Digital BW, The Print

my signature is god awful.  but i use it anyway. i sign on my prints 
(not the matte). I use a ball point "gel" pen.

m

J Vee wrote:

> Just searched the archives for info re the above and, some good info about
> using artist pencils rather that graphite.  However, I wonder what is the
> general practice in the group about placing the signature and Copyright:
> Printed as part of the image, signed under the overmat, on the reverse of
> mat or print, outside on the overmat, or what.  It seems to me to be a
> problem, because anything that does not appear on the image leaves us open
> to "inadvertent" copyright infringement.  For many of us, our hand 
> signature
> just doesn't look very good.  Thus I am left with a discreet script C and
> signature in the usual lower right of the image, printed as part of the
> image.  This is, traditionally appropriate for paintings and reproductions
> of them, but is frowned upon by galleries and also calls forth the 
> negative
> opinion some have of a "digital" print.  What are those of you who 
> sell fine
> art prints doing?  J Vee
> -- 
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" 
> AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>        
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>        
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Just searched the archives for info re the above and, some good info about
using artist pencils rather that graphite.  However, I wonder what is the
general practice in the group about placing the signature and Copyright:
Printed as part of the image, signed under the overmat, on the reverse of
mat or print, outside on the overmat, or what.  It seems to me to be a
problem, because anything that does not appear on the image leaves us open
to "inadvertent" copyright infringement.  For many of us, our hand signature
just doesn't look very good.  Thus I am left with a discreet script C and
signature in the usual lower right of the image, printed as part of the
image.  This is, traditionally appropriate for paintings and reproductions
of them, but is frowned upon by galleries and also calls forth the negative
opinion some have of a "digital" print.  What are those of you who sell fine
art prints doing?  J Vee
--

with fine art paintings or prints, no one ever uses a copyright 
symbol or words... don't think it looks good on a photo either.  
Whether you use a visible signature is a personal choice which some 
people feel strongly about either one way or the other.  Think people 
should worry more about selling prints than worrying about copyright 
infringement.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, J Vee 
<j.vee@g...> wrote:
> Just searched the archives for info re the above and, some good 
info about
> using artist pencils rather that graphite.  However, I wonder what 
is the
> general practice in the group about placing the signature and 
Copyright:
> Printed as part of the image, signed under the overmat, on the 
reverse of
> mat or print, outside on the overmat, or what.  It seems to me to 
be a
> problem, because anything that does not appear on the image leaves 
us open
> to "inadvertent" copyright infringement.  For many of us, our hand 
signature
> just doesn't look very good.  Thus I am left with a discreet script 
C and
> signature in the usual lower right of the image, printed as part of 
the
> image.  This is, traditionally appropriate for paintings and 
reproductions
> of them, but is frowned upon by galleries and also calls forth the 
negative
> opinion some have of a "digital" print.  What are those of you who 
sell fine
> art prints doing?  J Vee
> --

J,

I sign the print on the bottom right and if the matting conceals this I also
sign the mat. If your name is not on the front how are people going to know
who the artist is? However, signing on the back is a tradition in some
schools though but I think best left until you are famous<G>.

I run each sheet through the printer twice. First on the back I print the
title of the print, a copyright notice in the form "Copyright C Martin
Wesley 200X, All Rights Reserved", this is followed by a note as to which
inks and paper were used to make the print with the intent of providing
useful information to conservationist who might be dealing with the prints
in the future. I also include my address, e-mail and phone number in case
someone wants to contact me about buying additional prints.

If the print is framed and/or matted then it seem appropriate to place the
same info as on the back of the print on the back of the mat and/or the
framed package.

Martin Wesley
www.carolynfrayn.com/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J Vee [mailto:j.vee@gte.net] 
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 3:47 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Signature & copyright
> 
> 
> Just searched the archives for info re the above and, some 
> good info about using artist pencils rather that graphite.  
> However, I wonder what is the general practice in the group 
> about placing the signature and Copyright: Printed as part of 
> the image, signed under the overmat, on the reverse of mat or 
> print, outside on the overmat, or what.  It seems to me to be 
> a problem, because anything that does not appear on the image 
> leaves us open to "inadvertent" copyright infringement.  For 
> many of us, our hand signature just doesn't look very good.  
> Thus I am left with a discreet script C and signature in the 
> usual lower right of the image, printed as part of the image. 
>  This is, traditionally appropriate for paintings and 
> reproductions of them, but is frowned upon by galleries and 
> also calls forth the negative opinion some have of a 
> "digital" print.  What are those of you who sell fine art 
> prints doing?  J Vee

Mark Hahn wrote:

>  Think people 
>should worry more about selling prints than worrying about copyright 
>infringement.
>
>  
>
Not these days, when things are so easily copied...

And did I mention?  A print could be a few hundred or so dollars.. Do 
you know what statutory damages are in the US for copyright violation on 
ONE registered image?  Without ANY necessity to show actual damages?

A statutory damage of $500 to $20,000 for each instance of copying. For 
statutory damages, if there's willful infringement, the court may 
increase damages to $150,000. Whereas, if there's a finding of innocent 
infringement, the court may lower the damage to $200.


That's without any showing of actual damages to the copyright holder by 
the usage.  Even in a case here the copyright violation might actually 
have provided more exposure and sales for the artist, statutory 
penalties are NOT mitigated by that fact.

You also have the option of suing for actual damages, up to $100,000, 
instead of the statutory limits mentioned above.

Without a copyright notice, you'd almost axiomatically be reduced to a 
case for innocent infringement.  Accordingly, someone could make copies 
of your image, sell them, and you could potentially recover only $200. 
That's why a copyright notice is so important..

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is \ufffd Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2004, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.


****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }

As long as the copyright is on the back of the print I don't mind. 
However, I would not buy a print with a copyright notice on the front - 
even if it were matted and under the matt. I might want to change how 
the print was displayed. The image belongs to the artist, but the print 
is mine. I do like to see the artist signature under the image on the 
paper. If the print is matted I like the matt cut large enough to 
display the signature.

Truman

Mark Hahn wrote:

> with fine art paintings or prints, no one ever uses a copyright
> symbol or words... don't think it looks good on a photo either. 
> Whether you use a visible signature is a personal choice which some
> people feel strongly about either one way or the other.  Think people
> should worry more about selling prints than worrying about copyright
> infringement.
>
> mark
>

I just sign mine with a #2 pencil, on the mat under the right side of the
print (I usually dry mount with a window mat).  I sign my name and the year,
no copyright symbol.  I usually don't title works, but sometimes I'll write
it in pencil on the left side under the print, e.g. "Santa Fe, NM".  If
someone stole one of my images I'd probably allow myself to be flattered for
a while before becoming PO'd.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

-----Original Message-----
From: J Vee [mailto:j.vee@...]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 5:47 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Signature & copyright


Just searched the archives for info re the above and, some good info about
using artist pencils rather that graphite.  However, I wonder what is the
general practice in the group about placing the signature and Copyright:
Printed as part of the image, signed under the overmat, on the reverse of
mat or print, outside on the overmat, or what.  It seems to me to be a
problem, because anything that does not appear on the image leaves us open
to "inadvertent" copyright infringement.  For many of us, our hand signature
just doesn't look very good.  Thus I am left with a discreet script C and
signature in the usual lower right of the image, printed as part of the
image.  This is, traditionally appropriate for paintings and reproductions
of them, but is frowned upon by galleries and also calls forth the negative
opinion some have of a "digital" print.  What are those of you who sell fine
art prints doing?  J Vee
--



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

yup, as I said, it's a personal choice... for some types of prints it 
looks good, on others it doesn't...

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt 
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:
> As long as the copyright is on the back of the print I don't mind. 
> However, I would not buy a print with a copyright notice on the 
front - 
> even if it were matted and under the matt. I might want to change 
how 
> the print was displayed. The image belongs to the artist, but the 
print 
> is mine. I do like to see the artist signature under the image on 
the 
> paper. If the print is matted I like the matt cut large enough to 
> display the signature.
> 
> Truman
> 
> Mark Hahn wrote:
> 
> > with fine art paintings or prints, no one ever uses a copyright
> > symbol or words... don't think it looks good on a photo either. 
> > Whether you use a visible signature is a personal choice which 
some
> > people feel strongly about either one way or the other.  Think 
people
> > should worry more about selling prints than worrying about 
copyright

> > infringement.
> >
> > mark
> >

Mark Hahn writes:

> yup, as I said, it's a personal choice... for some types of prints it 
> looks good, on others it doesn't...

It looks really bad on Olan Mills prints.

Alan Zinn writes:

> How many times have you resorted to legal means to protect your pictures
> (or email???)  copyright?  How many resulted in compensation over the cost
> of the legal action? Given that pictures are automatically copyrighted,
> having the (C) registered or not, should be enough "protection."  I would
> like to see data on successful copyright infringement suites with regard to
> pictures, particularly outside the realm of journalism - not just judgments
> but real cash to the plaintiff.  I would wager that they are extremely
> rare, certainly not worth the bother to the average picture-maker  or 
> emailer :-).  Also any suite filed in the U.S. against a non-U.S. violator
> would be infinitely more unlikely to proceed past the snicker test. AZ

The major winners in copyright law are large organizations or wealthy
individuals who can afford to aggressively pursue infringement.  If you
cannot afford a good lawyer and the infringement is not worth tens of
thousands of dollars or more in order to make it worth an attorney's
while, there's really no protection for you at all.  You can try to
intimidate infringers with strongly-worded letters or something, but
that's about it.

As in all other domains, you get only as much justice as you can afford
to buy.

At 10:05 AM 12/20/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Mark Hahn wrote:
>
> >  Think people
> >should worry more about selling prints than worrying about copyright
> >infringement.
> >
> >
> >
>Not these days, when things are so easily copied...
>
>And did I mention?  A print could be a few hundred or so dollars.. Do
>you know what statutory damages are in the US for copyright violation on
>ONE registered image?  Without ANY necessity to show actual damages?
>
>A statutory damage of $500 to $20,000 for each instance of copying. For
>statutory damages, if there's willful infringement, the court may
>increase damages to $150,000. Whereas, if there's a finding of innocent
>infringement, the court may lower the damage to $200.
>
>
>That's without any showing of actual damages to the copyright holder by
>the usage.  Even in a case here the copyright violation might actually
>have provided more exposure and sales for the artist, statutory
>penalties are NOT mitigated by that fact.
>
>You also have the option of suing for actual damages, up to $100,000,
>instead of the statutory limits mentioned above.
>
>Without a copyright notice, you'd almost axiomatically be reduced to a
>case for innocent infringement.  Accordingly, someone could make copies
>of your image, sell them, and you could potentially recover only $200.
>That's why a copyright notice is so important..
>
>
>Keith Krebs
>
>"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
>User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
>Publications), at:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
>and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
>"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
>guys"
>
>
>
>****************************************************************
>CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
>This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright,
>Keith Krebs, 2001-2004, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the
>sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
>privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the
>author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or
>distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you
>are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please
>contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original
>message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under
>applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in
>violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image
>liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright
>violation penalties.
>
>
>****************************************************************
>{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }



Kieth,
How many times have you resorted to legal means to protect your pictures 
(or email???)  copyright?  How many resulted in compensation over the cost 
of the legal action? Given that pictures are automatically copyrighted, 
having the (C) registered or not, should be enough "protection."  I would 
like to see data on successful copyright infringement suites with regard to 
pictures, particularly outside the realm of journalism - not just judgments 
but real cash to the plaintiff.  I would wager that they are extremely 
rare, certainly not worth the bother to the average picture-maker  or 
emailer :-).  Also any suite filed in the U.S. against a non-U.S. violator 
would be infinitely more unlikely to proceed past the snicker test.  AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

Alan Zinn wrote:

>How many times have you resorted to legal means to protect your pictures 
>(or email???)  copyright?
>
Twice...

>  How many resulted in compensation over the cost 
>of the legal action?
>
Both are still ongoing...

> Given that pictures are automatically copyrighted, 
>having the (C) registered or not, should be enough "protection." 
>
It isn't, read the reasons why in the links I provided earlier...  
Attorney fees are unavailable without registration AND you are forced 
into a position of proving actual damages.

I learned my lesson by NOT registering the images in the two ongoing 
cases. Had they been registered it would have been a slam dunk.  
Instead, it's been a real struggle to even get the infringers to discuss 
settlement..

One infringer was George Washington University who not only published a 
number of my images in their media guide without attribution, but they 
have refused to return over 300 images (negs and slides) as they were 
obliged to under the contract - that although we even had a $1500/image 
liquidated damages clause in the contract..

The second was the Atlantic 10  sports conference who ran my images 
without any attribution, but on a large series of posters, giveaways, 
and guides.  They did that even in light of the problems I had had 
hitherto with GWU (which they knew of) and continued to do so even after 
we sent a "cease and desist" notice.

In both instances the infringers even had explicit contracts with me 
that provided they could NOT use our images without proper 
attribution... These instances happened within the space of 3 years.  I 
won't even do the math on what recovery could have been were my images 
registered.. I get sick every time I do so.

Unfortunately, lack of proper registration meant we've had to resort to 
less clear-cut ways of pursuing legal actions.

> I would 
>like to see data on successful copyright infringement suites with regard to 
>pictures, particularly outside the realm of journalism - not just judgments 
>but real cash to the plaintiff. 
>

In cases where the images are registered.  My understanding is that most 
infringers settle before it reaches a courtroom.  As for numbers and 
statistics, those aren't my bag - I'm neither a statistician not a 
practicing attorney... You might try looking around on the net for some..

> I would wager that they are extremely 
>rare, certainly not worth the bother to the average picture-maker  or 
>emailer :-).  Also any suite filed in the U.S. against a non-U.S. violator 
>would be infinitely more unlikely to proceed past the snicker test.  
>
No question about that.. However, if the infringer is a large corporate 
entity it's not that hard to believe..

You seem to be proceeding as if the biggest worry is Joey Balogna making 
a copy of a print or posting a copy of it online..  Unlike music, that's 
less of a problem than the infringing by large entities.. Fact is,  the 
largest infringers ten d not to be individuals but corporate or business 
entities. Publishers have often been the target: people like Conde Nast, 
etc. 

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

One other important fact..

In case it wasn't clear, both George Washington and  the Atlantic 10 
infringed my copyright in multiple instances.. I neither case was it 
just one image.


 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

I think we've had a thread drift here... I thought it started out 
discussing signing "fine art" prints for gallery 
display... "commercial photogrpahy is something altogether different.

mark

...
> One infringer was George Washington University who not only 
published a 
> number of my images in their media guide without attribution, but 
they 
> have refused to return over 300 images (negs and slides) as they 
were 
> obliged to under the contract - that although we even had a 
$1500/image 
> liquidated damages clause in the contract..
> 
> The second was the Atlantic 10  sports conference 
...

LOL!!! very funny:)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Mark Hahn writes:
> 
> > yup, as I said, it's a personal choice... for some types of 
prints it 

> > looks good, on others it doesn't...
> 
> It looks really bad on Olan Mills prints.

Editor P.O.V. Image Service writes:

> In both instances the infringers even had explicit contracts with me
> that provided they could NOT use our images without proper 
> attribution ...

Then why are you depending on infringement instead of breach of
contract?

> Unfortunately, lack of proper registration meant we've had to resort to
> less clear-cut ways of pursuing legal actions.

Breach of contract is pretty clear cut--much more so than copyright
infringement.

Mark Hahn writes:

> LOL!!! very funny:)

It wasn't a joke.  Olan Mills (last time I looked) uses a cheap
gold-foil stamping process to put a big copyright notice on their
prints.  And this despite the fact that some of their prints look like
they could have come out of an automated photo booth (and thus would not
be protected by copyright, anyway).  It is kind of amusing to see a
company asserting copyright on a print that nobody would want to copy,
anyway.

At 12:31 PM 12/21/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Alan Zinn wrote:
>
> >How many times have you resorted to legal means to protect your pictures
> >(or email???)  copyright?
> >
>Twice...
>
> >  How many resulted in compensation over the cost
> >of the legal action?
> >
>Both are still ongoing...
>
> > Given that pictures are automatically copyrighted,
> >having the (C) registered or not, should be enough "protection."
> >
>It isn't, read the reasons why in the links I provided earlier...
>Attorney fees are unavailable without registration AND you are forced
>into a position of proving actual damages.
>
>I learned my lesson by NOT registering the images in the two ongoing
>cases. Had they been registered it would have been a slam dunk.
>Instead, it's been a real struggle to even get the infringers to discuss
>settlement..
>
>One infringer was George Washington University who not only published a
>number of my images in their media guide without attribution, but they
>have refused to return over 300 images (negs and slides) as they were
>obliged to under the contract - that although we even had a $1500/image
>liquidated damages clause in the contract..
>
>The second was the Atlantic 10  sports conference who ran my images
>without any attribution, but on a large series of posters, giveaways,
>and guides.  They did that even in light of the problems I had had
>hitherto with GWU (which they knew of) and continued to do so even after
>we sent a "cease and desist" notice.
>
>In both instances the infringers even had explicit contracts with me
>that provided they could NOT use our images without proper
>attribution... These instances happened within the space of 3 years.  I
>won't even do the math on what recovery could have been were my images
>registered.. I get sick every time I do so.
>
>Unfortunately, lack of proper registration meant we've had to resort to
>less clear-cut ways of pursuing legal actions.
>
> > I would
> >like to see data on successful copyright infringement suites with regard to
> >pictures, particularly outside the realm of journalism - not just judgments
> >but real cash to the plaintiff.
> >
>
>In cases where the images are registered.  My understanding is that most
>infringers settle before it reaches a courtroom.  As for numbers and
>statistics, those aren't my bag - I'm neither a statistician not a
>practicing attorney... You might try looking around on the net for some..
>
> > I would wager that they are extremely
> >rare, certainly not worth the bother to the average picture-maker  or
> >emailer :-).  Also any suite filed in the U.S. against a non-U.S. violator
> >would be infinitely more unlikely to proceed past the snicker test.
> >
>No question about that.. However, if the infringer is a large corporate
>entity it's not that hard to believe..
>
>You seem to be proceeding as if the biggest worry is Joey Balogna making
>a copy of a print or posting a copy of it online..  Unlike music, that's
>less of a problem than the infringing by large entities.. Fact is,  the
>largest infringers ten d not to be individuals but corporate or business
>entities. Publishers have often been the target: people like Conde Nast,
>etc.
>
>
>Keith Krebs
>
>"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
>User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
>Publications), at:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
>and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
>"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
>guys"
>
>
>
>Keith,

Thanks for the details.  Good luck with your litigation - given the way the 
dirty rotten scoundrels ripped you off I see why you are a "True Believer 
in (C)"  :-)

AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us