Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

[SoylentGreen]

Great to see Oscar's input!!

I doubt that any stock image agencies could use his system, either.
Most of these businesses don't hold ownership the images that they sell.
Therefore, I don't think that they could legally "sublicense" their catalog to a system such as this.

S.G.

[Lettered]

I'm still kind of foggy on the relationship between "exclusive rights" and the "right to sue" as they pertain to copyright law.  When someone participates in C-Registry they are granting some "nonexclusive rights". 

How does this affect the right to sue for the original copyright owner? Can he still sue?  I'm pretty sure C-Registry can never sue, right?

Of course, anyone "can" sue for anything, but you know what I mean .

[scraggy]

It would seem to me that the non-exclusive rights given to "C-Registry" don't overlap the exclusive rights that a photographer would typically give to a stock photo agency such as Getty.
Randy Taylor himself explains this in the C-Registry" copyright forum.
http://c-registry-copyright-forum.blogspot.co.il/2009/04/what-rights-do-photographers-grant-c.html

It’s critically important to note that creators are merely granting ACCESS to their works with C-Registry, NOT USE of their works.

[Lettered]

Scraggy,

From the link you posted (bolding mine):

Then note that this limitation is further reinforced in the grant. So, within this limited access, the photographer is granting the right to “access, view, host, cache, route, transmit, store, perform and/or display” the images (or music or video). Note what’s NOT included in those rights. There is no right to copy or modify or use or distribute the images. That’s an amazingly limited grant of rights.

At the very least the semantics of words used in that explanation are messy in my opinion.  What's the difference between "distributing" and "transmitting" the images for example? Seems to me like this guy is saying "trust me I won't do it" while his contract allows him to do anything he wants.  That's the way I interpret it anyway.

[SoylentGreen]

A person or company holding only "non-exclusive rights" wouldn't have enough legal standing to "win" a copyright infringement infringement case in court.

I think that Taylor's scheme is not intended as a system that would allow HIM to sue.
It's intended to give provide copyright trolls/extortionists a tool that gives the impression that they have legal proof of infringement(s).

Taylor asserts that "It’s critically important to note that creators are merely granting ACCESS to their works with C-Registry, NOT USE of their works."  I think that this statement is very misleading.
From Buddhapi's posting, Taylor states: "A nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to access, view, host, cache, route, transmit, store, perform and/or display CONTENT, and.."
We all know by now that access, viewing, and routing through linking only is probably ok.
However any other use including "hosting", "performing" and especially "storing" are clearly infringements under law.
I say "infringements under law", because Taylor's present system doesn't provide the use signed contracts or recorded verbal agreements.

Something else that should be of concern is that he mentions a "royalty-free... right".
Many images on the web are still rights-managed.  But, he's attempting to create a system that overrides the rights-managed system.
Therefore, he's attempting to take images having much greater value, and placing them into a category of much lesser value.

I have never seen such an ill thought conceived business.



S.G.

[Lettered]

A person or company holding only "non-exclusive rights" wouldn't have enough legal standing to "win" a copyright infringement infringement case in court.
. . .

Furthering that thought . . . if someone did enter their work into a C-Registry contract, then wouldn't any other distribution rights they grant to others (Getty for example) be nonexclusive as well, therefore taking away any legitimate standing for Getty to sue?

[SoylentGreen]

My personal opinion is as follows:

An owner of a piece of content such as an image may give any number of people/companies non-exclusive rights for certain uses. 
Such as when you license a royalty-free image for your web site... you can use it, but you can't sue third parties for infringements.
This would not diminish in any way the exclusive rights given to a company such as Getty images.  They could sue over infringements in such a case.

The legal concept of "exclusivity" in terms of copyright doesn't follow the common dictionary meaning of "exclusive".
Legally, an exclusive rights holder can do certain things, while a non-exclusive rights holder can do more limited things.

S.G.

[scraggy]

Looks like C-Registry will have the potential to act as a pretty convincing unofficial copyright database that will greatly facilitate the extraction of copyright settlements from uneducated and fearful infringers ( i.e. they pay up! ).

[SoylentGreen]

Agreed!!

But, if his business has legal difficulties (and I think that it will), it may be short lived.

S.G.

[Lettered]

. . .
Legally, an exclusive rights holder can do certain things, while a non-exclusive rights holder can do more limited things.

S.G.

This is the murky part for me.  What happens when someone transfers one (or several) of the Exclusive Rights (defined by sec 106) to more than one recipient?  I suppose the first valid transfer would overide subsequent attempted tranfers?

[SoylentGreen]

Obviously, it's fairly straightforward when all of the Section 106 exclusive rights are transferred as a group to another entity.
The Section 106 rights are indeed "exclusive", so if all rights are transferred to a company or person, none of those rights can be held by other entities simultaneously.

I think that giving exclusive right(s) to more than one entity at a time could cause big problems if there were to be a legal dispute.
There's no guarantee that a court would find that the last person to sign a contract would be found to be the actual rights holder.
Perhaps, nobody on the list would have legal standing.

To complicate matters, the list of exclusive rights can be broken up, and then each right can be granted to different entities individually.
Regulars here know that I'm no lawyer, but it's my opinion that each rights holder would have good standing to sue in the event of a dispute if his/her exclusive right(s) is/are violated.

Furthermore, disparate entities may own the same exclusive rights simultaneously, if they are in different territories.

Obviously, rights holders may draft any contract that they desire, so long as the laws do not preclude the stipulations in the contract.
Trouble starts if the rights holder drafts a contract that is unenforceable under law in the event of a dispute... by then, it's often too late.

S.G.

[Lettered]

Interestingly 205(d) seems to make it quite clear what takes place for conflicting transfers.  I think it also makes it clear (if I am reading it correctly) that two entities cannot own the same exclusive right(s) at the same time.  I'm still not sure how it would pan out if the exlusive rights were divided into geographical areas.
Thanks to Scraggy's posts on other threads for some interesting reading that led me to this.

(d) Priority between Conflicting Transfers. — As between two conflicting transfers, the one executed first prevails if it is recorded, in the manner required to give constructive notice under subsection (c), within one month after its execution in the United States or within two months after its execution outside the United States, or at any time before recordation in such manner of the later transfer. Otherwise the later transfer prevails if recorded first in such manner, and if taken in good faith, for valuable consideration or on the basis of a binding promise to pay royalties, and without notice of the earlier transfer.

[scraggy]

I'm still not sure how it would pan out if the exclusive rights were divided into geographical areas.

If the geographical divisions were creatable and enforceable, then you would still have territorial exclusive rights.

Regarding the display and licensing of images on the Internet, is any such territorial exclusivity theoretically possible?

[SoylentGreen]

Territorial rights are the only option, in fact.
One may own exclusive rights in the USA for example.
But, registrations with the US copyright office aren't valid in Canada...
So, one would have to make registrations for the Canadian territory, etc...
There's no "world copyright office".

Of course the 'states attempts to get extradition orders to bring alleged infringers to their shores to face trial.
...to face their laws... but, I guess that's a bit off topic.


S.G.

[scraggy]

I don't see how it's possible to divide the Internet territorially.

The physical world can be divided territorially.

But on the world wide web, once an image goes up , it's seen in every territory simultaneously.
How many exclusive licenses can I violate by uploading one image to the Internet?

I think the answer has to be ONE. It's precisely why Getty's and Masterfile's agreements give them worldwide exclusive licenses.

In the words of David R. Johnson and David G. Post, published in the Stanford Law Review: 48. 1367 (1996):
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is02/readings/johnson-post.html
Law And Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace

Cyberspace has no territorially-based boundaries, because the cost and speed of message transmission on the Net is almost entirely independent of physical location: Messages can be transmitted from any physical location to any other location without degradation, decay, or substantial delay, and without any physical cues or barriers that might otherwise keep certain geographically remote places and people separate from one another

Ian