24
« on: July 31, 2011, 03:18:21 AM »
"So, I don't need to change my mind set."
>>". You don't get to use images because they are seemingly easy to take and then tell people what you will pay them anymore then if I accidentally run someone over with my car I get to dictate what is a "fair" settlement."
Yes, even if you think you have an "innocent infringer" winner, which by the way is not a defense to infringement it merely permits the Jury to consider awarding a lower dollar amount in damages (lowers the floor from $750 down to $200). Copyright Infringement is STRICT LIABILITY. It doesn't matter one bit if you knew or not. That goes only to damages. And, as I said, you don't get to decide the damages, What is fair. What is not. That is for the court to decide.
"However, a plaintiff who is infringed upon won't have much hope of a worthwhile financial award without the proper registration."
That entirely depends. And you assume that people are always rational actors. They are not.
"Nothing much seems to happen in this world without a financial reward or at least the potential for one."
You've obviously never had a crazy client. Or a client that wants to make a point. And are unaware of certain companies that will always protect their IP aggressively because that's the rep they want in the legal and business community.
"There's a problem with your statement that "Registration is 100% not required for copyright protection", I think."
No, there isn't.
Registration, while creating a public record is only prima facie evidence of ownership (and only then if your register within 5 years of creation). I would think it is obvious but I guess not that registration is not some definitive record as far as ownership. The facts surrounding creation of a work determine ownership not what the registration certificate reads. You could scrape my image and register it, either because I didn't or simply beat me to the copyright office. So what. I can easily rebut the presumption in court. I have the original high rez file, I can demonstrate where I was that day. People can testify it's mine. Whatever. Point is, who gives a sh%t what the registration says. Not a court. At least not when I bring forth evidence to rebut your claim of ownership. A timely registration has a very light presumption of ownership. Once I rebut it you can explain away your perjury. Incidentally, what is this (somewhat idiotic) online notion that everyone goes around committing perjury. You realize lawyers have this weapon called discovery and we live in a world where it's tough to move around without a record. You can explain how it came to be that you took my photo of say, the beach at Coney Island, when you live in Wisconsin and were at work that day. Nothing the court loves more than being lied to.
"I call this concept "phantom copyright"; it doesn't have much substance, and many people don't believe in it. Ok, I'm making an attempt at humor here. But, you heard the term here first, I think."
Sorry to be impolite but that is because you don't know the first f$ucking thing about copyright or law for that matter. And the only reason we are having this discussion is because we are online.
"But, seriously, this concept doesn't have much traction in the legal system wherein people want to get monetary settlements."
But seriously I've read your posts and you don't know diddly about law, lawyers or the legal system.
"I can't speak for Oscar, but I doubt that he's interested in admonishing people whom you disagree with in this forum."
That was a non-sequitor.
"But, the amounts demanded often far exceed the actual damages caused by an infringement."
You mean like every complaint I've ever read ? The difference with copyright infringement is at least it's consistent with the notion of stat damages. They are not intended to equal "actual damages." In fact, another purpose of stat damages is to account for the fact that actual are often difficult to determine.
"But, the likes of Getty and Masterfile shouldn't try to make up for the monetary shortfall in the manner that they are doing."
I'm not actually familiar with Masterfile. My understanding of Getty is mostly informed by this board. Why shouldn't Getty in general (not with respect to any particular claim)? Despite your belief, the photographer often gives up to Getty the right to sue. If Getty doesn't act then people get away with infringement. The Getty net seems to be broad and, yes, some fish that should not get caught up may but as Matt acknowledges infringement is rampant.
"The general direction of your post seems to be that you feel that you (and other artists/photogs) should not be burdened with registering."
My feeling is the registration system favors the large content creators and often screws the little guy. I have other issues with it as well but not relevant here.
"I see a similarity between Getty and Righthaven in that they both send demand letters seeking redress over content owned by another party."
You really don't understand copyright or licensing. I know Oscar does but his schtick doesn't allow him to weigh in. Let me try another tack. Do you think say Sony Pictures Corp would be as interested in licensing your book to make a $100 million dollar movie if they had to worry that in the event someone infringed on the rights they licensed they would have to track you down in Fuji so that you could enforce their rights ? If this seems not to make sense to you then go read some history of the development of the copyright law between 1909 and 1976. And then get through your head the idea of copyright "divisability" and forever lose the notion that Getty can't be the "owner" for purposes of the copyright act because they aren't the copyright author and the author didn't sell them the copyright. Since you're all interested in education and all. Your education will be my evidence.
Oscar, you're supposed to be an adjunct prof or something at NY Law. Why don't you educate people then. This guy has posted N times and been responded to maybe 1/2N that Getty can't sue because Getty isn't "the owner" the photographer is. Or do you wait until your retained before you disabuse this notion.
Show Posts