21st October 2004, 08:58 AM
Copyright Information for the Photog
"You already own it. In most cases, unless you specifically signed away your rights, you ó the photographer ó own the copyright and the right to license and re-license the image in any way you choose. This is true even if you have not registered your copyright or put your copyright notice on the image. Where registration makes a real difference is when something has gone wrong and your rights are being infringed". ASMPís Copyright Application Tutorial
As digital photogs, we take thousands of photographs. Unless you have one that is very saleable, it doesn't make sense to register your work. Anyway, the tutorial is very helpful.
21st October 2004, 09:07 AM
Unfortunately, this is taken out of an american context. Copyright laws differ from country to country, PLUS it is hard to bring up a case against someone who infringes on you copyright if he/she is from another country. Copyright infringements often end up in civil law suits, and to most people, fighting such a case (esp cross borders) is seldom worth the the trouble. That is how most people get away with copying works.
Originally Posted by r52lanc
Last edited by darrelchia; 21st October 2004 at 10:24 AM.
21st October 2004, 09:07 AM
Don't think you can register any photo here.... copyright is yours unless you specifically signed it away.
21st October 2004, 10:11 AM
Our local laws is bias towards other intellectual property rights. We do not have a registration system like the US which was put in to help in this situation - in civil suites there is high burden of proof from copyright owner -from proving ownership to even that you have suffered loss. Bad news is that there are no guidelines as to amounts awarded or even claims for costs. The act around the registration of copyright material states I think a range of damage amounts and also allows for the claims of cost in case you win the case.
What happends when you call IPO here - infringement ahhh u will have to find a lawyer to check if u have a case and raise a civil suite. Mean no money no talk , have less money than the infringer dream on. Unless you are prepare to pay out of pocket for your rights and prepared to lose moneny irrgardless of win or lose case go ahead - knock yourself out. Mind u wining does not mean you collect money.... infringer can still refuse to pay.or appeal.
In short there is precious little real protection under the law.
The joke here is that Spore has to toe the line indicated by the US because of the trade agreement - some how placing in changes to the system to try to help smaller copyright owners seems to have passed them by - silly attitude because if there is no protection at for intellectual properties why should the critical mass of creative person be encourage to be productive ? Produced to be ripped off ? Very local taste this action. And there is a call to raise the number of creative pool. Tsk tsk
Last edited by insomia; 21st October 2004 at 10:20 AM.
21st October 2004, 05:31 PM
Just my opinion...
If copyright is to be registered like patents and registered designs, and since registering for something usually involves time and cost, would that encourage more people not to protect their work?
Could you imagine that for every photograph you took, you have to bring them to the registry centre and prove to them they are original etc...
Imagine every time you want to post a photograph of a recent shoot just for sharing purposes and since registering for the copyright is neccessary to protect your work, you have to go through the above procedures.
Though copyright is not as well protected as say a patent or a trademark, I believe automatic protection of copyright protects more than one have to apply for a protection of your work.
21st October 2004, 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by insomia
Just my opinion again...
Imagine if there is no need to proof ownership and the losses suffered...
It is the same for civil disputes where the plantiff have to prove a lot of things before the case.
From what my law lecturer says, in civil cases, compensation is used to recover any losses suffered by the plantiff and not to let the plantiff profits or the defendant being punished. The defendant may be doing a civil wrong but if the plantiff does not suffer any losses, the court may only grant nominal damages. Usually for infringement of Intellectual Property like copyright, the most common method of remedies is an injunction.
Anyway, I wrote something out of boredom regarding copyright of images at the following thread as part of my revision for my upcoming exam..
21st October 2004, 07:38 PM
Here we go again.
No one infer any offensive remarks, trolling, etc please.