Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

[Lettered]

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?

I suppose you could divide it up in any way agreeable to the parties of the contract?  For example I think one person can have exclusive digital media rights while another has print media rights?  I'm still foggy on the divisibility part of exclusivity.

However, it seems to me that if you were sued by Getty and could show that the same copyright "exclusive right" transfer existed for another company for the same image(s), that Getty would either have to show they documented their own transfer with the Copyright Office within the allocated timeframe (highly unlikely, I think) or back off.

[scraggy]

I suppose you could divide it up in any way agreeable to the parties of the contract?  For example I think one person can have exclusive digital media rights while another has print media rights?

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but this seems plausible. Locally printed newspapers are limited to a physical territory. But if the same newspaper had an online version, then it might be that for that different use ( online digital use ) , a separate exclusive license holder may exist.

[Lettered]

So my thinking condenses down to this:

Getty comes after you for infringing on a digital image.  They produce the copyright transfer contract from the photographer.  You find the same image on other sites for sale and somehow compel the second website owner to supply you with a copy of the second copyright contract.  You show that both contracts transfer the same "exclusive right" and that neither contract was registered with the copyright office within the 30 day timeframe. 

Doesn't this mean no one has standing to sue you?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Lets also not forget, that in that big case Getty "won" by default, but received absolutely ZERO, which came down to among other things the fact that the "contributor" signed an "electronic" contract, but no-one on Getty's end signed anything...so chances are pretty good, what we're discussing here would be way over their heads, if they can't even comprehend that for a contract to be valid it MUST be signed by both parties.

[SoylentGreen]

Buddhapi makes a very important point.
Let's not lose sight of what kind of fight this really is.
It's all trolling/extortion.  These trolls lose on the basic of legal standing.

Additionally, before transferring any rights, one must actually own the image, and register the image as copyrighted.
Wonder if anyone is doing that?  Probably not.

S.G.

[Lettered]

Buddhapi makes a very important point.
Let's not lose sight of what kind of fight this really is.
It's all trolling/extortion.  These trolls lose on the basic of legal standing.

Additionally, before transferring any rights, one must actually own the image, and register the image as copyrighted.
Wonder if anyone is doing that?  Probably not.

S.G.

I didn't realize the image had to be registered before transfer.  Which section is that?  If you're right about that, that would take away Getty's standing to sue in most cases I would think.

[SoylentGreen]

I think that it's "understood" that an image must be registered with the copyright office first, to assert the rights afforded by law.
After that, said rights may be transferred.  A "transfer of rights" doesn't create a registration with the copyright office, you see.
Anyway, here's some verbiage from 205(c) 1- 2-

(c) Recordation as Constructive Notice. — Recordation of a document in the Copyright Office gives all persons constructive notice of the facts stated in the recorded document, but only if —

(1) the document, or material attached to it, specifically identifies the work to which it pertains so that, after the document is indexed by the Register of Copyrights, it would be revealed by a reasonable search under the title or registration number of the work; and

(2) registration has been made for the work.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

---

Scraggy had mentioned "I don't see how it's possible to divide the Internet territorially."

The concept of whether the Internet can or cannot be divided up into territories is of no use here.
That's because each territory (country) has its own copyright laws.  There's no "world copyright law" and no "world copyright office" even if the Internet is assumed to be "freely accessible worldwide".
Therefore, we are left only with regional systems, and regional laws.  Each country or union has its own set of laws.
It may surprise some that copyright laws in the US do not make any special provisions for infringements on the Internet (in the subject matter of images that we discuss on ELI).
I should reiterate that if I register something in Canada, I have no standing in the United States, for example.
This pretty much blows the concept of "worldwide" out of the water, regardless of the perceived reach of the Internet.
Nothing changes just because it's on the web.

For example, imagine that I registered one of my photographs in Canada, and a US citizen "infringes" by using it on his web page residing in the US.
I couldn't go to a US court and make this person pay damages, by using Canadian laws and Canadian registration data.
In addition, I couldn't bring the person to a Canadian court, and make him/her pay damages based on an infringement made in the US, by a US citizen.
The argument that the "Internet is worldwide" would fail, because systems of law are not "worldwide".  They differ.

The quote from David R. Johnson and David G. Post is really great, and I wish that it was as they say.
But, none of what they say is anywhere close to being law, and any country could black out Internet service if they really wanted to.
It has in fact already happened.  Try using Facebook in China, or Gmail in Iran...

S.G.