Category: copyright

Posted on

This Isn’t a Humblebrag; It’s a Buttkick

I was reminded by a client recently that what I do actually has changed (at least some of) my clients’ lives for the better. That was very meaningful for me. While of course I need to make a living, I do what I do to try to help creatives be successful (at least financially). When I hear that I have succeeded in helping, that makes me feel great.

For example, I helped fully-fund one client’s retirement accounts; for another, some serious and unexpected home repairs were much less a problem. I’ve had other clients, over the years, tell me I helped pay for vacations or their kids’ college funds. All sorts of things that simply made their lives a bit (or a lot) better.

To be sure, none of these were huge cases. I do not have any million-dollar awards or settlements…. not even close, to be honest. There have been some that have been larger, relatively speaking, but mostly my practice consists of handling what many people would see as “small” cases.

What do I mean by small? I did some math to figure that out. Most single-infringement, pre-litigation settlements in my practice lately (2024-2025) land between $7,500 to $12,0001. In the legal world, those are not big numbers. But for the artists I represent, they are not insignificant. Those numbers mean roughly $4,750 to $7,700 in the client’s pocket2. Per case. Most of my clients find multiple infringements that they ask me to pursue so, it is not at all unusual for a client to net (that is, after paying me), over a year, more than $30K or $40K. Sometimes, much more.

In other words, these cases, although what many people would call small, add up.

The key to these cases, almost always, is that the client has a timely registration. I’ve nagged about that for years, but look at the return! You can register multiple works (photos, 2-D art, blog posts, etc.) with one application and one fee (usually $55-$85, depending on the kind of works). If the work infringed is registered before the infringement at issue started3, then the minimum statutory damages (if the case is litigated) are $750 (up to $30K for non-willful). You also may be awarded attorney’s fees. That statutory (that is, written into the law) reality and the case law supporting the amounts make it possible for me to negotiate settlements like mentioned above, in many cases4.

And yet, I still have difficulty convincing some creators to register their copyrights and go after infringers. Like having that additional revenue isn’t worth the effort. That makes no sense to me. Artists of all stripes work hard to make their work (even when they feel it is easy themselves); why let someone rip it off? It isn’t a compliment to have some business use your work–it is a way to exploit your talent and efforts for its own benefit. As long as we live in a capitalistic society, you will need to make money and your work is valuable. The companies that use your work know that–they chose your work to make money… for themselves. By pursuing infringers you are not begging but rather standing up for yourself, your work, your talent, your own business.

So yeah, it feels great to know that I help people. But it is frustrating to know that I could be doing more for more of you. So please, whether you ever work with me or someone else, get off your butts, register your work, and stand up to the infringers.

_______________

  1. REMEMBER! Previous results are not predictive of future results and each case is its own thing; just because someone got $10,000 for a case, for example, doesn’t mean you or anyone else will for a similar case. ↩︎
  2. The contingency fees (a percentage of the gross settlement or award) I charge are negotiated with each client prior to us working together. ↩︎
  3. Or if the registration is within 3 calendar months of first publication of the work. ↩︎
  4. Certainly not all cases, though. Some infringers will not negotiate, for example, meaning the case must be litigated or dropped by the client. ↩︎
Posted on

Timeliness

I recently had a client bring me a lovely case with multiple images infringed. Nice and clean with registered copyrights and everything. An almost perfect case…

…until I looked at the Effective Date of the registration and the source code of the online use. Sadly, the use started mere days before the Effective Date and so the registration was not timely. While the client could still get actual damages (and infringer’s profits if any), that would be a low number based on the client’s provable license fee rate; so it made the case not something I could take on a contingency-fee basis. Bummer!

Registration is wonderful for protecting your work and adding to your recovery for an infringement, but its timeliness is a big, hard line to those benefits. Sadly, lots of people misunderstand timeliness. I hope this post helps clear up some of the misconceptions.

When you register a copyright (or a group), the registration will be issued with an Effective Date[1]. That date is the magic number—the key. For any infringement that actually starts after that date, you can get statutory damages and (maybe) attorney’s fees. These are called “enhanced remedies,” by the way. Statutory damages go from $750 to $30,000 for non-willful infringement, and up to $150,000 for willful. That’s a lot of room to negotiate a decent pre-suit settlement or, if you have to litigate, to get a valuable award. 

But that date is, like I said, a hard line. There is no wiggle room, outside of one exception I’ll explain in a second. So, if your Effective Date is July 1, 2024 and the infringement actually started on July 2, 2024, cool! But if the infringement actually started on June 30, 2024, the registration is not timely and you can’t get those enhanced remedies. 

Why do I keep saying actually, in italics? Because the date at issue is not when you find the infringement but rather the date the infringer began violating your rights—copying, displaying, etc., whether you knew it or not yet. If your Effective Date is July 1, 2024 and you found the infringement on December 1, 2024, that doesn’t make the registration timely; you need to find out when the infringement started to know if your registration is timely.

Now, about that one exception I mentioned earlier, this is something people screw up often so, pay attention. If you register your copyright in a work within three calendar months from the date of that work’s first publication, the law works some magic and you can get enhanced remedies for any infringement that started after that first publication date. Congress did this to try to fix the hole where a work is made and quickly published and quickly ripped off, before you get it registered. It’s a solid fix, IF you register your work in time. 

First publication is a technical, legal thing, for added crazy here. Publication has a nebulous definition in copyright law—it doesn’t always match with what any normal human would think of as publication. If you offer the work for sale or licensing, it is published on the date you do that, even if the work doesn’t get seen by anyone until later! So, for example, if you shoot for a client, the date of first publication will be the date your deliver the work to the client (digitally, hard copies, whatever) even if they don’t run the work until later. If you shoot for yourself, then a month later post the work on your website and offer it for stock licensing, the date you post it will be its first publication. BUT, if you make a work and post it on, say, your blog without explicitly offering it for licensing, then it is (likely) NOT published. 

I know, crazy, right? The easy fix is to always include a line about your work being available for licensing, even on your blog or Instagram or whatever. Then, boom, it’s published and you have a date for that. 

To best protect your work, do a group published[2] photographs registration every year on March 31 (for works first published from Jan 1–Mar 31), June 30 (Apr 1 – June 30), September 30 (Jul 1 – Sept 30), December 31 (Oct 1–Dec 31) of each year. That way, ALL your published photos for the year will be timely registered, no matter what. Any infringement of those photos will be eligible for enhanced remedies. Yay!

Then, when you contact any copyright lawyer (like me) with a potential infringement matter, we will be much more likely to be able to help you on a contingency fee (meaning you pay no fees unless we recover something for you).

[1] This date is usually the date you submit the application online, by the way. Even if you don’t get the certificate until much later, the Effective Date will almost always be the application date.

[2] Group Published Photographs registrations require that the works be first published within the same calendar year—this schedule takes that into consideration. See https://copyright.gov/circs/circ42.pdf.

Posted on

Control

Artists of all stripes are control freaks. That is not an insult—it is a simple statement of fact. Anyone with a desire to create does so because they want to control…something. Their environment. Their past. Their pain. Their joy. Their space. Their right to be who they are. Something.

So I find it super odd that so many creatives don’t take control of their businesses. 

You spend all this effort and take all these risks to create. Why aren’t more of you doing whatever you can to protect what you create and to make a living from your creations? 

An artist will fight for their vision—making something because they simply want to create, must create, and they must do it the way they envision it, and they do without apology for that vision. 

But then they will apologize for asking for money for that creation or for the rights to reproduce that creation. Or buy into the story sold to them by those who do not, cannot create: getting paid to make art is a defilement of, an anathema to Art. 

Until humans get to the Star Trek future where money doesn’t exist, the rich will always try to exploit the poor, especially the artists, by selling them ideas like that, or that an artist is lucky to get exposure.

It is bullshit. 

You have every right (and need) to make money. What you do is of great value—that is why the rich spend millions, if not billions, trying to invent artificial ways to do what you do (think AI). They can’t do it. Not yet and, in my opinion, not ever. Art cannot be created by inorganic things, ever; a thing might “create” something—but it will be soulless, for sure. Art is not art if it has not soul. 

So, you have this amazing and valuable ability—control the business side of that and you can make your life’s necessary money, or even more. So start doing that, please.

Some of the things you can do are: registering your copyrights, having good licensing language, saying “no” to bad deals, pursuing infringers, and protecting your personal assets by creating an entity for your business (LLC, S-corp). Other things are working with someone like me when you need help in those areas (and other legal stuff) and working with a CPA to help get a handle on your taxes and finances. Yes, you may have to spend some money for some of that help, but it is more like a very safe investment than an expense: it has a very strong likelihood to pay off in the long run.

Posted on

Update Your Contracts

A client informed me yesterday that Vox Media had announced a partnership with OpenAI that permitted that leech-of-a-tool to use Vox Media content to train. This is bad and very likely goes beyond agreements it has with many writers and photographers, but it’s going to do it anyway because tech companies have no decency and too many media companies have no spines.

So, first, if you have work that you have licensed to Vox Media, check the language in your agreements and, assuming you didn’t sign away too much already, contact Vox to remind them that your work cannot be used for AI-training purposes. Period. Don’t let them try to talk you into some piddly bump in fees–what they are doing is enabling tech to put you entirely out of your work so just say “No.” You need to think long term here–an extra few bucks here isn’t worth torpedoing your particular creative industry.

Second, look at your own contracts, which you should be using anyway but, yeah, I know, you probably don’t because the bigger companies are bullies about that. Anyway, you should add something to your own contracts that makes it absolutely clear that any use that may result in the training of AI is not permitted under your license. You need this for contracts you use with individuals (like for event/wedding photography) as well as for companies for their marketing or advertising use.

Remember, when you permit your clients to use your work on certain platforms, you are permitting those platforms to use your work to train AI. That is bad. Spectacularly bad. So don’t do it. Make it absolutely unambiguous–if they do that you will sue them for infringement.

Finally, if you aren’t already, start registering your copyrights. Now. It’s the best tool you have to fight these sharks. Don’t think “I can still use the CCB if my work isn’t registered” because (a) you still have to register your work to sue using the CCB; and (b) you won’t get very much from the CCB, especially if your work is not timely registered (no more than $7500, and probably MUCH less).

Posted on

A Win for Artists at SCOTUS

Last Thursday, I participated as a panel member in a ABA Copyright group online meeting. The majority of the meeting was discussing the Copyright Claims Board–how it’s been working (or not) and its results thus far. But, we also looked at a recent SCOTUS ruling that affects copyright cases in a big way: Warner Chappell Music v Nealy (No. 22-1078, 144 S. Ct. 1135 (U.S. May. 9, 2024) for you legal geeks out there). That’s what I want to talk about here.

That case looked at the interplay between the discovery rule and damages. Lots of people were hoping the court would address the discovery rule generally, but instead the court rules only on the question of damages and whether they were limited to a three-year lookback. Not to bury the lede: nope, damages are not so limited. 

Since the Petrella (aka Raging Bull) case, some courts (especially the 2nd Circuit–that’s NY and environs, for you regular folk) have said that while the discovery rule applies as to when a claim arises  and starts the statute of limitations clock (that is, when a plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered the infringement), it also limits the time period for damages such that the plaintiff can only get three years of (for example) lost license fees.  Scotus said, in essence, no–the statute of limitations three year period is ONLY for the bringing of the case, not the damages. 

This is important. Imagine finding that a company used one of your works on a t-shirt for sale starting in 2015 but you just now found that infringement. Now, assuming you are in a circuit that applies the discovery rule (and most, but not all do), you can file suit and ask for damages all the way back to the start of the use in 2015. Since your actual damages include the profits directly attributable to the infringement, you can now get all the profits from all the t-shirt sales, not just those from 2021 until now. Since courts often look at actual damages as one factor in setting statutory damages, now they have to look at that much larger number, too. 

While this case doesn’t settle the injury-versus-discovery rule split (see more about that here) and those folks in the injury rule circuits are still screwed (IMO), it does mean most people now have the possibility of being made whole, not just partially so. Good news for the artists. 

Posted on

Say Yes to No

I’m a firm believer in saying yes and generally being positive about things; have done for years. For example, if a client has a technically gnarly project, saying “Oh, that looks super hard” and then explaining how much work it is going to be or, worse, even hinting that you might fail, is not a good idea for your business. Instead, saying “Oh, that looks super hard…I love a challenge! I’m sure my team and I will find a solution!” will engender confidence in your client. Later, when you hand them a big estimate, they’ll remember you as the creative who said they could do it, increasing your chances of winning the project even with big numbers. So saying yes is a great thing for your business… except when it isn’t.

How often have you heard a (potential) client send you a contract and say “Everyone agrees to this” or “Oh, sure, the doc says you are assigning us your copyrights and that you can’t use the work, but we’ll let you use it” or “It’s industry standard to have a 90-day payment period,” or “You have to indemnify us against any claim that arises when you’re shooting for us, not just those related to your work or employees–no one ever makes an issue of that” etc. ? A bunch, I’ll bet and I bet you’ve often accepted those terms, trusting your client. Then, later…well, as Marlon Brando in Guys and Dolls says,“Daddy, I got cider in my ear!”

The sad truth is that, whenever someone in a financial transaction with you says one thing but the paperwork says another, they have an ulterior motive and it ain’t good for you. Hearing anything like “oh, don’t worry…” or “You’re the only person who has ever asked…” is your signal that you absolutely must go with what the papers say. Always. Your clients, no matter how nice, are not on your side. They can’t be—they are negotiating for their best deal, not yours. You can like them, but don’t ever trust their word over what is on the page.

The terms they are insisting on are good…good for them, that is, and so they do use them. If they didn’t, the terms would not be there. Always. So, if they are saying “oh, we never do this thing the contract says we can do” and they won’t take it out, then you know they want to do exactly what they claim they never do, and will do exactly that if they can. 

Relatedly, if your client/buyer tells you “my way or the highway,” waste no time in politely taking the second option. As the current writers’ and actors’ strikes confirm, bullying and fear-mongering is pervasive in the creative industries. All of them. Threats about not getting work are just manipulative bullshit. You didn’t have the gig but then lose it by saying “no”; nope, they just wanted to scare you into accepting a bad deal. Walk away. Use the time to get a better client. 

Don’t bother trying to fix them or teach them the errors of their ways. You can’t control what your clients/buyers do and you’ll drive yourself mad if you try. But, you can control what you do. 

The first thing is to know where your boundaries are. You can negotiate lots of things, but you should always know what lines you will not cross and respect those limits. No one will respect them if you don’t. You can and I think MUST set your own limits; and you should do it before any negotiations so that you know what they are. Write them out like a list if that helps: will never sell copyrights; will only indemnify for my own actions; will not lower my price without getting something (besides just getting the gig) in return; etc. 

Once you have your limits defined, then you can respond rationally to whatever demands are made. So, for example, if a client insists on owning your copyrights created for the project, you can say “No” if your line is ownership, or, if you’re willing to sell at the right price, say “Not at this price—if you want full ownership, that will cost $X.”  Don’t explain, don’t rationalize, and don’t be suckered in by them. Stick to your own boundaries. For example, “I hear you, but I won’t sell my copyrights for this price–you need to either pay more or get a license instead.” If they ask “Why?” you can simply say that this is how you run your business. Period.

You can use your boundary list for contract negotiations of all kinds: time to pay, deposits, usage license terms, indemnification clauses, you name it. When you do that, you are taking good care of your business: You set your limits. You have control. 

Saying “no” to bad terms and bad deals does not make you a jerk, it makes you a smart businessperson. And, although standing up for your rights and doing what is best for you and your business is not always easy, it is vital. The other side is surely going to stand up for theirs.

Posted on

Drop Your Ego and Raise Your Usage Fees

I have written before about the importance of separating your fees and costs/expenses on your invoices (actually, on all your paperwork) so I’m not going to go into that again, but I will once again nag you to make your license fees the largest number of your fees, if at all possible. Why? Because there is a new (tentative) ruling in the CCB that shows how low license fees can hurt you.

In this case, a photographer made the work as a part of a large shoot for a client. His original bill was well into the six figures, yay! However, as the Board notes:

During the shoot, Hursey shot approximately forty-two scenes, with a scene consisting of multiple versions of the same setting and activity with minor differences. Hearing Tr. at 39:00 – 39: 57. In the present case, the scene consisted of a family at a picnic with a pastoral background. Evidence Doc B (Dkt. 17). Hursey was paid $185,524.45 in total for the shoot, but most of that amount was reimbursement for costs and payment for his time, while $17,500 was for an unlimited license to use all of the photographs taken over the course of the shoot. 

Proposed Default Determination, at p.3 (bold added)

An unlimited license should definitely be the largest number on your paperwork–it is HUGE usage! Let’s conservatively estimate that in this project, the photographer provided finals of 3 variations of 42 scenes, or a total of 126 images (it was likely much more, of course), $17500 divided by 126 is a whopping $138.89 per photo licensed. That’s insane.

Photographers and other creatives have got to stop billing their Creative Fee as if it is the most important thing. That is just your ego talking–a bigger Creative Fee means YOU are somehow worth more…. **HURL**! It’s short-sighted, at best.

Worse, using time as the basis of your Creative Fee makes you into the equivalent of a wage slave and insults your professionalism. It doesn’t matter if it takes you 30 minutes or 3 days to create your work–it is your TALENT and ABILITIES that count. If you have 30 years of experience and can make the difficult shot in an hour where a newer photographer would take all day, why should you be penalized for that?! So, stop billing as if time and your ego matter. Instead, think long term: you can re-license for more if you bill more for usage from the start! And it will help you if you ever get ripped off. Bill a reasonable Creative Fee, not time-based, and bill a large (but reasonable) Usage License Fee.

On the good side in the case cited above, the photographer has an online calculator for his stock licenses and that provided a number of $1000.70 for the same use as the infringer made of the photograph (still too low, in my opinion, but better). The Board relied on that number and awarded $3000 for the infringement here. Id. at 9. Whew. I mean, I think that is still way too low an award but it’s a hell of a lot better than 3 times $138.89. If the photographer here did not have published rates as he did, the court would very likely have awarded him $750, the minimum statutory damages available.

Respect your work by billing its worth. Your future self will thank you.

Posted on

The CCB Results are in…and Yikes

So, the first photo-related Final Determination is in at the Copyright Claims Board (link to pdf). I wish I could tell you otherwise, but it does not bode well for photographers.

The case was pretty straight-forward: an attorney illicitly used a timely-registered photo on his website, got caught, blamed his daughter for having sourced and posted it as his web “designer” and, despite all the notices that the work was protected, got away with only having to pay $1000. 

Why so little? Because the photographer had never licensed that photo and so provided no proof of his license value and, in the board’s determination, there must be a relationship between actual damages and statutory ones.

It was there that, in my opinion, the board screwed the pooch. Courts have said the direct opposite, like in Thomas-Rasset where the 8th Circuit noted that the Supreme Court stated that there should NOT be any relationship between the actual damages and statutory ones because statutory damages are imposed as a punishment for the violation of a public law. Furthermore, the court noted:

It makes no sense to consider the disparity between “actual harm” and an award of statutory damages when statutory damages are designed precisely for instances where actual harm is difficult or impossible to calculate. See Cass Cnty. Music Co. v. C.H.L.R., Inc., 88 F.3d 635, 643 (8th Cir. 1996). Nor could a reviewing court consider the difference between an award of statutory damages and the “civil penalties authorized,” because statutory damages are the civil penalties authorized.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas–Rasset, 692 F.3d 899, 907-8 (8th Cir. 2012)(cert. denied).

In that same case, by the way, the court noted:

Congress no doubt was aware of the serious problem posed by online copyright infringement, and the “numberless opportunities for committing the offense,” when it last revisited the Copyright Act in 1999. To provide a deterrent against such infringement, Congress amended § 504(c) to increase the minimum per-work award from $500 to $750, the maximum per-work award from $20,000 to $30,000, and the maximum per-work award for willful infringement from $100,000 to $150,000. 

Id. at 908.

In fact the board noted that the 9th, the law of which is controlling over this matter, has held that courts are not reliant on any formula and can award anything between the minimum and maximum, but then it relies on errant lower court rulings that ignore that to justify its low award.

Worst of all for artists here, according to SCOTUS (Woolworth, etc.), statutory damages are supposed to deter the infringer from doing it again and, arguably more importantly, to deter others from doing the same. Who the hell is going to be deterred by $1000? No one, really. 

Most of all, this is telling photographers (and probably other artists) that their work isn’t worth protecting unless it has already sold/been licensed for a lot of money. Yikes, for sure.

Posted on

CCB Cases Update

For those of you who have been following along, you know that I have filed a couple of Copyright Claims Board cases for my clients. That number is now 4. Of those, one settled shortly after filing and one was just filed in late December and hasn’t even been approved for service yet. That leaves two.

One of those had the respondents opt out just before it was too late for them to do so. Bummer and, frankly, dumb of them I think. My client can still file in federal district court and, if that happens, that is going to be much more expensive for the former-respondents-now-likely-defendants. This was a small use infringement and the CCB would have seemed perfect for the matter–well, settling before any of that would have been perfect, but outside of settlement a low-cost litigation alternative made sense for all the parties. Oh well, they had the right to opt out. Anyway, there is still a possibility that the matter could settle; but, if the other side doesn’t make a serious effort very soon, I think there will be a new case filed with the appropriate district court.

That leaves the last of my four cases. It’s actually the first case I filed with the CCB and it has now moved past the opt-out stage, meaning that my client has paid the second part of the filing fee (remember, the filing fee is paid in part at the time of filing then, if the case proceeds past the opt-out window, the rest is then due) and everyone has agreed to litigate in the CCB. We just recently received our scheduling order, laying out how the case will proceed. The next step is that the respondents must file their response to the claim, and that isn’t due for about 2 months. After that, we’ll have a pre-discovery conference (online) and then discovery opens.

People ask me what I think about the CCB and my first response now is always “It is slooooow.” The case that is moving forward was filed in late July. It is now January and the equivalent of an answer hasn’t been filed and isn’t due until early March. Discovery should close at the end of June, then written testimony will be due about 60 days after that. Then, if needed, there will be a hearing. In short, there will not be a decision in this case (assuming it doesn’t settle meanwhile) until well more than a year after filing.

Now, that isn’t long for traditional litigation, but I think everyone was expecting this process to be much faster. To be fair, it may speed up some as they work out the bugs but, for now, you must manage your speed expectations.

I’m hoping that in the end we’ll decide that the system worked within the “fast, good, cheap” paradigm: that is, we know it’s slow and cheap so, hopefully, it will be good.

Posted on

Answering Questions

I’ve just started writing for the Architectural Photography Almanac, to answer general legal questions and discuss issues that their readers face. Many of these issues and answers will be applicable to all photographers and all creatives, generally. The posts should be monthly, and comments are welcome!

Check out my first post, here.

Terms of Service Proudly powered by WordPress