As for making my own images and then registering each image with the copyright office for $40 a pop or whatever it costs these days, that's something I wouldn't do for any image less valuable than a picture of the Pope having sex with the Queen of England on a unicycle.
You can bulk register your images, once every three months, for published works. Example: you shoot photos for your website and publish them on January 1st. You slowly add more of your own images to your site over the course of the next three months.
If you keep a folder on your desktop titled "Q1 registration" where you've saved copies of all the shots you took and published between January 1st - March 31st, you can then go to the eCo service on March 31st and file an online registration of all these shots for a one-time fee of $35.00.
You simply repeat the process next quarter etc. etc. ad infinium.
If you're a photographer with sole access to shooting celebs like Brad and Angelina on red carpets, as you imply in a message above, you're making major bucks with national and world-wide publications. And if that's the case, why on earth are you spending valuable time scolding and negotiating with mom and pop website owners who have most likely used an image of yours without even thinking about copyright?
Oh, you think editorial photographers are making major bucks? Perhaps some paid staff photographers or a select few elite freelancers are, but the rest of us find it a struggle to make a meaningful income. Although agencies might offer royalty splits of between 20% to 60% in favour of the photographer, actual image license fees have been driven down considerably over the last 20 years in lieu of big clients getting subscription access to any given agencies archives.
Here's an example. Time Warner might have an account with Associated Press whereby they pay a flat fee which will allow them to use up to 25,000 pictures/month across all their outlets - this means print, online, TV - as long as it's editorial. This level of access might cost them $10,000/month, meaning the actual per image license is $0.40.
As a contributing photographer, you might get as little as $0.08 as your share of that image use. Perhaps you'll get $0.26 if you've got a better royalty share contract.
Of course the answer is to cut out the middleman and license your works straight to clients - which is largely what I do; I still contribute to agencies because shooting for them often means I get access to events which I simply wouldn't get otherwise and, once at an event, I can network and make contacts which may yield directly commissioned work down the road.
Also, not every agency client is a subscription client so - on the odd occasion - the royalty incomes can be pretty good. The more you shoot, the more you earn.
I can understand stomping on websites or publications that arrogantly steal images for profit, but I just don't get spending time tracking down and trying to negotiate settlements on the small infringements in a digital age with an internet that hosted more than 40,000,000,000 clear back in 2008. The only way that makes any sense is if the effort from doing that earns more money than the actual work of making images and licensing them.
Here's the point: copyright infringements affect my bottom line. Period. I make every attempt to turn an infringer into a correct licensor of my works so long as doing so doesn't breach my contracts with my clients.
Also, with legislation being proposed in both the EU and US to tackle the issue of "orphan" works, it is absolutely in my business interests to ensure that infringements of my work are found promptly and either replaced with correctly licensed works or deleted.
Continuing that line of thought, I'd still like to know what percentage of your time you spend hounding copyright violators and negotiating settlements. Ditto for what percentage of your income comes from these settlements? You've lamented in several threads and messages about not having as much time as you'd like to create images -- that suggests to me that you're making good money in the settlement demand game and prefer the rewards of winning that game to the rewards of creative work itself.
If I'm not shooting, taking care of administrative tasks, or busy with my domestic and family responsibilities, then you can be sure that my 9-5 hours are spent addressing infringements.
Unlike the alleged practices of Getty, I review infringements on a case-by-case basis and accrue as much information as possible before deciding on a course of action. Except for particularly egregious infringements such as those that are commercial or editorial in nature, I contact the infringers directly and explain why I'm reaching out to them and what my expectations are by way of resolving the matter.
The blatant infringements by commercial entities or those whom are gainfully using my work (e.g. entities whom could license my shots but have chosen not to and/or should be knowledgeable about copyrights) get turned over to my attorneys instead.
As for the settlements? From infringers whom I've contacted directly, it's usually for the fee that the image would have been licensed for had they asked in advance. In the event that the matters get referred for legal actions, the settlements wind up being for considerably more.
To date, about 80% of my settlements have been the former and, in a few of those instances, infringers were converted to clients. Even in one of the instances that my attorneys handled for me, a settlement was negotiated whereby the outlet became a client too.
To put in simply: I'll happily work with people to reach a mutually beneficial outcome. I don't bear anyone any ill will when I find they've infringed on my work as they largely aren't aware that they've broken any laws - I make them aware that I'm simply protecting my business interests and hope that the issue can be resolved without it getting messy (i.e. legal)
To save you some typing, please spare me any self-serving remarks about it being a sacred duty of photographers to educate mom and pop copyright illiterates by making them pay money for what are in most instances most likely innocent and de minimis infringements.
Education
is a duty, and not just by photographers. There seems to be a very vocal "free ride" movement online and there's also far too much misinformation going around about the legalities of what people can and can't do - an issue which is exacerbated by the ability for people to have a measure of anonymity associated with their actions.
By our very nature, creatives of all type want to share our work with as wide an audience as possible, but we also expect that we can be fairly compensated for our efforts and that people will respect our rights.
Copyright laws exist so that we can enjoy a measure of protection from those whom would otherwise simply appropriate our works, thus allowing us to earn a living and contribute our ideas and visions to society at large.
If you have an issue over the penalties for infringements, that's a whole other debate.
DvsG, I hate to be a cynic but a long life has taught me that most everything these days boils down to money for far too many people in this world.
Everything boils down to money, period. Like most people on this planet, I have financial obligations and I choose to fulfil them by making a career out of what I'm good at: photography. I have numerous other skills that I could draw on for employment, but this is my passion and what I'm best at.
Topic: A note on photos that are "public domain" (Read 15529 times)