Copyrighted Images

There are some interesting coal fire pics on google images.

Copyrighted, soon as you click the button the image is instantly copyrighted by the person who takes it.

Richard S. wrote:Copyrighted, soon as you click the button the image is instantly copyrighted by the person who takes it.

Photographs are automatically copyrighted for life of the author plus fifty years from the minute you take the photo, but many people will allow you to use them if it's not a "for profit" use. Additionally, if the person didn't actually register the image with the US PAT OFF, all they can do is ask you to remove it. Morally, you'd want to just ask for permission, but legally they have to take steps to prevent your use.

av8r wrote:. Additionally, if the person didn't actually register the image with the US PAT OFF, all they can do is ask you to remove it. Morally, you'd want to just ask for permission, but legally they have to take steps to prevent your use.

You don't register for copyright at the patent office. Registration of your copyright provides a few benefits but a registration doesn't provide you any more or less protection under the law. You can't sue unless its registered but there is nothing that prevents you from registering then suing. You can also sue for statuatory damages and attorneys fees is the work was registered before the infringement. It alos provides a legal dated record but this record isn't proof of ownership of the copyright. e.g if I take one of these pictures and apply for registration it's all but worthless if the the real owner can prove the image belongs to him.

Richard S. wrote:

av8r wrote:. Additionally, if the person didn't actually register the image with the US PAT OFF, all they can do is ask you to remove it. Morally, you'd want to just ask for permission, but legally they have to take steps to prevent your use.

You don't register for copyright at the patent office. Registration of your copyright provides a few benefits but a registration doesn't provide you any more or less protection under the law. You can't sue unless its registered but there is nothing that prevents you from registering then suing. You can also sue for statuatory damages and attorneys fees is the work was registered before the infringement. It alos provides a legal dated record but this record isn't proof of ownership of the copyright. e.g if I take one of these pictures and apply for registration it's all but worthless if the the real owner can prove the image belongs to him.

I have a friend who is a partner at Howrey LLP in DC. My details came from him. No offense, but I'll stick to what he told me as he does it for a living (a rediculously over compensated living at that!)

I agree that the premise of prior art holds significant weight in regards to matters of intellectual property. Searches can be squashed by something as benign as scribbles on a napkin!

thanks!

av8r wrote:I have a friend who is a partner at Howrey LLP in DC. My details came from him. No offense, but I'll stick to what he told me as he does it for a living (a rediculously over compensated living at that!)

Your friend doesn't know what he's talking about then:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

I'm a member of video forum which is lucky enough to have resident copyright lawyer, this subject comes up all the time. If someone uses your copyrighted material you most certainly can sue them whether its registered or not, you're just not going to collect as much if it's not registered.

I think what he's basing it on is 12 years of actual court experiences. He's a prosecuting attorney who spends a lot of time in court actually doing this vs. just reading what the law says. As with anything legal, there is often much left to interpretation by the judge. My guess is he's pretty good at what he does based on what he makes and the corporations he represents, but you never know I suppose.

All that matters it that you don't want to start stealing pics off Google images or someone's website for legal and moral issues. I never heard of anyone registering photos with a patent office but I'm not a lawyer so........................... I was under the assumption that all intellectual property was copyrighted the moment it's created and legal action could be pursued if there was an infringement on the author's work. If Revlon spends 1000's of dollars for a modeling shoot I can't take those pictures and use them on my website. I can't imagine that any company registers all their work with a patent office.

av8r wrote:I think what he's basing it on is 12 years of actual court experiences.

He may be suggesting it's not worth it for the client in a lot of cases because of the exorbitant lawyers fees. Me trying to bring suit against a small company for example that uses a single graphic that i created may cost me as much in lawyers fees as I would collect in the suit. On the other hand if you're billion dollar company like Corbis it may very well be worth your while if the infringement covers multiple offenders: http://www.webmasterworld.com/content_c ... 181266.htm

Whether its worth the lawsuit is really dependent on the who/what/where/.

Richard S. wrote:

av8r wrote:I think what he's basing it on is 12 years of actual court experiences.

He may be suggesting it's not worth it for the client in a lot of cases because of the exorbitant lawyers fees. Me trying to bring suit against a small company for example that uses a single graphic that i created may cost me as much in lawyers fees as I would collect in the suit. On the other hand if you're billion dollar company like Corbis it may very well be worth your while if the infringement covers multiple offenders: http://www.webmasterworld.com/content_c ... 181266.htm

Whether its worth the lawsuit is really dependent on the who/what/where/.

Pretty much what I was trying, but apparently failing, to communicate! Hasn't been a good week....I have a beautiful new stoker sitting in the middle of my living room, but it's cold to the touch....waiting on a part...Patience is not one of my gifts....

traderfjp wrote: I never heard of anyone registering photos with a patent office but I'm not a lawyer so

You don't, patent and copyrights are two separate things. Patents are for mechanical devices. Copyrights covers intellectual work, art, video, images, text etc.

I was under the assumption that all intellectual property was copyrighted the moment it's created and legal action could be pursued if there was an infringement on the author's work.

It is but there are few exceptions, if for example you are doing a work for hire but even that gets tricky. If someone contracts me to make a website and it isn't specifically spelled out in the contract that they own the copyright to what I create I still own the copyright. Other exceptions include if you film for example a school play which can really get complicated because at least two and possibly three copyrights are involved, you have the rights to the footage itself, the school owns the copyrights to that particular performance and if whatever they performed such as play was copyrighted the authors of the play have rights too. Without and agreement of all three parties none of you can sell the video.

On a side note when you post information here that too is copyrighted by you, I'm not talking about the brief snippets of text but if you create a lengthy post or upload original images you the poster retain copyright to that material. However by hitting the submit you are giving permission for me the site owner to display your work. This is indefinite but I couldn't for example take all the good stuff and place it in a book for sale either. It would have to remain within the context of a post.

I can't imagine that any company registers all their work with a patent office.

They don't, prime examples would be newspapers. It would cost a fortune and the copyright office would never be able to keep up.