I have also been selected as a Beta tester, and am currently preparing my first registration of 112 published images, with another of 325 images to follow. After a very helpful telephone discussion with someone at the Copyright Office, I have a thorough understanding of the process.
It appears that despite some operational glitches in the current website, the process is going to be MUCH easier than the paper method. The biggest advantage being that you can now simply list the titles of individual works in a group registration in one field, rather than individual lines on the paper forms, and only 15 per form. It is a simple 'cut & paste' operation.
The only major drawback (for me) currently, is that for group registrations of published images, the publication dates must all be the same, which could mean a larger number of filings, and of course, more fees.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
You're ahead of me with your investigation and understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_G_Walter
I have also been selected as a Beta tester, and am currently preparing my first registration of 112 published images, with another of 325 images to follow. After a very helpful telephone discussion with someone at the Copyright Office, I have a thorough understanding of the process.
Great, you'll be an excellent resource.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_G_Walter
It appears that despite some operational glitches in the current website, the process is going to be MUCH easier than the paper method. The biggest advantage being that you can now simply list the titles of individual works in a group registration in one field, rather than individual lines on the paper forms, and only 15 per form. It is a simple 'cut & paste' operation.
If I understood you correctly, rather than listing each individual photo, you can now group your photos with one heading? Are you still limited to the 750 photos per published registration? And how do you upload your photos? Do you organize your photos into batches of 15 per folder or something like that? Are there words of wisdom for organizing yourself in advance of filing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_G_Walter
The only major drawback (for me) currently, is that for group registrations of published images, the publication dates must all be the same, which could mean a larger number of filings, and of course, more fees.
Is there any way you could have your publication date as a quarter. For example, publication date: 1 Oct 2007 - 31 Dec 2007 Volume I Client Images. Would that work?
In short, I am curious if you have changed your organization or work flow to accommodate the new electronic filing process. I have not yet investigated on the online system, though I plan to shortly.
If I understood you correctly, rather than listing each individual photo, you can now group your photos with one heading? Are you still limited to the 750 photos per published registration? And how do you upload your photos? Do you organize your photos into batches of 15 per folder or something like that? Are there words of wisdom for organizing yourself in advance of filing?
Is there any way you could have your publication date as a quarter. For example, publication date: 1 Oct 2007 - 31 Dec 2007 Volume I Client Images. Would that work?
In short, I am curious if you have changed your organization or work flow to accommodate the new electronic filing process. I have not yet investigated on the online system, though I plan to shortly.
Best regards,
Kevin
It appears that the photos are simply listed in one block of the form. When I spoke to the examiner, she said she didn't know of any limit, and was interested herself to find out if I reached one. I only have 112 images on this filing, and 325 on the next, so I kind of doubt that I will. As to the deposit, she advised me that I should place them into a zip file, only because there was a timeout limit on the upload process, and the process of individually uploading images could hit that limit. I will use the same format as I used for the deposit on the paper process, which is to create small jpg files that are large enough to comfortably view on a monitor, probably 525 X 350.
As to the publication date, they are pretty clear that the system is limited currently to groups of the same publication date. I think this is only a limitation of the form design, and will probably be changed eventually, but it comes down to an entry on a following page that asks for a specific date. I asked about publication dates as to how they applied to my case, which is submission to an online agency, and was told that it was whatever date that I decided that the photos were available for possible infringement. For me, this is an undocumented date, where I have documentation as to when I upload the images to the agency, and when the agency makes them available for me to prepare, but it is really up to me when I push a button, that they are published. Therefore, I can take several submissions across several dates, and group the publications on a single day to benefit my workflow.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
John, your information is very helpful. Thank you for sharing.
With regard to the date, I wonder if one could simply use the earliest date. I believe the critical issue is whether you have registered your photos within three months of publication. In reading through the documentation on the government's copyright site, the three months seems to be a critical element.
If you were to register your photos four times per year--or put differently, within three months of creation--if that would be okay. On one hand, I don't see the harm. On the other, then application would not factually correct, which isn't good.
Once I actually begin filling out the form, I might come back to ask more questions.
With regard to the date, I wonder if one could simply use the earliest date. I believe the critical issue is whether you have registered your photos within three months of publication. In reading through the documentation on the government's copyright site, the three months seems to be a critical element.
If you were to register your photos four times per year--or put differently, within three months of creation--if that would be okay. On one hand, I don't see the harm. On the other, then application would not factually correct, which isn't good.
Once I actually begin filling out the form, I might come back to ask more questions.
A couple of different topics here.....
First of all, the three-month issue is from date of 'publication', not 'creation', so the date of publication is important, as well as the date of acceptance by the Copyright Office. The date of acceptance, under the paper process, was determined by the actual date that the submission was accepted at the office, regardless of how long it took them to examine and approve the material.
Even establishing that date was a bit of a problem, as added security measures for incoming mail meant that you could not count on the signature proof of a delivery service such as Fedex, as all deliveries were made to on offsite processing facility where security measures were implimented before the package was actually delivered by the govenrment to the copyright office.
It was even recommended for those of us that live close to the office (I am in Washington DC), that the best way to assure an accurate acceptance date, was to actually go to the office, pass through the normal security for entering the building without overtly advertising the contents of your package, and hand-carry it to the accepting office.
Now, with the online method, I am told that the actual date of acceptance is when all three of the requirements (registration, deposit & fee) are submitted. My contact at the LofC says this can be a bit problematic, because the online process completes these three steps, but the case remains open for an undetermined amount of time (probably until somebody actually starts working on it), and during this time, you can still make modifications to the submission, potentially confusing the acceptance date.
The acceptance date is important, because if the work is accepted within three months of publication, it is considered accepted at publication, and any infringement within that period falls under the same rules as if it were after the actual acceptance.
This means that you can sue for statuatory damages instead of just compensatory damages, which is a major advantage because there is less to prove, and the court can determine the damage. Plus, you can ask the court to include your legal fees. That last fact alone can mean the difference in actually hiring a lawyer.
With all of that in mind, it is easy to see why determining the actual publication date is important, but may be difficult in some cases. Clearly, if the work is published in a magazine, or periodical, there is an actual publication date. However, simply submitting the work to a magazine publisher opens the possibility of infringement even before its actual publication. For example, the image could be given to a designer, who in turn could steal it for use in some other manner.
Therefore, in my opinion (and that of others), the actual publication date is that date that the work is made available to be easily stolen. Placed in the care of another person, hung on a gallery wall, displayed on a public website, etc.
For example, the pictures on your blog are clearly published. But, when? And, how do you prove it later? It really only matters for the three months preceding your registration.
For example (again), let's say that you discover that I used one of your blog photos (that have not been registered). You would have to document the date and actual infringement (through a screen capture for example). If you then register the image with a 'publication' date of up to three months earlier (and earlier than the infringement), then you are probably OK.
Unless, I can prove that I stole the image prior to the 'publication' date. Of course, I would be admitting guilt, but would also be avoiding statuatory damages.
So, in my opnion, it is probably best to keep all of your ducks in a row, by utilizing a reasonable 'publication' date, that can stand up in court.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I'd like to raise two points. First, creation versus publication date. I understand the distinction completely. My intended point earlier is that within three months of creation automatically implies within three months of publication, since you can't publish something before its been created. Ideally, I would like to make quarterly submissions and be done with the whole registration process.
Second, the pictures on my blog are automatically considered published? That's a tougher one. I am not sure because simply broadcasting something on the television does not necessarily constitute publication either.
The 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows:
“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
...
A further discussion of the definition of “publication” can be found in the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act. The legislative reports define “to the public” as distribution to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the contents. The reports state that the definition makes it clear that the sale of phonorecords constitutes publication of the underlying work, for example, the musical, dramatic, or literary work embodied in a phonorecord. The reports also state that it is clear that any form of dissemination in which the material object does not change hands, for example, performances or displays on television, is not a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work. However, when copies or phonorecords are offered for sale or lease to a group of wholesalers, broadcasters, or motion picture theaters, publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display.
Displaying a work, without doing anything else, does not constitute publication.
The courts have not yet addressed the issue of whether posting your images on the web constitutes publication for copyright issues. It most likely is dependent on how and where it is posted. If you put your photo on a website with any implication of selling/distributing it, then it would most likely be deemed published. Posting on a forum such as NatureScapes.Net for critique probably doesn't meet that threshold. Since members have discussed the possibility of selling images from the NatureScapes.Net Portfolios, posting images there probably would be considered publication.
All this stuff is maddening opaque. I have flip flopped on this issue myself once or twice. It would be nice to find case law that spells out exactly what constitutes being published.
Quote:
However, simply submitting the work to a magazine publisher opens the possibility of infringement even before its actual publication. For example, the image could be given to a designer, who in turn could steal it for use in some other manner.
Agreed. The moment someone else sees your image, it's open to theft.
Linear Mode
