3 ms·

He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I don'

He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I don't believe that's true. Copyrights are instantly granted to the creator. There is no requirement that you file with the fed, it's just a service offered. By uploading to the web, she created a public record that she was claiming to be the owner. The only issue i see here, in terms of copyrights, is if someone else would try and step in to claim ownership. Of course, that isn't the case here. So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?

Joakal 15y ago
Probably confused with trademark/patents in that lack of defence constitutes giving it away.
tghw 15y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I do moonlight as a photographer, and my best understanding is that, yes, you have the copyright as soon as you create the photo, and it enforceable at that point, but it is more enforceable (in the form of attorney’s fees and statutory damages) if it is registered with the copyright office. If it is not registered, you can only get actual damages, which would be what they would normally pay for the photo. See http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/03/obtaining_copyr.html http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/03/obtaining_c... for more.
jasonlotito 15y ago
> He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I don't believe that's true. He only mentioned it once, and merely asserted that it would make things easier. "Photographers who want to exert their rights will have a much easier time if they file paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office." The confusion, I think, is with this sentence: "That means someone like Gordon could decide to pursue legal action for up to three months after her 15 minutes of fame subside." Taken as is, that makes it sound like their is a 90 day limit. However, I think it's just poorly written, and means to imply that it will be easier to pursue legal action within that time frame (especially when you consider what was said previously). "So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?" Apparently, according to the article and the people quoted, it will make going after copyright violations easier.
- prodigal_erik 15y ago
  If you don't register your copyright within three months of first publishing a work, you can't claim (ludicrously excessive) statutory damages from more than 30 days before registration. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412

Joakal 15y ago

Probably confused with trademark/patents in that lack of defence constitutes giving it away.

tghw 15y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I do moonlight as a photographer, and my best understanding is that, yes, you have the copyright as soon as you create the photo, and it enforceable at that point, but it is more enforceable (in the form of attorney’s fees and statutory damages) if it is registered with the copyright office. If it is not registered, you can only get actual damages, which would be what they would normally pay for the photo. See http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/03/obtaining_copyr.html http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/2007/03/obtaining_c... for more.

jasonlotito 15y ago

> He stressed several times that the owner should file their copyright within 90 days as if after 90 they lose out on the ability to claim their rights but I don't believe that's true. He only mentioned it once, and merely asserted that it would make things easier. "Photographers who want to exert their rights will have a much easier time if they file paperwork with the U.S. Copyright Office." The confusion, I think, is with this sentence: "That means someone like Gordon could decide to pursue legal action for up to three months after her 15 minutes of fame subside." Taken as is, that makes it sound like their is a 90 day limit. However, I think it's just poorly written, and means to imply that it will be easier to pursue legal action within that time frame (especially when you consider what was said previously). "So why is the copyright office brought up with such urgency? What does it matter if she does or doesn't file?" Apparently, according to the article and the people quoted, it will make going after copyright violations easier.

prodigal_erik 15y ago
If you don't register your copyright within three months of first publishing a work, you can't claim (ludicrously excessive) statutory damages from more than 30 days before registration. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412