Tag: arizona copyright attorney

  • Sending a Bill When Someone Steals Your Work

    Mushroom? by Oslo in the Summertime from Flickr
    Mushroom? by Oslo in the Summertime from Flickr

    I’m a member of a Facebook group for people to discuss and share instances where other people use their work. Most of the members are nature photographers who do gorgeous work. Most of them have no desire to sue people who steal their work, but they would like to be compensated. And some of them are getting pissed when they find that someone has stolen their work and have started sending bills to people who use their work without permission.

    This isn’t a bad idea. I’ve had a friend get a bill in the mail when he used someone’s photograph without permission that he found via Google Images. You can view it here or below.

    When someone comes to me and wants to send a bill to anyone they discover is infringing on their copyrights, I suggest they add information to the website where they show their work about licensing terms and fees. This makes it more credible when the artist sends a bill that essentially says that by using a photograph, the infringer has agreed to pay the fee and abide by the license’s terms. As long as the infringer complies, they are no longer committing copyright infringement.

    The downside of this strategy is many people will ignore such a bill if they receive one. Then the question for the artist is “What’s next?” Do you sue them? Send a DMCA takedown notice to get the work taken off their site? Call them out publicly for using your work without permission? Do you drop the issue?

    My friend who got the bill for using an authorized image earlier this year got a bill from a company with a track record of suing people who don’t pay the bill and winning. In his case, he choices appeared to be pay the bill (or try to negotiate a lower price) or get sued. If you don’t follow up when people don’t pay the bill, it’s kind of like the photo radar tickets. If you get one in the mail, you can deal with it by paying the fine or going to traffic school or avoid service for four months until the court drops the charge.

    I’m not one to tell people what they should do, but I advise people to think their plan of action all the way through before selecting a course of action. If you need help deciding what’s the best strategy for protecting your copyrights, please contact a copyright attorney in your community.

    For more information about copyright and blogs, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed.
    You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Update on Registering the Copyright in your Blog

    Library of Congress by ctj71081 from Flickr - Where your work goes when you register it with the U.S. Copyright Office.
    Library of Congress by ctj71081 from Flickr – Where your work goes when you register it with the U.S. Copyright Office.

    I’ve been a proponent of registering your copyright in your blog every three months. The federal Copyright Act states you must register the copyright in your blog within three months of publication or one month of learning of the infringement, whichever happens first.

    So every three months (March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st) I have a note on my calendar to register my blogs. I take all the content I’ve added to my blog since my last registration, create a PDF, and register it.

    I made a mistake on my last copyright application.

    I let logic dictate my action and I claimed that my publication date was December 31, 2013 on my last application. I should have said that my word was “unpublished.” If I declare that my work is published, I have to register each post individually. If the work is “unpublished,” the dated posts can be registered as a group.

    You would think that putting something on the internet counts as publishing a work, but it doesn’t. In the Copyright Office’s words, “For copyright purposes, ‘publication’ means the distribution of copies of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. Offering to distribute copies to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display is also ‘publication.’ The following do not constitute “publication:” the printing or other reproduction of copies, a public performance or display of the work, or sending copies of the work to the Copyright Office.”

    If the only place you put your content is on your blog, it’s likely not published. If you repurpose your content in multiple locations, it might be. (Talk to a copyright attorney to see if you’ve “published” your work.)

    The downside of blog content not counting as published is you have to register you work prior to it being stolen to be eligible for statutory damages under the copyright laws. So the idea a lot of my copyright attorney friends and I believed about registering every three months is not a good strategy. Also, the Copyright Office doesn’t like it when you register posts that were released on different days as a single work. Experience tells me that they’ll let you do it, but if they know that’s what you’re doing, they’ll tell you that you have to register each post individually.

    Because of this, the best strategy for people who want to be able to sue for copyright infringement if their blog content is stolen is to register your work before you put a post on your site. Yes, this will be more expensive because each post will need its own registration, so you might want to only register the posts you think will be stolen, and even then you may want to only register the posts that you think will be stolen by someone who can afford to pay the damages assessed by the court and your attorneys’s fees. Otherwise you might be better off not suing for copyright infringement and sending a cease and desist or a DMCA takedown notice.

    If someone steals your work, you should talk with a copyright lawyer ASAP. Even if you didn’t register you work before the infringement occurred, you may be in a situation where it is worthwhile to pursue actual damages which is how much money you lost and the alleged infringer made because of the infringement. They can also discuss other ways to address infringement that don’t involve the court system.

    For more information about copyright and blogs, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed.
    You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • DMCA Abuse

    Copyright license choice by opensourceway from Flickr
    Copyright license choice by opensourceway from Flickr

    The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is part of the copyright law. Its purpose is to protect people who provide online forums but don’t control the content people post to them – like YouTube and Pinterest. If they receive a notice that material on their site is allegedly copyright infringement, they must remove it. This law gives content creators a way to react to copyright infringement when someone posts their work online without permission. Instead of sending a cease and desist letter to the person who stole their work, they bypass them and deal with the infringer’s webhost instead.

    Lately, I’ve seen a few instances where people have been improperly using the DMCA to get material removed from the internet that they don’t like. I’m starting to refer to these acts as DMCA abuse.

    1. Using the DMCA to address TM Infringement
    The DMCA should only be used for copyright issues – when you suspect someone is using your original content without your permission. Don’t use it to removed suspected instances of trademark infringement.

    In a recent incident, GoPro allegedly sent a DMCA takedown notice to DigitalRev’s webhost to remove a picture of its camera from the site. The photo was in article that compared GoPro against another camera. GoPro didn’t think DigitalRev copied their content, but that they were using a picture of the camera that had the wrong branding. GoPro should have sent DigitalRev an email with a correct image of the camera instead of getting the whole article pulled for alleged copyright infringement.

    2. Using the DMCA to Eliminate the Original
    This story really bothered me. Somebody copied someone’s original content onto their site, and then used the DMCA to claim that they were the real owners and get the original removed for its site. Thankfully the original author could get their work put back on their site by sending a DMCA counter takedown notice.

    Apparently this is a common incident. This behavior was so disturbing, I had to make a video about it.

    If you think you have questions about how you, your brand, or your content is being used online, please consult an intellectual property attorney. Don’t just send a DMCA takedown notice – that may not be the right tool to address your problem. When you send a DMCA takedown notice, you attest under the penalty of perjury, that your statements are true. If you send a DMCA takedown notice and it turns out what you did qualifies as what I call DMCA abuse, you may have committed a crime.

    For more information about copyright, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed.
    You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Using Google Image Search to Detect Copyright Infringement

    Google Image SearchI heard you can input a picture into the Google Images search engine to see if someone has stolen or used one of your pictures without your consent. I decided to try to figure it out to see if it works.

    I’m happy to report it’s super easy. Here’s how you do it.

    1. Go to the Google Images search page.
    2. Click on the camera icon on the far right of the search bar. This will bring up the “search by image” box.
    3. Paste the URL for the image you want to search for or upload it and hit “Search.”
    4. The results will show you every instance where someone has used that photo.
    My paintball wound - Photo by Merlz Tamondong
    My paintball wound – Photo by Merlz Tamondong

    I started looking for images I’ve used on The Undeniable Ruth and I found an instance where someone pulled an image off my site without my permission. It’s a picture of me from Ladies’ Paintball Night. Someone put it on a paintball forum without asking me first. Even though this is a picture of me, I don’t own the copyright in it so there’s nothing I can do to get it removed, and to be honest, I don’t really care.

    This search engine is one tool you can use to search for copyright infringement, but it won’t catch every copy of your photos, just the copies of the photos from your site. I know this picture of my dog Rosie is on my site and I shared it with Attorney at Work for a post I wrote for them. I didn’t give them a copy of the image off my site, so when I searched for this picture of Rosie, it only showed images from my site, not theirs.

    My sweet Rosie dog
    My sweet Rosie dog

    If you’re worried about people stealing your work from your site, keep an eye on your analytics. A lot of people think it’s ok to use an image off your site as long as they give an attribution and a link to the source. All they may have done is committed copyright infringement and told you about it. I’ve discovered two instances of copyright infringement of my work this way.

    If you create any type of content and you’re concerned about copyright infringement, please consult a copyright attorney in your community who can help you create and implement a strategy to protect your work.

    Lights Camera Lawsuit

    There’s always a need for quality legal information for photographers. That’s why I created an online course called Lights Camera Lawsuit: The Legal Side of Professional Photography to address photographers’ most important questions. I want you to feel secure in your business, confident in the way you operate day-to-day, knowing that you’ve set yourself up to get paid what your worth without incident.

    At $497, the course contains nearly six hours of legal information you can immediately apply to your business. That’s less than what I charge for two hours of legal work for clients!  

    Please subscribe for more information and to make sure you don’t miss out on any special offers or discounts.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Jonathan Coulton v. Glee – Legal Rip Off or Copyright Infringement?

    Jonathan Coulton by Dan Coulter from Flickr
    Jonathan Coulton by Dan Coulter from Flickr

    I’ve been reading up on the Jonathan Coulton/Glee controversy over Coulton’s arrangement of “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mix-a-Lot and all I can think is “What the fuck, Glee?!?”

    Sir Mix-a-Lot is the artist behind the original “Baby Got Back.” When indie singer-songwriter Jonathan Coulton wanted to record a cover of it, he did the ethical and legal thing and purchased a license to use the song. Whenever he sells a copy of his version, Sir Mix-a-Lot gets a royalty payment.

    The TV show Glee is about a high school glee club that does covers of popular songs. When they wanted to do a version of “Baby Got Back,” they got permission from Sir Mix-a-Lot to do it, but according to Coulton and his fans, they blatantly ripped off his arrangement without any attribution. It was likely completely legal for Glee to do this, but it was an asshat thing to do.

    Here’s how copyright works when it comes to music. When a musician writes a song (think sheet music), he gets the exclusive right to copy, distribute, display, perform, and make derivative works from it. Covers are derivative works, which is why Coulton needed a license to do his own arrangement of the song. He used the same lyrics with a few modifications, but the accompanying music is totally different.

    When the musician makes a sound recording of their song (think mp3, CD, etc.), he gets a separate copyright in that. In this case, Coulton may not have a copyright in the arrangement he wrote for “Baby Got Back,” but he does have a copyright in his sound recording of his arrangement of the song.

    When “Baby Got Back” aired on Glee, Jonathan Coulton and his fans recognized it as his arrangement instantly, and they rightfully asked, “What the fuck?” No one informed Coulton that they’d be using his arrangement and they didn’t give him credit for it on the show. The show reportedly responded that he should be happy for the free exposure. What exposure did they give him since they didn’t give him the attribution for his work?!

    Some people are now questioning whether Glee used some of Coulton’s sound recording on the show. Coulton may not have legal recourse for them using his arrangement of the song, but he would if they used his recording instead of recreating it themselves. We’ll see where the chips fall on this one.

    In the meantime, Coulton is doing something totally awesome in response to this situation. He released his version of “Baby Got Back” (in the style of Glee) and he’s donating the profits to The VH1 Save the Music Foundation and The It Gets Better Project. Go buy it! (I did!)

    So what’s the lesson from this: Always give an attribution when you use another artist’s work, even if you’re not legally obligated to do it.

    You can read more about this story on CNN, Wired, and Forbes. Apparently other artists are also coming forward and saying that Glee did the same thing to their arrangements as they allegedly did to Coulton.

    You can connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,