I am at the moment interested in tools that search the web for potential infringements. Could you please provide some links to such tools ?

When I go to the website for Contracting parties to the Berne Convention I see that the United states enforces it since March 1, 1989. So why do I need to register copyright if the work is produced in the USA but not another country that is a Berne Convention signatory?

I have to say, I find #4 in particular, to be horrible advice.
The LAST people in the world, I’d want as a client is someone who has  infringed ( see also “stolen”) my work. That is not a “client”. It’s a thief and deadbeat that will drive you to bankruptcy court in their Mercedes.

An honest mistake by a reputable client as to the term of use for a given image can and will be resolved by a simple phone call. Failing that, having a photographer write a demand letter makes as much sense as having a lawyer do a photo shoot.
 
That attitude and idea has really hurt photographers and freelancers right in the pocket book over the years.  “Requesting” payment from an infringer is laughable and lawyers representing infringers treat such requests as jokes – if they address them at all.. I know the answer from them already. I call it the “Whimpy”  defense as in cartoons of “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”.

I had an infringer offer “future work” in order to pay less for the infringement.
Sorry, I didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday. I said, “Pay me my full amount now, and I’ll give you a big discount on the future work”. Right.
Folks- “future work” is like the tooth fairy or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow- it’s all Fairy Tales.

And the idea of 3X or even 10X your “regular” fee as a penalty is a flat out stupid concept that should die and be buried.  How can you estimate your “penalty” when you have no written representation of all usages that have been made  nor an assessment from a competent copyright lawyer as to what the infringement could be worth?   The value in court and thus for settlement purposes may exceed 50X “your fee”.  A demand letter sets the tone for the whole approach.  If it comes from a photographer who avoids hiring a professional the recipient knows the photographer is easy pickins.  Photographer vs. Lawyer in a legal fight?  Vegas won’t take action on that absurdity.

I’ve sued for infringement, with Ed Greenberg and frankly, there is nothing like a good old-fashioned Federal lawsuit to get someone to pay close attention to you. I just collected a few weeks ago, a large sum from someone who offered a whole $100 for a prior infringement and future license. I collected far, far more. I wish I could say how much more, but that settlement came with a non-disclosure clause.

I’ve also collected for a web infringement, really big time, from someone who was taking in a million bucks a year and claimed we’d bankrupt them. Well, in deposition, we found out that was not really true. The nice thing about having your paperwork and registration in order is that when an infringement comes up, I turn over to my lawyer, Ed Greenberg and then he works for a check. He does the work, he’s the professional, and I don’t have to get aggravated.  The Copyright Law has an assortment of specific remedies which photographers can use to get money, statutory damages and yes, even lawyer’s fees.
 
Photographers are upset when clients don’t use a professional photographer, but then why are photographers scared many times to use a professional lawyer to handle legal issues?  Should we also act as our own doctors when surgery is in order?
 
Register all of your work.  If something’s goes wrong get the right person  to fix it. That right person is never a photographer.
 
Jack Reznicki
http://www.thecopyrightzone.com

But over the years I began to wonder: “Lots of images used online get cropped, would some one care if they cropped the lower portion of my image to get the basic content?” In some cases probably not.

So I have been considering the center image placement for water marks

Another technique I have considered for proof of authorship harks back to the days of film. I learned to only provide prints that have had a small portion of all the edges cropped off. Not so much as to infringe (no pun intended) on the image content, but enough that if you laid a copy of the photo down and projected the neg around it you could see where the 2 “fit”. Instant proof.

I may do this automatically upon importing my images from now on.

And, I think I will work on making the least offending/center placement watermark I can, as I get my new site built this week.

Please, please promise me (cause I love you) that you will get a PO before turning over any digital files. Even payment if you can. If I go on Getty to buy images, I have to pay before I get to download! I know, seems crazy. If I buy any kind of digital product, like Adobe programs, etc, I have to pay before I download. You should hold yourself to the same standards, don’t give into the client. If they really want/need it, they will make it work. I work with many large corporations (like banks) that are watching every penny, so if you turn over files and are not paid and don’t have a PO, the person who ‘purchased’ your image might not be authorized to do so.

Good luck. It will take a crowd to change the industry standard. The digital world has made people want files in an instant. That should mean you get paid in an instant.

It’s easier than ever with PayPal – you can accept credit cards, and the payment goes through instantly. So far everyone has paid up front, without complaints, and everyone is happy.

I know this can’t apply to all situations, but it certainly helps alleviate some of the stress of getting paid.

Last year an english company specialising in data protection used an image from one of their competitors on their website. I work for the competitor and the image was exclusive to them. I also do some non-exclusive stock work for them which they release. This of course left me in an awkward position with my clients and I felt I had to resolve the issue quickly.
I issued the usual take down notice and agreed a fee.
4 months of emails and I handed it over to an IP specialist lawyer.
The company still refuses to see why they should pay, after all they took it off google (its on page 17 of a google search for the right search terms and they passed equally sufficient images in pages 1-16 so I suspect thats not quite the truth) and they took it down immediately.
Thats now 8 months ago and the bill they are facing is 4 times what I invoiced them for.
If it goes to court it will cost them even more in legal fees and they will ultimately have to pay out.
The UK IP lawyer is on a percentage of the payout so its also in their best interests to get the best deal.

Quite often Im billing more for illegal usages than they would legitimately license images from some stock libraries who would discount to get the business.

Jay stopped and told the group “I don’t know why anyone would post anything on the web without a watermark. It’s stupid not to.” That was enough validation for me to always put a watermark on my online images (as well as full IPTC info in the meta data).

I thought it was a no-brainer back then and still do. It doesn’t need to cover the entire image, but does need to be legible and take some effort to remove (so there’s proof of intent if someone does remove it). If it’s a good image, you’ll get a call, watermark or no watermark, IMHO.

Never happened to me, but I always require pre-payment (in general by credit card), except if I have done business before with them, or the company is in the US and confidence-inspiring.

> Unfortunately I have learned that copyright means nothing if the company has more money than you do.

That’s the other way around. All companies are likely to have more money than you do. On the other hand, if the company does not have enough money, a lawyer may not be interested in taking the case, even if the infringement is blatant.

His reasoning was twofold, the first is an obvious try not to pay any money up front, if you can avoid it. His second reason I particularly liked though and it went something like this: Most infringers think that they can wear you down and your legal costs will get to a point when it’s not worth chasing them anymore. However, if your lawyer can truthfuly say that they are not going to let the matter drop because they don’t get paid if they can’t win a settlement, it may make the other party think twice. Just a thought.

Let me qualify this, as my question may not be clear.

An image maker residing in the U.S.A. creates images outside the U.S. Is there any legal problem with copyright protection through U.S. copyright laws on these images created outside the country?

Theft/violation of copyright laws actually increases the cost of doing business. When a photographer has to battle a violation it takes them away from doing what they are suppose to be doing which is being creative.

I think if there was a partnership with the end users to help battle the theft and peers would ostracize the violators, then maybe there would be a reduction. I would then be limited to those small companies who don’t hurt the photographer as much financially.

I think peer pressure is a viable tool if applied to those who do violate. Just a thought.

Sure! Please contact me by email (photoattorney at g m a i l . c o m) with specifics and I’ll authorize it.

Best,
Carolyn

“Unless you created the work outside of the United States and in a country….”

Do any readers (Carolyn?) know how this applies if a US Citizen creates images in say China? Is there a legal problem filing copyright with the U.S. gov on images created outside the United States?

TIA!

There were a few images to produce, all with different production needs. They had a deadline, and weather was an important factor. After discussions with the producer (Asian for AB) I was told my bid, and approach looked excellent and she would get back with me. After a week and no response, I sent her an email, and received a short reply that they had decided to use someone from xxx country (a place known for very low fees/production costs).

I emailed her a letter along with an invoice for a creative fee (a few $K) . Essentially it was my idea (image) that was used to sell this campaign to the client. I explained this in the letter, and told them my recourse was to be compensated for a copyright violation. After a week I heard nothing back. In Letter two I expressed my need to be compensated or I would get in touch with their client and demand payment. I heard back from her immediately. She told me the head of accounts would be in touch soon.

The head of accounts was very nice, complimented my work and thanked me. His response, “We do a lot of advertising and would love to use your services for future campaigns”. I told him that was wonderful, I would very much like to continue doing business together, but I need to be compensated for this use now. If you’d like a discount, lets do ten projects together. I’ll waive my fees on the tenth one. The interaction was mutually respectful. The $$ was wired to my account the next day.

I also insisted on seeing the final media for my campaign to make sure the art was not derivative of my images. They complied. Neither side lost face. For a long time it has been a given that ad agencies will use photographers images as comps for the final art (for free). Many image makers go along with this, some require payment depending on the details of the project.