > Overall comment..... If the illegal user of your photos is a real > publisher, > editor, or image agency, only the legitimate and honest agencies would > care > if you registered. The slimy ones would use, and continue to use your > images > without payment. > > Spend your efforts getting some meat into the adjudication and payment > phase...... > > Frank Filippone > red735i@earthlink.net > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Don don.dory@gmail.com