–As of March 1, 1989, copyright has been made automatic. The need to register with the Copyright Office is no longer required to provide protection. Once you create a picture, you own the copyright. A copyright notice (for example, a copyright symbol or watermark) is also no longer required to protect your photographs (excluding older works); however, many photographers continue to use to identify themselves and the date of creation.

–As a general rule, for works created on or after January 1, 1978 the copyright is legally yours throughout your life plus 70 years beyond that unless you decide to pass your rights on to another.

–Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary. Registered works (if registration occurs within 5 years of publication) serve as prima facie evidence (proof) of a valid copyright. Registered works may also be eligible for statutory damages and attorney’s fees in successful litigation.

–If someone was to steal your photographs, they can be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 ($150,000 if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner) for each work infringed on and may also be liable for attorney’s fees incurred by the copyright owner.

–Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.

–To register photographs you will use the Visual Arts form which you can find at the official Copyright website.

–The current fee is $45 per application. You may register a collection of photos on one application under one title.

–Registration takes effect the day all the required elements in acceptable form are received; however, it takes approximately 4 months to receive your certificate. I suggest sending your application requiring confirmation of delivery since you will not receive acknowledgment from the Copyright Office.

–You will be notified by the Copyright Office via a letter or a telephone call if further information is needed to complete your application.

–If your application is rejected, you will receive a letter explaining why.

–Works created on or after January 1, 1978, are not required to be renewed.

–Online registration is expected in the future.

–Unfortunately a copyright is not protected throughout the world. Not all, but most countries do honor each other’s citizens’ copyrights.

I hope you find this information helpful but be sure to visit the official Copyright website at www.copyright.gov before deciding whether or not you should register your photographs.

Diana Cooper specializes in nature and wildlife photography. http://www.dianasphotography.com and http://www.cafepress.com/dianasphotos

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Diana_Cooper

Why use copy protection?

Video and audio discs are often copied casually as well as for profit. This is detrimental to businesses-for every free copy made, you’re losing a sale.

Types of copy protection.

There are many different ways you can protect your disc information via copy protection.

With typical CD-ROM copy protection, users may be asked to enter a code given at the time of purchase. Other methods involve associating the software with one specific computer by detecting the machine’s serial number. CD protection often prevents CD’s from being played in CD-ROM drives. Most modern DVD protection uses encryption.

The dangers of copy protection.

It’s difficult-and essential-to protect your information without restricting the use of legitimate buyers too much. Whatever method of duplication you choose, it’s important to ask about how it will affect the end-user experience.

Choosing a strategy. If you’re planning to copy-protect your discs through a duplication service, be sure to ask some questions about the strategy the company uses.

• How does the technology work?

• How will this technology limit legitimate users?

• Is this technology compatible with all platforms that play the disc?

This can prevent your company from losing profits through illegal copies. But it’s important to choose a method that works for you and your legitimate customers. Keep their needs in mind and discuss your concerns with your duplication company, and you should be able to find a solution that works for both of you.

G Pearce works at http://www.magellanduplication.com based in Hampshire. For more information on copy protection services visit http://www.magellanduplication.com/copy-protection-services.htm

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Georgina_Pearce

As a web site owner you probably know how easily your images and text can be stolen and used by others. This month we tell you how to enforce your copyright and legally use images belonging to other web sites.

Find and use copyrighted content

Protect your copyright

Web design and copyright

01: Finding And Using Copyrighted Content
Images, text, software, video – no matter what form it takes, there are laws that stop others using or redistributing a work without permission. In fact, even a ‘thanks to whoever.com for the image’ isn’t enough unless you actually asked their permission !
In the case of photography, buying images does not necessarily make them yours. Sites such as BigStockPhoto.com and Fotolia.com give only a ‘limited license’ which allows the use of the photo on your website, business card or other creative work but does not give you the right to resell or otherwise redistribute the photo.

At no time can you legally take content from another website without express permission. ‘Google Images’ and ‘Save As’ are both hot-points as they seem to offer a free and easy way of grabbing images and text but without having asked express permission, reproducing them in any way will mean you are plain and simply breaking the law. Even a sentence such as ‘image from whateversite.com’ is not enough – you need permission !

An example of a copyright request

Dear Namehere

I, your name , am writing on behalf of your company name to request your kind permission to use name of what you want as seen at the web address where the file resides . I have attached a copy of the exact information we wish to use. If this meets your approval, kindly complete the release below and indicate the credit line that you would like us to display :

The undersigned authorizes your company name to use the attached material on your website address in perpetuity :

Signature:

Print name:

Title:

Company name:

Company address:

Contact details:

Credit line:

A ‘credit line’ is a brief sentence such as ‘photograph shown courtesy of whoever.com’. You must have a signature, so offering a method for the owner to Fax you is recommended. If you do not have a fax or even a fax machine, visit www.faxtastic.co.uk and set up your own FREE fax-to-email account.

02: How To Protect YOUR Copyright
Although the ‘©’ sign or the term ‘Copyright yoursitename.com’ is generally enough warning, you can choose to show a copyright page on your website (particularly useful for those with a lot of photographs)..here at Lizard-Web.com we would charge £30 (approx $57) for the text plus creation of the new page click here to order yours.

You can protect your website with a simple ‘No Right Click’ javascript. A slice of techy code added to your site, the script disables the right button of a mouse and therefore offers basic protection from image theft, however, this is no match for a veteran Internet thief.

Enforcing your copyright
For those instances when you find someone using your copyright without permission, you will need to send a ‘Cease And Desist’ letter visit Utsystem.edu for a letter template

03: Web Design And Copyright Law
Web designers and graphic designers such as us create our works under the law of ‘a work for hire’; by doing so the copyright of the work is passed to it’s buyer and, in the eyes of the law, you are responsible for it’s copyright and can act on anybody who breeches it.

However, many song writers hesitate before sharing their creative property for fear of other artists stealing their original ideas. This is where a copyright comes in. It’s important to note that original work is copyrighted the moment it is recorded on paper, computer file or disc. Protecting the work, though, is another issue.

According to the U.S. Copyright Office, “Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States to the authors of ‘original works of authorship’…It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of the copyright.” The official U.S. Copyright site features a list of these rights and includes the three basic steps to securing your own official sound recording copyright–which requires an approximate six-month turn around and a $45 registering fee.

For home made artists looking for a cheap alternative to the watertight and time-tested U.S. Copyright Office method, the myth of the “poor man’s copyright” may satisfy. The basic concept is to mail a copy of the work (recorded song and lyrics) to yourself and leave the envelope unopened until the day you have to prove you created the material yourself. Unfortunately, it would be easy to fraudulently duplicate this method by mailing an unsealed envelope to yourself and, therefore, appears to hold little legal value. For more pros and cons on the poor man’s copyright, visit CopyrightAuthority.com (http://www.copyrightauthority.com/poor-mans-copyright/), which notes “Cheap copyright methods have never proved as reliable as the official methods.”

Posting songs online at sites like Echoboost.com could be considered a new, tech-savvy poor man’s copyright since you would have a link to the existing music in addition to the website’s record of the original posting date. A search for information to back up this simple online copyright solution came up empty, so it may or may not be any more effective than mailing a copy of the song to yourself.

Music business attorney and author Don Passman said it best when he backed up the argument to go through proper channels when claiming ownership for creative material: “You don’t need it to register the copyright in Washington, but it is a nice piece of evidence. If someone claims he wrote the song on such-and-such a date, and you can prove you wrote it before that, then it helps (http://www.taxi.com/faq/copyright/passman.html)”

1. the employee or consultant for authorizing the infringement by the employer;
2. the employer on the basis of vicarious liability;
3. a person responsible for a place of public entertainment, for allowing or permitting to be used for performance of a literary, dramatic or musical work;
4. a person providing the means by which to reproduce the work.

Obviously, the employer is the most likely target for a claim to damages, as they are seen to be 1. a stable enterprise with a vested interest in avoiding litigation followed by a damages payment; and 2. the employee is more than likely not going to be in a position to satisfy a judgment and the legal fees incurred in the conduct of a claim. The Measure of Compensation Damages are said to be at large in copyright cases, as they are not fixed to any particular measure. Damage caused by infringement of copyright is quantified by the value by which the copyright is diminished as a chose in action*.The measure of pecuniary damage* likely to be ordered in an action for copyright infringement is that of its commercial value. The commercial value of a work in the circumstances of infringement is reached by one of two methods. Firstly, where the infringing works are sold (by the defendant), the commercial value is represented by the loss of profit to the owner, as the owner has been deprived of the opportunity to sell licenses for the work. The alternate means applies where the work is simply used by the defendant, and not resold by them.

Sales of Goods and Diversion of Customers

When a copyright work is copied and sold, the owner of copyright is entitled to recover their loss of profit caused by the diversion of trade to the defendant. Thus, in a case where the claimant was in the business of producing Christmas cards and offering them for sale to the public, the claimant was awarded the profits that the claimant was deprived by the actions of the defendant.

This is not to say that the claimant would be entitled to recover for all of the sales made by the defendants, as the claimant may not have sold as many as the infringer; whether the claimant will be entitled to recover for all of the infringing sales of the defendant depends on the circumstances of the case at hand. In the events that the particular copyright work is sold at reduced prices serves aggravate the damage suffered by the claimant.

The owner is also entitled to recover for the loss to the reputation of the original copyright work. A loss of reputation will take place where the works are sold at a reduced price, at a reduced quality or in a vulgar or distasteful fashion, such the claimants’ own sales in the future would be prejudiced.

Reproductions without Sale

Where the defendant does not trade in the goods copied, such as using photographs on a website, or uses infringing software, the method of calculation described above (which accounts for loss of profits for diversion of trade) is not the appropriate measure for calculating damages. The proper measure in these circumstances is a reasonable license fee that the copyright owner would reasonably charge for a license to use the photographs in the particular circumstances. The award of damages will be that of a willing copyright owner and a person in the position of the notional licensee, being the defendant.

Conclusion

Simply because a copyright owner seeks to recover from business, does not prevent the business seeking recovery from the employee or consultant who was responsible for, that is, authorized the infringement by obtaining the copyright work unlawfully and making it available to the business for use.

Despite frequent claims of excessive damage by owners, they are not in a position to enforce a claim for a sum of compensation greater than the loss that they are able to prove with reasonable certainty. This process takes in a process of ascertaining on the particular facts what the copyright owner would in fact be entitled to recover at law.

TO THE SUPREME COURT

The original trial court judgment of the Tasini case held that electronic publication of a freelancer’s work was a permissible “revision.” A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals unanimously overturned that ruling in September 1999, and held that The Times and other publishers (Newsday, Time Incorporated, and Lexis-Nexis) were infringing freelancers’ copyrights by posting writing and photos on-line without permission from freelancers. The Appeals Court also refused to re-hear a counter appeal by The New York Times et al. The publishers then asked (and got) the Supreme Court to hear the case. As yet, no date has been set for the hearing of the appeal.

—————————-

THE COPYRIGHT LAW IS ON THE SIDE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER

The Copyright Law (Title 17 of the USC [United States Code], Sections 201-205) allows the creator of a work (photo, writing, painting, song, etc.) to control and license that work for economic gain. All rights belong to the original creator, unless the creator has signed a written agreement ceding a particular right or rights. In other words, a client can’t contract with a photographer to use a photo (or series of photos) for the purpose of publishing them in a magazine or book, for one-time publishing rights, and then turn around and re-use those same pictures on their website without offering the photographer additional compensation. This applies to photos licensed to the client for one-time usage in the past, as well as future photos.

Note: The law is always open to interpretation. You can expect to hear different shadings of the above, by the attorneys for the publishers, in this case.

—————————-

BIG DAMAGES

Either side stands to lose big on this case, if they’re the ones the Court rules against. Freelancers would lose not only on payments for photos unlawfully re-used in past years, but also in future re-uses. Publishers could conceivably be held liable for past and current copyright infringement.

Most photographer and writer organizations have expressed confidence that they will see a positive outcome for this case. They predict that freelancers, who will now have been thwarted in their attempts to instate their re-use rights for electronically published photos, will prevail. –RE —————————–

July 2001
Ed. Note: As it turns out, photographers and writers prevailed.

The question was, “Do print and electronic publishers violate the copyrights of freelance authors (and photographers) when they include the freelancers’ already-published articles in computer databases without the author’s permission? Yes. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that section 201(c) does not authorize the copying at issue. “The publishers are not sheltered by [section 201(c)], we conclude, because the databases reproduce and distribute articles standing alone and not in context, not ‘as part of that particular collective work’ to which the author contributed, ‘as part of…any revision’ thereof, or ‘as part of…any later collective work in the same series.’ Both the print publishers and the electronic publishers, we rule, have infringed the copyrights of the freelance authors,” wrote Justice Ginsburg. ——————————

Attorney Joel L. Hecker lectures and writes extensively on issues of concern to the photography industry. His office is located at Russo & Burke, 600 Third Ave, New York NY 10016. Phone: 1 212 557-9600. E-mail: HeckerEsq@aol.com