3 ms·

> When is my work protected? > Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either dire

> When is my work protected? > Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. > Do I have to register with your office to be protected? > No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.” from https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=Do%20I%20have%20to%20register,moment%20the%20work%20is%20created https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=.... I’m surprised to see this reasoning (well all billion images can’t have been registered, so they can’t sue). I wonder how much it would cost in copyright fees to register all of LAION.

jcranmer 3y ago
> I’m surprised to see this reasoning (well all billion images can’t have been registered, so they can’t sue). Well, here's the actual text from the decision: > Each defendant argues that McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright claims must be dismissed because neither of them has registered their images with the Copyright Office. They also move to “limit” Anderson’s copyright claim to infringement based only on the 16 collections of works that she has registered. See, e.g., Declaration of Paul M. Schoenhard (Dkt. No. 51-1), ¶¶ 5-6; see also Compl. ¶ 28 & Exs. 1-16.3 > In opposition, plaintiffs do not address, much less contest, McKernan or Ortiz’s asserted inability to pursue Copyright Act claims. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that they are not asserting copyright claims on behalf of these two plaintiffs. July 19, 2023 Transcript (Tr.), pg. 17:1-5. As such, McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright act claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. > Likewise, plaintiffs do not address or dispute that Anderson’s copyright claims should be limited to the collections Anderson has registered. The scope of Anderson’s Copyright Act claims are limited to the collections which she has registered. TL;DR: plaintiffs didn't attempt to argue that the copyright claims should be construed broadly, defendants argued they should, so defendants win at motion-to-dismiss stage. The defendants actually lost their argument that they should win because Anderson didn't identify the specific registered works, the entire case should be thrown out--the judge said there's enough specificity to let the case go to discovery to figure out which registered works may have been infringed.

jcranmer 3y ago

> I’m surprised to see this reasoning (well all billion images can’t have been registered, so they can’t sue). Well, here's the actual text from the decision: > Each defendant argues that McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright claims must be dismissed because neither of them has registered their images with the Copyright Office. They also move to “limit” Anderson’s copyright claim to infringement based only on the 16 collections of works that she has registered. See, e.g., Declaration of Paul M. Schoenhard (Dkt. No. 51-1), ¶¶ 5-6; see also Compl. ¶ 28 & Exs. 1-16.3 > In opposition, plaintiffs do not address, much less contest, McKernan or Ortiz’s asserted inability to pursue Copyright Act claims. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that they are not asserting copyright claims on behalf of these two plaintiffs. July 19, 2023 Transcript (Tr.), pg. 17:1-5. As such, McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright act claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. > Likewise, plaintiffs do not address or dispute that Anderson’s copyright claims should be limited to the collections Anderson has registered. The scope of Anderson’s Copyright Act claims are limited to the collections which she has registered. TL;DR: plaintiffs didn't attempt to argue that the copyright claims should be construed broadly, defendants argued they should, so defendants win at motion-to-dismiss stage. The defendants actually lost their argument that they should win because Anderson didn't identify the specific registered works, the entire case should be thrown out--the judge said there's enough specificity to let the case go to discovery to figure out which registered works may have been infringed.