Category: copyright

Posted on

Words Matter

I’ve worked full-time in creative industries since I left my PhD program[1] in the late 1990s, long before I went to law school. I’ve taught the business-side of being a creative pro, at the university level. Law school added to my quiver of skills and knowledge, but let’s just say that I have an understanding of the professional creative world and the business world. If there is one thing I’d love to impart to all creative pros, it is this: words matter.

Sounds kind of flippant, but it’s not. When you let those whose interests are opposed to yours dictate the language used to discuss those interests, you start from a very weak position. In fact, you may have already lost.

In that context, there are two words that immediately spring to mind that creative professionals must stop using: content and plagiarism.

Let’s start with the latter first: plagiarism is not a synonym for copyright infringement and we must stop using it as such. Plagiarism is a failure to attribute the original creator of something, usually words, cited in something else[2]. For example, if someone writes an article that includes:

Law school added to my quiver of skills and knowledge, but let’s just say that I have an understanding of the professional creative world

without noting that it was a quote of something I wrote, that would be plagiarism but it may or may not be infringement. Plagiarism is a passing off as one’s own work the work of another, and almost exclusively in the academic world, although it can appear in written work like journalism, too. In many ways, plagiarism has a closer connection to publicity rights (and definitely to moral rights, which we do not really have in the USA), since it is about attribution to the original author.

Importantly, if you take and use someone’s work and include an attribution to that person, it is not plagiarism…
…but it may very well be copyright infringement.

When we use plagiarize for infringe, we muddy the waters. A lot. This misuse leads to people thinking that they can use any work for free, just as long as they include a credit line or other form of attribution. It also contributes to the misguided notion that, if a work appears without a copyright notice or attribution, then it’s free to use.

I spend a lot of my time teaching infringers that hard (and, often, expensive) lesson; but what worries me is that the more people see attribution as a free-pass to use, use that is really infringing, the more likely Congress will enact laws reflecting that notion or courts will give it more weight than they ought in fair use analyses.

To protect against that, we must be diligent to use the proper words. For most non-academics, your concern will be about infringement, not plagiarism–call it by its correct term.

Turning to the other word, content, this one could practically drive me to drink.
Heavily.
Early in the morning.
Alone.

Using the word content is a great way to turn any creative work into nothing more than filler–something of no value itself. It also subconsciously makes the holder of the content into someone more important than the creator and even more important than the work itself.

Content reduces the value of your work to practically nothing[3]. Content gets shared (that is, freely displayed and distributed) on platforms[4] that don’t even value it enough to monetize it. Instead, these platforms monetize the data provided by the people who use the platforms. And those platform companies are all valued in the billions of dollars, because of that data they gather and sell.

The heartbreaking reality is that artists have been sold the idea that their content isnt really worth anything but that exposure of their content on these platforms will lead to riches. If your content trends, then some big company will call and offer you a huge contract to make art for it–lucky you! While that is vaguely possible, it is about as likely as winning the Powerball lottery. In other words, it’s business insanity to rely on that minuscule chance.

Sadly, each time you post a work on one of these commercial platforms, for free, for others to “like” or share, the only involved person/entity not making money from the exploitation of your work is…
wait for it…
you.

However, the reality is that what you create is of enormous value and should not be reduced to the notion of being filler (content). It is what draws users to the platforms! If you are offering your creative work on these platforms, free to share on those platforms (if not more broadly), you are giving away too much. Again, the art/photos/words/music you create is what draws users to the platforms and those users are what makes those platforms money! No content means no users means no money for the tech overlords or the advertising businesses that suck off their data teats.

Adding insult to injury is that by freely offering your work on these platforms, you are helping to train the average user of those platforms that your work is of no value. Your photograph, painstakingly created with a crew and lights and years of experience, is of the same value as any users pic of their cat, because you both got paid the same amount to post it on that platform. Same for your writing, same for your music, same for your illustrations. Courts think that way more than you know. AND, if your work is free on platform X, then why should anyone have to pay to post it on platform Q or, for that matter, on their blog or small business website? After all, it is only content and content is free stuff the purpose of which is to get freely shared. Try proving up the value of your work when you’ve been giving it away this way–it’s the stuff to give lawyers nightmares.

To be absolutely clear, no one will ever value your work more than you demand or more than you value it. When have you ever given an estimate to a client for a project and had that client say it will pay you double that amount? Call your work what it is, by its proper name: art, photograph, essay, book, song, composition, illustration, painting, whatever. Don’t let the tech overlords tell you what your work is or what it is worth by controlling the language.

Honor yourself and honor your creative work by using its proper name and insisting others do as well. Also, register your copyrights in your art, don’t give it away, and finally, go after infringers. It is your work, your creation, and you deserve more than just attribution.

__________________________

[1]Large parts of my graduate studies were in linguistics, by the way.

[2] See the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing

[3] Worse yet, an artist or author of any stripe calling her/himself a content creator is tantamount to that person saying I make stuff of no real intrinsic or extrinsic value. Do not be that person.

[4] Platform itself means something higher than its surroundings, so the tech companies have taught us to value their works much more than the creative work on them.

Posted on

Copyright Small Claims: A Bad Solution to a Non-Problem

Many of you may have heard about the small claims copyright system that is being encouraged by several organizations. Many of those groups are artists groups and, while they have very good intentions, the idea of a small claims system for copyright is, in my opinion, a very bad one. It is a fix to a problem that does not exist. And, in exchange, artists are going to lose rights and remedies they should not give up.

Here’s the underlying argument that proponents of a Copyright Small Claims system share, over and over again: litigating a copyright suit costs a plaintiff at least tens of thousands if not over a hundred thousand dollars.

That argument is not correct in so many ways. Its a scare tactic and too many artists groups are buying into it. Allow me to explain the errors.

First, assuming that a case is litigated all the way through trial and judgment is an unfair metric for the average cost. Why? Because according to the Federal Courts own statistics (the most recent ones I found were for a 12-month period ending March 31, 2016), only .07% of all copyright cases filed are terminated (settled or a judgment is entered) during or after trial. To put that into more concrete terms, in that 12 months there were 4836 copyright cases filed in the USA; of those, only 32 were terminated either at trial (settlement after trial started but before judgment entered) or at the end of trial (judgment entered). In the 12 months ending March 31, 2015, it was 26 out of 4253 filed (.06%).

In other words, the chances that a case is fully litigated are incredibly slim! In fact, in the 2016 statistics, 37% of the filed cases are terminated before there is any court action and another 54% are terminated before the pre-trial phase (that is, by the close of discovery). So, 91% of copyright cases get settled by the close of discovery and virtually all the remaining cases settle before trial.

What does this mean? It means the cases that get fully litigated are really hard cases. Parties don’t take a case to trial unless either someone refuses to accept that s/he/it is sitting on a loser (rare) or there is a real question of how the matter might turn out (almost always). When there is a real question especially, then there are lots of experts and more extensive discovery overall and, well, of course the costs are going to be large!

But, going back to my original point, that just doesnt happen hardly at all. Instead, most parties are smart enough (or at least their lawyers are) to settle and to settle pretty early in the process. Usually there have already been pre-litigation settlement negotiations of some sort so when a suit is actually filed, the parties generally know that this is serious now and get their shit together and work it out.

Often, this just happens on its own. In my own experience, I’ve seen it happen over and over–a case gets filed after months of trying to get the defendant to settle, the defendant (finally) gets a lawyer, the lawyer wisely advises Settle, now! and we work it out. And we should, frankly. Most copyright cases are pretty clear cut and most of them should settle before suit is even filed but, if not, then shortly after.

When the parties don’t settle on their own, though, the federal courts have put in mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures into the litigation process. These processes save the court time and money and it saves them both for the parties, too. For example, here in the Southern District of California, we have a Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) system that means no later than 45 days after the defendant(s) file its answer(s), the parties meet with the Judge Magistrate to look at the case and try to work it out. Often the case will settle at the ENE and, even when it doesn’t, cases usually settle shortly after. This all happens before you get into discovery (or it has barely started in some cases) and so costs are very limited.

The second major error in the scary math is that proponents of Small Claims don’t mention that, overwhelmingly, plaintiffs win copyright suits that go to trial. The latest statistics I saw on that (2009) put it at over 80%. When you win a copyright suit, you may be awarded your attorneys’ fees and costs (assuming you have registered your copyright before the infringement). While that award isn’t guaranteed, courts tend to make that award when it is a smaller plaintiff (like an individual artist) bringing suit, particularly when there is not a really unusual legal question at issue and/or the infringer is a big company that should know better. So, if you go through trial you have a very good shot at winning and, if you do win, you have a shot at having much of the out-of-pocket reimbursed. If your attorney is working on a contingency-fee-basis, you haven’t even been paying her yet anyway (just paying costs, like filing fees, etc.).

Okay, to recap, filing and litigating a copyright suit usually does not cost a terrifying pile of money. It is rare when it does and most of those suits are complex cases (and, by the way, often ones with large corporate plaintiffs like a movie studio). Small artists don’t need a system to reduce those costs because it is unlikely any small artist will get hit with them by filing an action[1].

What do small artists give up if they use the proposed Small Claims system? They give up their right to a jury trial (very bad thing), appeals are very limited, and most disturbingly, the system would limit the amount of money they can win–in fact, the maximum is cut in half (again, assuming the work is properly and timely registered). That depression in awards will affect those who opt out of the Small Claims system, too, even though the rulings of the tribunals would not be precedential. Artists would be giving up way too much for a protection they don’t even need!

The final argument made for a Small Claims system is that attorneys won’t take on small matters on contingency. That is just untrue. Some attorneys might not, but I know plenty who do, including me. In fact, that was a big part of my mission in becoming an attorney: to serve artists. Sure I can’t take every case, but I take a lot of very small ones. If the work is timely registered and the defendant looks solvent, there is a good chance I’ll take the case.

So, rather than give up your rights, use them to your advantage! Register your works, find an attorney who will work with you (it doesnt have to be me–I can recommend others, too), and go after infringers.

________________

[1] Before you even go to the Monkey Selfie case and the photographer being bankrupted by it: the photographer did NOT file that suit–he has been the defendant in a suit filed by PETA.

Posted on

Don’t Lash Out

I heard about a case recently that made me think about all the people, especially the small artists, who get angry when they find a (potential) infringement and go onto social media to rip the, um, lets just call em badguys. Short answer is, even though you think it will help or at least make you feel better, youd be wrong. In fact, you could be inviting a lawsuit filed by the badguys.

Heres the very generalized skinny on the case (because really, unless you are a geeky lawyer like me, it is a dull read). One business (a kind of review site) publicly published that another business was a copyright infringer and that it had adult movies on its site. That arguably hurt the second business, so that onesued the first for various things that roughly amount to the business version of defamation. The court threw out that suit, under the California Anti-SLAPP law, which which exists so that people cant use the judicial system as a way to silence legitimate speech.

Okay, you may be thinking, the allegedly name-calling business didnt lose so whats the big deal? The big deal was that it wasnt a slam-dunk. Proving that the publication of something (potentially) defamatory was protected speech and that the lawsuit had to be dismissed under Anti-SLAPP wasnt easy. Similar cases have not been dismissed and you don’t want to be one of those.

Lots of people think they have a First Amendment right to say[1] whatever they want about whomever they want. Trouble is, that isnt so. There are limits. You cant defame someone (or a business), for example. And if someone sues you in California[2] for what you said, then, to get the case kicked out, you are going to have to prove that your speech was (1) an exercise of your First Amendment free speech right and (2) that it was made in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. Thats a pretty high bar to get over. In fact, youre going to have to show that the subject person (business) was famous/a pubic figure, or that the subject matter of the speech is of great interest to enoughpeople not affected by the case, or that the topic was of general widespread interest. Just because you and your drinking buddies think something is important isnt going to cut it.

After you, as the defendant in the original law suit, prove all that, then the other side (plaintiff in the defamation suit) gets a chance at a save–if it proves that it would probably win, then, even after you proved the above, the case will not be dismissed. See, not so easy.

So, going back to anaggrieved artist who tweets about the evil bastard Joe Doe who stole my illustration and then, worse, follows up with No one should shop at his store because he is a lying thief! well, that artist may be facing a lawsuit for those tweets and one s/he may not win. Think about that second part of the Anti-SLAPP–the potential save for the plaintiff–maybe Joe Doe had an implied license or a legitimate fair use defense that you, as a non-lawyer, didnt know would gut your infringement claim.

Better to sit on your tweeting/social media hands than run the risk of getting sued. Even if you did win, youd have to go through the unpleasantness of litigation. Instead, register your copyrights regularly and, if something gets used without your permission, talk to an attorney about your infringement claim and what your options are.

________________________

[1] And by say I mean speech made in any medium–wrote, recorded, painted, shouted in a public space, etc.

[2] Some other states have similar laws.

Posted on

Forming an Entity: Watch for Issues

Most creative professionals start their businesses without doing anything more than accepting the first freelance project offered. That is, they don’t bother to do anything about forming a legal entity like a corporation. That’s fine; if you don’t do anything and you work solo, you are a sole proprietor. After that first project, if you continue doing business, getting projects, cashing checks, you probably won’t think about your business structure any further.

At least for a while.

One day, you, the now-successful creative pro hires an accountant to do your taxes and that CPA tells you you should incorporate or form an LLC. The accountant is concerned about the relative tax burdens and, often, it does make immediate financial sense to form an entity; that is, you can save a bundle on your taxes. But, the accountant doesn’t (probably) know about the copyright ramifications, and (usually) neither does the average creative pro.

Yes, there are copyright ramifications.

Overall, there are a whole host of legal issues to consider when it comes to potentially forming an entity. Most people focus on the tax issues, and that makes sense, but there are other legal issues and I highly encourage anyone considering forming an entity to talk to a lawyer before taking that step. Anyway, for this post, I’m only going to focus on the copyright one as it is most often totally ignored, and it shouldn’t be.

So, let’s imagine you have formed a single-member LLC and, as per your CPA, you’ve made yourself an employee of that LLC. Your tax bill thanks you. Now, however, when you make your art (whatever kind of art you make–doesnt matter), who owns its copyright?

If you said you do, you’d be wrong. Even though you are the only member of your entity (the LLC), it’s that entity that owns the copyright in the art you make as an employee of that entity. It’s an automatic work-made-for-hire. No writing required.

Well, I hear you saying, but I am the entity so it’s the same thing. Nice try; but, under the law, no, you aren’t and no, it isn’t at all.

First, since the entity is now the author of the work, the length of the copyright is no longer life of the author plus 70 years. A copyright authored by an entity lasts either 95 years after its first publication or 120 years after its creation, whichever is shorter[1]. By the way, there is an exception to this to get back to the authors death +70 years length, but it requires more paperwork and I know how much y’all love paperwork.

Second, when you register that copyright, you need to do it correctly. You have to name the entity as the author and the claimant because you, as an individual, by law did not create and do not own the copyright. While screwing this up doesnt necessarily totally void a registration, it certainly will be an issue if you ever get infringed. You (and your lawyer) don’t want to have to fight about the validity of your registration. I’ve seen it in cases and it could result in a great case becoming a loser. Remember, if you sue for infringement and lose, you might end up being required to pay the other side’s attorneys’ fees and costs; you don’t want something like this to scuttle your otherwise watertight ship.

Third, let’s say you get hit by a bus and shuffle off the mortal coil, who gets the copyrights your entity owns? And what about existing licenses and royalties based off those copyrights–who gets the money? It’s not so easy, if you havent planned ahead. Do you have a succession plan in place for your entity?

None of these issues are insurmountable at all. For example, you can have a writing that keeps the copyrights created after the entity is formed as your own (if you want to do that and there are reasons to do that, or not). Overall, the issues beyond the tax ones that come up when you form an entity, including copyright ones, do require some thought and there are decisions that need to be made and new processes need to be learned if you decide to go ahead and incorporate.

Don’t go it alone and hope it all works out–thats a lousy business strategy. Talk to your own attorney and get good, personalized advice.

[1] 17 USC 302(c).

Posted on

Safe Harbors, Piracy, and Your Value

I could write on this issue, but I’ll save the time and point you toDavid Newhoff over at Illusion of More. In this post, Mr. Newhoff discusses the differences and, importantly, the similarities facing artists in the USA as compared to the Canadians when it comes to the (false) promises made by tech to improve the lives of artists. Miranda Mullholland made a wonderful and passionate speech to the Economic Clubof Canada about her (and others’) life as a musician–one who works her ass off but who barely makes a living. Watch her video and read Newhoff’s comments. I won’t reiterate it all here.

I will say this, though:

  • You make the art, be it music, photographs, design, illustrations, and it is art–the platforms can’t be successful without you.
  • Stop calling the art you createcontent and stop letting people rip you off both directly and by devaluing what you do (like, by calling it content).
  • Don’t rip off anyone else and support all other artists, yes, even (especially) when it costs you more.
Posted on

Registration? Application? What’s the deal?

Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion amongst us copyright law nerds about a circuit split on the requirement written in the statute that says you have to register the copyright before filing suit. The question is: what does “registration” mean in that statute? Seems obvious but, in law, we’re quite persnickety about word meaning so this is a big deal for us. I bet already some of you are fading out, thinking that this has little to do with you and your creative business. But it does! The good news is, you don’t need to know all the gruesome technical legal details.

Here is what you do need to know: if you want to sue someone for copyright infringement, you have to have registered the copyright before you file the lawsuit and the easiest way to make sure you’ve done that, no matter how they define it, is to register all yourworks as soon as possible after their creation. If you do that, then the complex legal question causing the circuit split won’t apply to you.

If you are one those who simplymustknow the details (and, if not, skip to the last paragraph), here’s the legal question: is applying for registration enough to mean “registered” or do you have to have the certificate in your hot little hands, before filing suit? We lawyer-types often call these two approaches application and registration, respectively. A couple of circuits have said that applying is enough to keep your lawsuit from being dismissed and a couple of others have said that you have to have the certificate.

So what? Well, thedifference means that, for example, if you file suit in California (9th Circuit), the courtswillsayif you’ve applied for your registration, you’re good to go; but, if you file the factuallyidentical* suit in Florida (11th Circuit) they will say you have to have the completed registration or your suit will be dismissed. So, you may be thinking, if you’ve only filed the application, you should just sue in one of the circuits that says that’s enough; but there is another part of the law that limits where you can file your suit, so that won’t work. That’s why I have an asterisk next to identicalabove, because one of the facts would bewhere the defendant is and if the defendant is only in Florida you can’t sue ’em in California.

Anyway, when there is a split like this, where some circuits say X and others say Y about the same statute, it falls on someone to appeal to the Supreme Court to get an answer. This means having a partywilling to do that (it’s not cheap) and then the court agreeing to review the case (which it probably would–SCOTUS likes to resolve circuit splits, usually). In other words, it’s not going to happen tomorrow so, for now, we have to live with the split.

Like I said at the beginning of this post, you can avoid all of this mess if you take the time to register your copyrights in your works as soon as you possibly can, after creation. That way you’ll make it impossible for the other side to bring up the application/registration question at all.

Posted on

The No-Pin Tag (who knew?)

I dont like Pinterest.

Anyone who knows me knows Ive complained about it since I first learned of it. In my opinion, its business model is based on exploitation of creative works, mostly without the authorization of the creators/copyright owners of the works. All its money has been generated on the back of creatives, few of whom ever get any real benefit from it.

One of the things I do not like about Pinterest is how it not only exploits the safe harbor of the DMCA (takedown process) to protect itself, but also it flips the entire idea of how copyright is supposed to work on its head. In short, rather than making its platform opt-in, it forces creators to opt-out.

Normally, to use (copy, publish, display, etc.) a creative work, first you have to ask permission. If Pinterest wanted to do things in a creator-friendly way, it would have set up its system so that creators could opt-in to have their works (that appear on their websites) eligible to be included on Pinterest. Instead, Pinterest will permit any work to be posted from any creators site onto its site unless the creator blocks her/his/its work or site. Essentially, that is an opt-out requirement. That is dirty pool, in my opinion; its flipping the burden.

Regardless of my personal feelings, that is how it works. According to Pinterest itself, if youd like to block your work, you can do so by virtue of including a bit of code into your websites code. That code is called the no-pin tag. See https://help.pinterest.com/en/articles/prevent-people-saving-things-pinterest-your-site, which says:

If you don’t want people to save things to Pinterest from your website, just paste this code into the <head> section of any page on your site:

<meta name=”pinterest” content=”nopin” />

When someone tries to save things to Pinterest from your site, they’ll see thismessage:This site doesn’t allow saving to Pinterest. Please contact the owner with any questions. Thanks for visiting!

You can also prevent any individual image from being used by (as the page cited above notes):

add this tag to [the single image]:

<img src = “foo.jpg” nopin = “nopin” />

Now, I had no idea until today that there was such a thing as a “no-pin tag.” I’m a copyright attorney and I’ve pursued infringers on Pinterest before, and yet even I didn’t know about this. Crazy. But now I do and that’s why I’m telling you about it, as soon as I could.

I honestly dont know any creative pro who is making money from her/his/their work being taken from her/his/their own site and used on Pinterest. At best, I know of a few who have shot for corporate or advertising clients who then used the work on Pinterest, but they got paid by their client(s) for the license. Pinterest is, I think, a trojan horse of a site that scares people into thinking “I have to let people pin my work so that they see it and I get hired!” but, really, it doesn’t work that way. Housewives in Podunk, USAare unlikely to hire you.

Putting on my marketing consultant hat for a minute, I would never recommend a creative permit work to be used on Pinterest without a paid license. Instead, keep your work on your own site, preferably with a watermark on each work and a proper copyright notice on or next to each work, too. Register the copyright in your works asap after creation. Embed the no-pin tag on your site. Then, if your work gets used, including pinned, without your permission, go after the infringer and protect your rights.

Posted on

Pursuing Infringers: Good For You & Your Clients, Too

I just read this interview with photographer Andrew Buchanan, on the Copyright Alliance site (by the way, if you aren’t a member of the Copyright Alliance, you should be, in my opinion). In it, he says that he pursues infringers not only because he deserves to get paid for his work, but also because his clients pay him for his original work and if infringers use the work, then his clients are getting hurt.

I love that attitude and smart business thinking. By pursuing infringers, you are serving your clients as well as protecting yourself. You can even use that in your marketing! Let your clients know that while you can’t get every infringer, you do make efforts to make sure that infringers don’t use the work you are licensing. That is an added service value.

Mr. Buchanan is right in that registration is still a pain in the ass in some ways (like the whole published/unpublished thing, to start), but it’s part of what you need to do to ensure the viability of your cases, especially the more minor value infringements. I read a case recently, Gonzales v. Transfer Technologies, Inc., 301 F. 3d 608, 609 (7th Cir. 2002), that noted:

No one can prosecute a copyright suit for $3,000. The effect of the district court’s decision if universalized would be to allow minor infringements, though willful, to be committed with impunity, to be in effect privileged, immune from legal redress. The smaller the damages, provided there is a real, and especially a willful, infringement, the stronger the case for an award of attorneys’ fees.

That’s great, and it also shows what I keep saying: you can (and should) go after small infringements and they don’t all cost $100K to do (not even close). But, and this is a big BUT, you can only possibly get attorneys’ fees if you have registered the copyright in your work before the infringement in question starts (or within a 3-month window of first publication for published work only).

So, register your work asap after creation, go after infringers, and tell your clients you are protecting them as well as yourself by doing so. You might even consider raising your rates to reflect your added value to your clients.
Just a thought. 🙂

Posted on

New Rules (probably)

The US Copyright Office is proposing new rules for registering photographs and it is asking for comments on these rules. There are three main categories with proposed changes: supplemental registrations, group registration of contributions to periodicals, and group registration of photographs.

The last one is likely the most important one for most photographers, so I want to talk about it, mostly, in this post. You can go here to read the official information(pdf), but I suspect most of you would rather poke yourself in the eye with a sharp stick as it’s written in governmental legalese. Here’re the basics you might want to know before wading into the Federal Register.

First, all group registrations of published photos (designated GRPPH) will have to be submitted electronically (no more paper options) with digital images submitted as deposit copies. Second, the maximum number of photos permitted in a single registration will be 750. Third, photographers would have to submit a separate list of all the photos being submitted as a part of the group “with a title, file name (matching the file name of the corresponding deposit copy), and in the case of GRPPH, the month and year of publication 29 (e.g., January 2016, February 2016, etc.) for each photograph in the group.” Finally, the deposit copies must be submitted in electronic form but you can send them on a disk or flash drive or upload them (with a 500MB limit per file uploaded).

Importantly, the last significant changeis that they are proposing a new category of Group Unpublished Photographs (designated GRUPH); before one could do an “unpublished collection” but this new category would replace that and have all the same requirements as the Group Published Photographs, including the 750 photos limitation and the list (but without publication dates, of course).

The only major difference between the two groups is that for published photos, the photos have to have been published within the same calendar year but the unpublished ones are not limited by time. Besides that, the groups must be only photographs and the photographs must be created by the same photographer–no mixing like 25 photos by Photo Bob and 32 photos by Photo Betty. Both the Group Published Photographs and the Group Unpublished Photographs registrations will be $55 per registration.

As always, you still may not mix published and unpublished in a single registration. That isn’t going to change with these rules chages, although I suspect that these changes may be a step in that eventual direction (maybe).

The Copyright Office is proposing to eliminate the pilot program for the Group Published registrations and to change the application process, to streamline it more. The Unpublished and the Published processes will be very much the same. Photographers will be encouraged to list the titles (and publication dates for published works) on the application itself as that will put them on the Certificate and that gives you advantages legally (I’m not going into that here, though–just do it) but, at a minimum, you’ll have to submit the list with all that information with the deposit copies (still, take the time to list the titles, it will be worth it).

Most importantly, the proposed rule would clarify that the single registration of a group confers full protection for each individual photograph in the group. That would eliminate the arguments that defendants use to try and limit the damages (or argue fair use) we see in court sometimes, like that using one image out of a registration of 500 items is de minimis since it’s only 1/500th of the whole. This is a very good thing.

To submit comments on these new proposed rules, first read the details in the pdf linked to above, then you can comment by going here. Note that comments are due by January 3, 2017.

The Supplementary Registration is used to correct errors or make changes to an existing registration. Hopefully, you’ll never need to file one, but if you do you’re very likely going to have to do it electronically in the future. For more information on the proposed changes or to make comments, go here.

If you make contributions to periodicals, you may use that form of registration (GRCP) and there are changes there as well. Mostly, it is about making the registrations electronic, much like the Group Photo options I described above (are you seeing a theme here?). Notably, the Copyright Office notes in the Group Registrations proposed changes that it encourages photographers to use those options instead of the GRCP as there are fewer limitations. Still, if you use this form of registration (and this applies to text as well as photos, by the way), you should go here to read about the changes and to submit comments.

Posted on

It’s not new if it’s the same

Here is yet another sad story of the timing ofregistrationbiting creatives in the butt. The short answer is that tattoo artists didn’t register the design in tats made on NBA players (including LeBron James) when theymade them, but instead after the first infringement of the tattoosby a video game company. That is, when the players were reproduced in video games, the tats were also reproduced, and since they weren’t licensed by the tattoo artists, the copyrights in the tats wereinfringed. In 2015, after the 2013 infringements (in NBA 2K14), the artists registered the work and when the same video game used the players (with tats) again but in the NBA 2K16game, theybrought suit seeking attorneys’ fees and statutory damages of up to $1.2 million.

The court said the “new”infringements weren’t actually new but rather the game was an iterationof the original one, with the original infringements. Sincethose started before the registrations, boom, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees were barred.

Ouch.

The artists are claiming the actual damages (still available under the law) are still significant, but they’regoing to have to prove up those damages; that is going to be a bear.

Terms of Service Proudly powered by WordPress