Fine for breaking copy right laws?

[Terry Leach]

Does anyone know what the fines are for breaking copy right? For example, stealing pictures from your website. Is there a fine? Please forgive me if this question has been worn out.

 

[480sparky68 67]

There's no single answer. It all depends on the circumstances. It can range anywhere from a slap on the wrist to millions of dollars.

 

[Kerbouchard]

It's not really a fine so much as punitive damages. There isn't really a copyright police out there looking for duplicate photos. The person who owns the copyright has to be able to:
1. find out there has been an infringement
2. file a lawsuit
3. prove they owned the original copyright
4. prove damages
5. wait for a jury or judge to make a decision

 

[mrpink]

It's not really a fine so much as punitive damages. There isn't really a copyright police out there looking for duplicate photos. The person who owns the copyright has to be able to:
1. find out there has been an infringement
2. file a lawsuit
3. prove they owned the original copyright
4. prove damages
5. wait for a jury or judge to make a decision

6. Hope you have more money for legal fees than they do.







p!nK

 

[o hey tyler]

You live in Arkansas... Why not just deliver a little shotgun justice?

 

[Terry Leach]

You live in Arkansas... Why not just deliver a little shotgun justice?

It was a friend of mine who was "raided". Otherwise I may have my own "redneck" ways of handling things. If I knew who it was, and she does. She had a client all of a sudden decide they didn't want some of their pictures. She later found out that the client had copied them from her web site. I told her she should start watermarking all her photos.

 

[Netskimmer]

Some questions to consider:

1. How much money did she lose as a result?
2. Were they good high res images that were copied or low res web images?

Water marking would probably be a good idea but I've read that someone with skill can get around them but I would think that proof of ownership shouldn't be a problem if she still has the RAWs or JPEGs.

 

[KmH]

Copyright is federal law. www.copyright.gov

That means copyright infringement actions are heard in federal court.

Before a federal court will accept a complaint filing the image copyright(s) have to be registered with the US Copyright Office.

See 17 USC 411 (Title 17, United States Code, Chapter 4, section 11) U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States - which reads in part:

...no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.

The timing of the copyright registration determines what type of damages the copyright owner can seek - actual damages or statutory damages.

If the copyright is registered after the infringement occurs, only actual damages can be awarded by the court. If it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the photo(s) is normally worth $2, $2 is what is awarded. However, if it can be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the photo(s) is normally worth $10,000, $10,000 is awarded.

If the copyright is registered before the infringement, the copyright owner and their attorney can chose to seek actual or statutory damages.

If the copyright owner's attorney can prove the infringement was willful, the court is allowed to award statutory damages of between $250 per image and $150,000 per image, plus attorney costs and court fee's.

Note: winning a copyright infringement action doesn't guarantee you will get any money.

A photographer in Florida sued a real estate brokerage that infringed 6 of her images of some very high dollar homes, and was awarded $12 million.
The brokerage filed for bankruptcy, and re-opened several days later as a new business.

 

[Ryan L]

Scott Kelby posted this link today, and I rembered this thread. Its a very good article written in laymans terms on copyright and what we should all be doing.

The 10 Rules Of US Copyright Infringement

 

[David-Wayne]

That's why when we do portraits or weddings we charge more and give a data DVD with limited copyright release.

 

[480sparky68 67]

17 USC has been unconstitutional since 1790 and is still unconstitutional today.
Google Inc has faced me in US Courts now for three years regarding image search.
Neeley v NameMedia Inc, et al,(5:09-cv-05151)(11-2558)
Visual Art copy+rights were already ruled not to apply to the Internet!
Appeal is pending ...
I am losing against Google Inc thus far ...
Oddly enough an Arkansas Court held that the Visual artists Rights Act does not cover photographs online.

Is your Copy & Paste function stuck on Paste or are you just one pissed-off dude?

 

[Tomasko]

You live in Arkansas... Why not just deliver a little shotgun justice?

It was a friend of mine who was "raided". Otherwise I may have my own "redneck" ways of handling things. If I knew who it was, and she does. She had a client all of a sudden decide they didn't want some of their pictures. She later found out that the client had copied them from her web site. I told her she should start watermarking all her photos.

Do you REALLY believe that watermarking can actually stop a thief?? Oh come on. Never put any of the photos on the internet before the client pays for them. Whenever you upload them, never use high resolution photos.

 

[KmH]

That's why when we do portraits or weddings we charge more and give a data DVD with limited copyright release.

Call it a use license, not a copyright release.