Does Anyone Know How Copyright Laws Work?

Aaaargh...... someone will be along in a minute....

1. It's not your fault, it's theirs for appropriating images from the internet. Copyrights exist whether the image is marked or not.

2. Since they don't want to print the credit line, and since the image was already used, send them an invoice for the use of the image. Include a screen shot of the image on your website and information about the date and location the photo was taken. Include a letter to explain who you are, what you own, when and where it was appropriated from and how they used it illegally and what you're willing to do about it. (from requesting payment to contacting a lawyer.)

I'd also bring it up/ask about their intentions (politely but pointedly) somewhere public, like their Facebook page if they have one.

The best source of information I know of on U.S. copyright law is www.copyright.gov.

You don't need a watermark to enforce a copyright, the watermark, or lack thereof, should not be relevant. To the best of my knowledge there is no "fault" on your part because as a general rule you have no duty to watermark your work. If you really care about this you should talk to a lawyer. Based on what you wrote, above, they may have infirnged your copyright in your picture. In these situations you have to have a copyright in your work (you probably do), and from that point there are a variety of things you can do to enforce it.

Disclaimer: As always, this is just my opinion, not legal advice.

Yes, Keri there are people who know how copyright laws work. I think they are called Copyright Lawyers.

Probably not too many of them here on FAA :-)

Bill Tomsa

http://billtomsa.blogspot.com/

well, if they used it in a documentary type fashion, they could probably get away with it. sign the work next time. it not worth suing if your thinking about that. and i doubt they would pay you for it. if that person is on your friend list - ban them. and take down the work, or put your name on it some place.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

The editor of the paper is not the owner. I suggest you find the owner of the paper, if you can, and explain the problem to him.
You should be aware that it is possible for nature photos to be extremely similar and in such instances a copyright would be hard to enforce. You can't copyright a particular head tilt of the owl, but your owl photo is automatically copyrighted when you take it. This may be one additional reason to always shoot in RAW format. It helps you prove ownership. Send a copy of your raw file, and ask him to produce his, if he claims his identical image was taken by a different photographer independently.

I think you should be looking for a license fee, a credit, and a letter of apology, and evidence of disciplining of an employee. Plagiarism is a well known temptation journalism, and any reputable newspaper should respect copyrights. If you register the copyright on your image, you might be able to sue them for damages. My understanding is that without a copyright registration, getting monetary damages in court is quite difficult.

"you might be able to sue them for damages"

Which are what...?

This is a garden variety case of copyright infringement. It is incredibly common. There are no barriers in place to stop it or legal provisions in place to punish the infringers that won't end up costing thousands of dollars. And *think* of the community goodwill towards artists that comes out of that sort of thing :-)

We really must stop treating minor infringement like a home invasion robbery ("oh you poor poor thing, i'm so sorry this happened to you, here's a list of lawyers, support groups and government agencies...").

Someone liked a photo that you posted online. Yaaay. They should have asked permission to use it, they didn't, that's all that happened. I don't see it as a opportunity to reign hell down upon them. That benefits no one. Instead, it might be a golden opportunity to establish a working relationship with people who like your work.


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

I know a well know artist that had his work stolen and used for commercial use. He sued and won, after his lawyer fee, $1,300.00. They continue to use his artwork on their product today. I think I would ask them to at least acknowledge the picture was yours in print. I worry about this myself. I have had China repeatedly look at some of my artwork without buying.

mostly you have to prove damages. if it was used on a commercial product, where they were making money from it, you have a case. and all you have to do is be in court for a few years battling it out. a paper though using an owl reference is a different thing. though claiming it was her own image makes you wonder if that other person took other work and claimed it as her own...

you should do a reverse search of that owl and find the actual person who took it, and see if she has other things as well.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Greg, in this case, small town USA, this editor is the owner of this paper and several papers here in the area.

Yes, Dan I agree. I have no intent of suing anyone. Yes, they should have asked permission and didn't and yes, that is all that happened. This particular lady who works in this very small town office is known for doing things like this and thinks she is entitled to anything and everything. In calling the office and the editor, my main point was only to let them both know that I know they took my picture. Had she sent me a message asking permission, of course I would have said yes. AND you are correct, after he saw more of my work, the owner/editor told me he would like to establish a working relationship and purchase some of my images. So in the end some good has come of this and I'm a firm believer that everything happens for a reason.

My reason for the post here on the forum was more for my own personal knowledge and for future reference. I figured some of the people on here may have already ran into the same problem.

Dan has a point. You don't want to be known locally as the person who put the town newspaper out of business because of your copyright lawsuit. Local newspapers don't generally have deep pockets... even if you win, there's always the question of collecting the judgement. As a general rule, the lawyers' fees get collected first... if there is anything to collect...
However, I can see why you might like to get credit for being the photographer.

Damages:
"Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights." Copied & pasted from the Frequently Asked Questions page of www.copyright.gov.

Disclaimer: as always... this is my opinion, not legal advice.

The paper cannot publish the image without your permission, even in an editorial fashion.

If you have registered the image with the copyright office, you could be entitled to statutory damages.

Since you haven't, to get anything back you have to prove ACTUAL damages, which is extremely difficult.

I recommend that you go talk to them, in person, show them your image, show them the image published, and try to get them to pay you in person. Sending an invoice can throw gas on a fire, and really besides suing them for actual damages, you have no recourse, so its best to keep things amicable.

Chery's line above mine is true, but only true if the work is registered with the copyright office. Non registered works are still protected by copyright, but they can only collect actual damages.

you can send the bill to her, or the paper. while they probably won't pay it, they may review where the staff gets their images from. or remind them that while your being nice and not charging them, that they should show proof, or they may get in much more trouble down the line.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Q: What’s lamer than a crappy photo of Nebraska? A: Having to pay $8,000 in copyright infringement penalties for it.
http://www.contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary/

In an email to editors, Slade demanded demanded $100 for every day the photo was online. The photo was up for four days, so the paper is processing a check for $400, Schechtman said. http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/184871/portland-press-herald-to-pay-woman-for-using-photograph-flickr/
Small claims court. If your photographs are being used without permission by somebody local — a gallery, a newspaper or magazine — it is sometimes possible to get some satisfaction by going to small claims court. You cannot sue for copyright infringement; that may be filed only in federal court. But you may have a claim for breach of contract.
The beauty of small claims court is that you can present the case yourself; you don’t need a lawyer with you in the courtroom. However, you certainly can (and probably should) consult a lawyer beforehand, just to be sure your ducks are in a row. https://asmp.org/tutorials/enforcing-your-rights.html#.VRNcUeETngk

Send them certified letter and a bill.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/getting-permission-publish-ten-tips-29933.html

Now you have an interesting post to make on your FB page.

" Imagine how surprised I was to see than my ____ Owl was featured in the local newspaper...! "

In a small town your image will now be appropriately credited , receive its fair attention & your point will not be missed by the one who had taken it w/o permission.

( check your Likes & Shares on your prior image post . She is either following you, or you just may see who she is clipping from. )

Glad to hear this had a positive resolution.

Cynthia and Olga have the best advice.

"But you may have a claim for breach of contract."

Olga, when there is no contract, you cannot have a breach of contract. Sending an invoice does not create a contract, nor does it create a debt. All such invoices can be safely -- and legally -- ignored.

"The beauty of small claims court is that you can present the case yourself"

No contract, no breach, no case, no presentation.

Keri -- way to go! Thanks for the update.


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

Dan, if you have a established fee for licensing of such an image, that would be your damages. Small, but a local paper, it should easily be handled in small claims court.
If somebody who should know better rips you off, small claims court can resolve such an issue, given credible supporting facts. I have a record of licensing fees paid for the use of my images. Hardly worth the trouble, but if this writer or editor is in total disregard of the law, as suggested, it might give satisfaction, just to take them to court, win or no win. Maybe they would decide that infringement is not worth the trouble it can cause!

You don't need a contract to win in small claims court. Your neighbor cuts down your tree, you don't have a contract, you have damages that can be quantified. Same here.

Again... here we go again.... lol

Don't anyone ever use the Search box on the Discussions home page?

Gregory, I've seen people attempt to stretch their point before, but you get the prize. Find a link to an actual case, a story, even rumors of a case that illustrates your far-fetched theory (one that doesn't involve a neighbors TREE but that does involve copyright infringement) and you might redeem yourself. Good luck.


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

The small claims court idea is interesting. I hadn't heard of that idea.

Of course, as Dan suggests there may be more productive ways to handle it. (Why make an enemy if you can make a customer?)

As always, not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV.

As to the answer to your original question. IMO, no one completely understands these laws other than lawyers who deal with them all the time. They seem simple, but in practice they are not.

Olga, thanks for the informational links. Good info there I think.

I do take umbridge at the concept of a crappy photo of Nebraska however. (most of my portfolio is taken in Nebraska!) :) :)

http://westseattleblog.com/2009/08/court-case-reminder-most-online-photos-are-not-up-for-grabs/
Here's one where damages were paid, very much as I described.
It's important to not that it is not necessary to win the suit.
I found out at a young age that if you fight back, a bully will tend not to tangle with you in the future, even if you don't win the fight.
You just want to be too much trouble for them to mess with.
Infringers are a kind of bully.
They take your lunch, and assert there is nothing you can do about it.
If enough people take a stand when possible, some of the infringers will actually learn to operate properly. It's not hard.

Gregory, thanks for your effort and the link. Your example shows undisputed willful violation coupled with the photographer's registered image and copyright certificate. Sort of an open and shut case.

-- The defendant verified image ownership (which was a lie).
-- The defendant used the image commercially, to advertise a six-figure commercial real estate listing.
-- The defendant placed her own copyright on the image.

A nice side-bar story, but not at all applicable to the garden variety infringements we're discussing here.


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

For all those giving legal advice, please provide your lawyer credentials and I will be more than happy. Otherwise add to your posts... IMO (or similar)

Nobody here is a copyright lawyer, Keri, so everything should be taken with a pinch of salt. You can not get legal advice of any value from this forum I'm afraid.

One way (I have used in the past) is to take the original item you want copyrighted, wrapping it up or place in an envelope (depending on size) and mail it to yourself. Make sure the postmark and date of mailing are legible. Also have the post office stamp over the areas on the package that you have taped or licked shut. Do not open when you receive it in the mail. If you ever need to prove ownership in a court of law, have the judge open it. If your date on the parcel is earlier than the copy in question, you have proven your case. Not the most most "sure" way, but it has worked for me in the past.

May I add, to fight a copyright in court will be far more expensive than what many originals are worth.

I am not an attorney.

m. dani, that's a technique that may still work, but is considered unnecessary. The RAW files in all of my images contains exposure date and time. Every image uploaded here has a date and time stamp. It's quite cheap to register a large batch of images for a small fee. Even for a prolific photographer, and easier still for a painter, whose output in gigabytes is typically much less.

Let it slide, Keri E.

So many complaints of this sort have shown up here in the forum that I am guessing that most of the regulars are rolling their eyes at yet another one.

Plain and simple ... IN MY OPINION ... if you cannot place a physical, tangible, proximate, restraining boundary (constantly in place) around what you want to claim as property, then do not think of it as property that somebody else owes you money to use. Even if you place the largest watermark known to man on it, if you put it out there UNGUARDED by the boundary I mentioned, it is out there to be used by whomever finds it suitable for using.

You have my approval to use any of my images in any size that they appear on the internet. I just do not care anymore. If you want to pay me something, ... fine, I'll take it. If you want to attribute me, ... fine, I'll take it (just spell my name CORRECTLY).

You will notice, however, that the largest of any image of mine that you will ever find on the internet is 900 pixels. Somebody might get a printed postcard out of it, but how many of these would really get sold to make anybody any money? A dormitory of artists in China might be able to use a postcard of it to hand paint copies to sell back to Americans, but how many of these hand painted copies would really get bought to be of any real worry? Some kid might be able to paste it into an online school paper that fulfills a homework assignment - no real damages there. I really don't have time to worry about how much money I might loose in any of these instances. Maybe if I earned all my living income from images, then I might think differently, but since the likelihood of doing this is slim to nonexistent, even this is no longer a consideration.

Robert Kernoodle has a very liberal opinion about this, doesn't he?

}:-D

Not legal advice here, just common sense. What Dan said earlier about getting too worked up over a relatively small matter. Let it go and establishing a relationship.

The editor said they'd look into it and promised to give credit. Hasn't happened yet? So make an appointment with the guy and see him in person. Explain that your images are intended to be income and that you depend on print sales and licensing. They won't pay you. In my experience small publishers of periodicals have little or no money to spend on licensing. Many will however work an exchange deal, you shoot photos for them and they publish giving you credit as a staff photographer. You both benefit. They get free photos, you get "street cred" and something you can reference on your web site. Money can't buy that kind of notoriety.

And all without a lawyer! Imagine that!

Robert Kernoodle has a very liberal opinion about this, doesn't he?

It is Dan T.'s fault, Gregory S. (^__^) ... he poisoned me.

Notice how in instances of SMALL copyright infringements, BIG instances of infringement pursued by people with BIG money to spend contesting them are frequently the instances that artist cite here.


I once read, in a book about sending articles to magazines, that seasoned editors consider an author's copyright notice on the submission as a sure sign of an amateur.

Lot's of people - we usually call them lawyers

Well what many people do not consider is that in some part of the many pages of almost all the social nets it is written that from the moment you put your artwork they can do whatever they want including the one we are talking about.... So said it does not mean that you are not the owner of the copyright anymore but it is very hard to have a law suit worth of the battle. I had a similar thing with a National news blog and they at least added, after my mail, my name. They also said it was a mistake etc.... I am writing from Italy and over here there is this misunderstanding that if it is on the web it is free... What you can do you could put marks etc. I know that this practice is not suggested here and infact I do not use it but I do on my sites and when I go social. I know that if someone wants can also cancel log and watermark but it is quite an expert job so I hope to discourage at least the "copy&paste" people.

.