Does anyone submit their photographs for copyright registration? If so how many (all, some, only the best)? Have you ever used the registration certificates?
I've been contacting a number of websites who have been using a photograph I took. A webmaster of a commericial site indicated they wouldn't do anything without a copy of the legal copyright certificate. I've never submitted any images for registration since photography is a hobby, not my employment.
In this specific case a copyright certificate might help me prove the image is mine (at some cost to me). However, I do have the original slide and the print from which the scan was made 9 years ago. The scanned version is missing key details which were cropped off, so I'm confident I can prove that mine is the orignal version.
You own the copyright the very second you press the shutter, all the "certificate of registration" stuff is tosh, send them an invoice for the sum you want for the use of the image(s) and follow it up with legal proceedings to get paid if necessary.
'Registration' is a big point of confusion between the US and everywhere else.
As the creating artist, you own the copyright to your work the moment you create it (unless contracted away via work agreements), and no registration is required to 'own' that copyright. Internationally, your work is protected under the terms of the Berne convention by the signatories to that convention - again, you do not need to 'register' anything in order to have the protection apply to your artistic work.
In America, you can 'register' your copyright with a central office by submitting a registration form, processing fee and copies of the artistic works. This registration will allow you to claim enhanced damages in an American court in the case of an infringment being taken to court. If your work is not registered - it is still protected and damages can still be claimed in an America court, but to a lesser level of damages.
The webmaster of the site either doesn't understand the Interational/American Law, or is attempting to fob you off. If they will not co-operate with your requests, then you need to find the ISP that the site is hosted with. If they are US based, then send them a request under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) to take down the site due to copyright infringment - they are obliged to take the site down until the issue is resolved. Some info can be found here and a bit more in general here.
Assuming the infringer is based in the US, then if they are unco-operative and you decide to take legal action, then you may well find it helps to register the image(s) - that way you can claim higher damages.
Once again though, currently, you do not need to register anything anywhere to obtain copyright protection it is yours by right.
Thanks to everyone for the replies. Some more info. The infringer is UK-based, but I believe the server on which the site is located is in the USA, so I was already considering a DMCA take-down notice. Sending an invoice remains an option, but backing it up with legal proceedings is going to cost me money, when I'd prefer to be earning it. Maybe the small claims court is an option? The oft-repeated "speak to a lawyer" advice is of course wise but that's outgoings, not income.
The reason I asked about the copyright registration was for proving you are the copyright holder. Posession of the slides/negatives is a good indicator but with digital cameras where the original image can be copied without loss that proof seems more difficult to assert. Yet another good reason to always shoot raw.
Discussion
5 repliesI've been contacting a number of websites who have been using a photograph I took. A webmaster of a commericial site indicated they wouldn't do anything without a copy of the legal copyright certificate. I've never submitted any images for registration since photography is a hobby, not my employment.
In this specific case a copyright certificate might help me prove the image is mine (at some cost to me). However, I do have the original slide and the print from which the scan was made 9 years ago. The scanned version is missing key details which were cropped off, so I'm confident I can prove that mine is the orignal version.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
HTH
Brett.
As the creating artist, you own the copyright to your work the moment you create it (unless contracted away via work agreements), and no registration is required to 'own' that copyright. Internationally, your work is protected under the terms of the Berne convention by the signatories to that convention - again, you do not need to 'register' anything in order to have the protection apply to your artistic work.
In America, you can 'register' your copyright with a central office by submitting a registration form, processing fee and copies of the artistic works. This registration will allow you to claim enhanced damages in an American court in the case of an infringment being taken to court. If your work is not registered - it is still protected and damages can still be claimed in an America court, but to a lesser level of damages.
The webmaster of the site either doesn't understand the Interational/American Law, or is attempting to fob you off. If they will not co-operate with your requests, then you need to find the ISP that the site is hosted with. If they are US based, then send them a request under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) to take down the site due to copyright infringment - they are obliged to take the site down until the issue is resolved. Some info can be found here and a bit more in general here.
Assuming the infringer is based in the US, then if they are unco-operative and you decide to take legal action, then you may well find it helps to register the image(s) - that way you can claim higher damages.
Once again though, currently, you do not need to register anything anywhere to obtain copyright protection it is yours by right.
HTH
The reason I asked about the copyright registration was for proving you are the copyright holder. Posession of the slides/negatives is a good indicator but with digital cameras where the original image can be copied without loss that proof seems more difficult to assert. Yet another good reason to always shoot raw.