"criminal" Infringement

Thank you for sharing

You are welcome Abbie.

Based on the following quote from the legislation, Infringement is "Criminal" when:

6(a)Criminal Infringement.—

(1) In general.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

"Willful Infringement" is a CRIMINAL offense, no matter what any other member on this forum may say. (or believe).

---------------

It is very important to note this statement from the above legislation.

"(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. —Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500."

In the art world and selling art online, that copy would be your low-res display image. It could also apply to any other version you place on the internet and/or printed version you use for marketing and/or display. It also applies to the actual "Art Print" itself (regardless of size) as this is a "copy" of the work.

-------------------------

Here is the kicker. In order to prove "fraudulent intent" (willful infringement), there can't be any room for doubt (loop-holes) in the mind of the "abuser" that the image is copyright protected, which brings us back to one of the other threads I opened about how to ensure the general public knows without a doubt that your work is copyright protected and not in the public domain.

Thank you, Tiny. No time to read now but I will be back.

Going 56mph in a posted 55mph zone is illegal.
Is that enforced? No.
Is it likely to be? No.
Should people spend even 4 seconds being concerned with such a thing? No.

There are a number of laws on the books that are simply not being enforced. Should we worry about them? No.
Should we list them here? Some are good for a laugh.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Even though Dan may be right, and nobody will enforce those laws, I appreciate the information.
If I have an issue at hand, at least I know there's a law against it. Not just for a good laugh, if someone has iniciative and willing to spend the time fighting, it may be a real headeache.
Have a Great week.

Marcela Levy
Visual Artist

Well done Tiny, some people just don't understand copyright laws.

“Going 56mph in a posted 55mph zone is illegal. Is that enforced? No” --- Dan Turner

The Hell you say! You don't live in many of the neighborhoods that I drive through, sir!

I wonder if you have ever heard of the term, “speed trap”.

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speed+trap?s=t

Speed trap--- noun.

“A section of a road where hidden police radar, etc, carefully check the speed of motorist and strictly enforce traffic regulations: sometimes characterized by hard to see signals, hidden traffic signs, etc.”

Mr Turner, if one did not know better one might think you were in favor of it being perfectly fine to steal low resolution images from the internet.

“Be careful while bending the law”. --- Gordon Lightfoot (The House You Live In)

And because I like Gordon Lightfoot so much I will include this video.



Once more I give a tip of the hat to Tiny, for continuing to explore this issue.

Way to go Tiny! Thanks!

http://www.photoshelter.com/mkt/research/photographers-guide-to-copyright this is the best info I've seen I used to belong to Photo Shelter and still get info from them if you can download this pdf it's worth a look. for example did you know The U.S. is the only country in the world that requires works be registered once they are created in order to receive full economic as well as legal protection given by a copyright.

Going 56 mph in a 55mph area is no big deal until someone pulls you over. Its still no big deal depending on what it cost you in money and time. Its also no big deal to some people that steal art until they too get caught and have to go to court as well. Nothings a big deal unless you get caught.

Copyright laws aren't being enforced on the internet because it's too difficult - the technology isn't there, yet, to automatically detect infringement, and international law enforcement cooperation is very weak.. That will change, eventually. At some point it will become possible to scan the web for a particular image and verify it's provenance - i.e. that the person legally responsible for the site has the rights to the image. And, at some point after that, agreements will be in place among all civilized nations to act against infringers in meaningful ways. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

Jim,

I wonder if that could be done now with a small QR code? Anyone who has legal rights (either by purchase or permission) would have to display a small code in/beside the image to prove their "license"?

----------------------

It is one thing to talk about future ways of enforcing copyright law on the internet, however if artists do not start taking their rights seriously enough, those laws may just "silently" change. There are a lot of people and organizations gunning for a "freer" internet, where there are no (or very little) "property" rights. The politicians seem to bend to those who make the most noise. Maybe its time for artists to start making a little "noise".

Once you understand the law and you understand your rights under that law, it is up to the individual artists to hold infringement accountable. Like Dan mentioned above, the police are not going to pull someone over for doing 56 in a 55, not because it is not illegal, but they will wait for the guy/gal doing 60 or 65. There is no watchdog out there looking out for YOUR image rights online. There is no "police force" like there is on the roads, looking out for speeders. It is up to the individual artist to look out for their own property rights and let the courts enforce the laws that ARE currently on the books.

Enforcement of the speed limit is also expensive - it requires a cop, a car, radar, and (sometimes) a court appearance by the officer. Isn't that the real reason that law enforcement only goes after high value targets? If the cost of enforcement approached zero - say, an automated system that just measured speed, read license plates and mailed out tickets - things would change.

Imagine a world in which - anytime a copyright image showed up on the public network - a 'bot identified it, ran down the ownership of the web site, and verified (through some Big Data hookup of the future) that rights had been obtained; and if not, the site received an automated takedown notice, and they system monitored compliance, and if an infringement persisted, the site went dark - all without human intervention.

Whether the public would accept this situation is a separate question - it could be called intrusive, totalitarian, Big Brother etc - but it will become technically possible AND cheap to implement.

Whether the public would accept this situation is a separate question - it could be called intrusive, totalitarian, Big Brother etc - but it will become technically possible AND cheap to implement.

In my mind there is nothing big brother about that at all. It would be different if that kind of system was scanning my actual "desktop", but it would be scanning the internet and looking for sites that were infringing on copyrighted images.

Only thing is, for a system like that to work artists would need to REGISTER their work. (this will be subject of my next thread).

We already have many automated systems like red light cameras and photo radar (photo of license plate caught speeding = ticket in the mail) that do a good job of fining law breakers, without the need to depend on human intervention.

The red light cameras don't work perfectly because recognizing a moving license plate is still too difficult for today's electronics and software. But the reason the public has - in some cases - rejected those systems is because they see running a light as a victimless crime, unless it causes an accident. With copyright infringement, there will always be an aggrieved plaintiff.

Jim Hughes wrote, “Enforcement of the speed limit is also expensive - it requires a cop, a car, radar, and (sometimes) a court appearance by the officer.”

Sorry, Jim. Police forces are paid by tax dollars! All of the expenses you speak of are already covered.

Traffic fines, court costs, are simply added revenue for the county, state, municipality, eta all.

Cost wise, your analogy doesn't work.

@David Biship, The U.S. is the only country in the world that requires works be registered once they are created in order to receive full economic as well as legal protection given by a copyright.

That's not exactly accurate. Registering copy rights in the US is not a requirement. You own the copyright the second you press the shutter. Registering copy rights facilitates your ability to collect, in other words it gives you some extra "muscle" because ownership is fully documented. However registering does not provide any additional rights. If you do not register your images you are still entitled the "full economic as well as legal protection" that the copyright stands for. But it can be harder to prove you are the copy right holder.

Yes Chuck, copyright is instant upon creation of the work, however the artist/photographer is eligible for damages of up to $150,000, in the case of "Willful Infringement".

This paragraph is from the same Legislation document as what is in the OP.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.

The Photo Attorney, also discusses it in this article.

http://www.photoattorney.com/five-things-you-can-do-to-protect-your-online-images/

-------------------------

The problem with having images online, is that there are so many different statuses of images out there including Public Domain, Creative Commons. What the Attorney makes clear in her article (backed up by the legislation) is that in order to qualify for maximum monetary damages, the copyright owner must be able to prove that there was "willful infringement". If there is no record of copyright registration and/or no notice of copyright on or beside the image, the courts may decide the following that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.


This is the risk you take, when you do not register your copyright with the US Copyright Office. Even if you register your work with the US Copyright Office, the attorney in the article states very clearly that if your work is not adequately marked online, showing clear ©All Rights Reserved status, it may give the infringer the same out and you may still be limited to damages of $200.