<img border="0" alt="[offtopic]" title="" src="graemlins/offtopic.gif" />
I desperately need some questions answered on copyright law, before Wedmesday morning.

If you can help, could you please email me at nicole@mossinger.com?

Specifically:

1. If I ask someone to take a picture for me, does this person automatically own the copyright? Does it make any difference, if this person uses my equipment?

2. If I give a picture to an artist, in order to retouch it and do some effects to it, and later give the same picture to a second artist who does similar (but not exactly the same) retouching and effects, can the first artist sue me or the second artist for copyright violation?

I do believe the answer must be "no" in both cases, but I need to know for sure.

In General: What determines who owns the copyright for a photograph or graphic image? Pulling the trigger on the camera? Registering with the patent and trademark office? Putting a "C" in a circle, plus year and name? What else?

Again, this is in no way 928 related...

Thanks in advance!

 

I'm no expert (did some marketing for a patent and copyright research Co. 10 yrs ago), but in order to claim a Copyright I thought you have to actually demonstrate some effort to show ownership of the picture (i.e. mail the document to yourself in a sealed envelope, file an application with the copyright office, posting notice of ownership in a public forum).

Did you sign a Model release form? Do you own the rights to your own likeness?

Andy Warhol had other artists modify pictures of Cambels Soup cans and Marylyn Monroe and called it his own art individually copyrighted artwork. I would think you could infer something from that both pro and con.

Even if sued, what could the possible damages be from a picture of you used by yourself. Where are the damages? Did you profit in any way from the use of the picture, modified or unmodified?

That is about all the help I can be. I suggest you look in the Yello pages for someone who does copyright work/law. A simple consult wouldn't cost much and might be done for free depending on the company/lawfirm.

Regards,
JE
Washington D.C.
Jack of all trades
928Sx5

 

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Nicole:
<strong>
1. If I ask someone to take a picture for me, does this person automatically own the copyright? Does it make any difference, if this person uses my equipment?

2. If I give a picture to an artist, in order to retouch it and do some effects to it, and later give the same picture to a second artist who does similar (but not exactly the same) retouching and effects, can the first artist sue me or the second artist for copyright violation?
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Did you ask the person to take the picture, or hire them? I'm not an expert on this, but I know that often what counts is who paid for the work to be done.

Good luck!

 

Nicole: I am not a patent attorney but we do work a lot with copyright media in print and television. Basically, rights to a property belong to the owner. If you hire someone to do creative work for you, the end result of their efforts are your property. If in doubt have them sign a release to their rights to the work. I can send you a basic release form if you like that you can doctor up for your needs.

 

Nicole,

For realistic, authoritative copyright info, go to the U.S. Government Copyright Office homepage at
<a href="http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/" target="_blank">http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/</a>

Pretty straight-forward.

 

Nicole:

Check your email.

 

Nicole-

In my occasional modeling work, this question has never come up because I've always been under a signed contract, and everything is pretty much spelled out. If you can't get in touch with a lawyer, call some modeling agency in your town and just ask those questions...they should be able to help you out.

N!

 

Thanks everyone for responding! I know this was last minute...

Big Dave: I received your mail earlier that day - did you receive my reply? There were some problems with my email today (just when I needed it...)

Larry: The information you sent is very helpful and educational. BIG special thanks!!!

All:

The real story is bizarre. Here it is in short:

I have been sued in small claims court by a web designer who designed the first website for a client of mine. The plaintiff claims to own my client's website, because he created it and has the original files [of the old website].

The plaintiff is an amateur who had begged my client to let him design a website for her, so he could learn how to do it. He turned the site into a 150+ page mess where my client's business went under. Of course, she never got any useful business leads from that website. They never had a written contract, and he got rewarded by her buying him stuff he needed and did not have the money for.

I have designed a brand new site from scratch, with materials given to me by my client - some of which are the same materials she had initially given to the plaintiff for the first site. My contract explicitly states that the client guarantees that all the materials given to me are either hers or she has the permission to use them (that's where the copyright question comes in).

Reading between the lines in the court notice, I believe the plaintiff thinks that he owns the right to everything and anything that ever appeared on that site while he designed and maintained it. Also, he once accompanied my client to a convention and might have taken some pictures there with her camera (she doesn't remember for sure, who took the pictures at this convention for her).

He sued my client as well.

Here it gets even more bizarre: The guy is somehow mentally ill, which was not obvious to my client when they started working together. But then, he tried to get my client to sign an agreement that gives him 51% controlling interest in her business for the work he did. He has even told people they were going to get married and gave her a diamond ring (which she didn't accept). The moment he started acting like this, my client backed off, only to find him stalking her and her family. She tried to get a restraining order, but the court refused, as my client's "life was not in danger".

For this case, the plaintiff subpoenaed pretty much anybody and everybody he knows is associated with my client. The plaintiff told my client's brother that if he loses the cases against us, he will report us to the IRS, etc (for what, please???)...

The court case is tomorrow (Wednesday) morning. I have never met this person, don't even know what he looks like (I expect to see a clown...). Sad thing is that I spent countless hours gathering and organizing all my documentation and other evidence. I hope the judge will see the ridiculousness of this case immediately.

I am optimistic that I will be out of trouble. Nevertheless, this has been a time consuming experience. I will let you know how it turns out.

Thanks again!!!

 

Good luck Nicole, sounds like you've got a real nutcase on your hands.

 

One advantage of living in Georgia is that the legal system here takes "abusive litigation" seriously. Basically, if you can show that the suit is frivolous, baseless, or malicious, you can countersue with a very good chance of being awarded damages for having been sued.

Might be worth checking to see if that is true in your area. Of course, it sounds as if he doesn't have much for you to get ....

 

Nicole:

I did receive your email that included your fact pattern. I sent a somewhat length reply around 6:30 pm Eastern time. If you didn't get it, I can re-send.

This may be moot since you've got the hearing this morning.

Good luck!

 

Big Dave:

Unfortunately, my email is still down at the ISP side, so I did not see, what you sent. This outage could not be at a worse time... The only chance for me to get it would be by fax (510-792-9299). I'll be leaving here at 8AM PST.

Thanks!

Wally:

I am told that for lawsuits in California small claims court, you can't countersue for your time spent on preparing your defense, etc. It's scary, because we don't know what this guy is going to come up with next. It could go endlessly - he has nothing to lose, and nothing to do other than harass my client (and now possibly me, too) Oh well, let me focus on today and see, how it goes.

One of the most important things I have learned is that he has to register things with the US Copyright office, in order to enforce any copyrights, and then he has to do so in Federal court - so small claims would not have jurisdiction over any copyright infringement he might claim.

 

Nicole:

Check your fax machine. I think I made it in under the wire.

 

OK, I'm back from the court.

The plaintiff came late (I think that was intended), so our case was heard last in the day.

The plaintiff made a complete fool of himself, whining and getting lost in irrelevant details. He mainly focused on the "relationship" he supposedly had with my client, and then got lost in other irrelevant details, trying to discredit my client. He hardly talked about the website...

I had a nice outline of my defense, which started with 8 bullet points about why I think this case is frivolous. I showed the judge prints of the old and new websites, and the domain name registration in my client's name. Then I zoomed in on the plaintiff's mental state, obsession wieh my client, and his attempts to seize control of her business. Lastly, I stated that if this is about copyright infringement, we'd have to settle this in Federal Court.

The judge did not even let me get to any more details (even though I was well prepared for them). He said he had heard enough to make a ruling, which we will receive in the mail.

The latest bizarre twist is that the plaintiff has registered a business here in Alameda County under the same name as the business of my client, which is registered in a different county.

Anyway, I am extremely confident that the judge will make a ruling in my favor. In two weeks we'll be in court again for the plaintiff's case against my client.

Not all the help is evident on this message board, as many members emailed me offline. You guys are truly wonderful! Again, thanks sooo much for your advice and support!!!

 

Nicole...good luck! It sounds like you won, however.

Wally- If that is true, then Georgia is truly the most progressive state in the country on the issue of tort reform...something that we need badly~

-If any of you ever get a chance to visit Vero Beach, Florida, make sure you stop in at Piper Aircraft Corporation and take their tour. It is fascinating...you can watch while they build an airplane in front of you, and the workers are happy to explain everything they are doing. It amazes me how similar airplane construction and builders are to what we find in our garages.

And while you are visiting Piper, take a look after you park your car at the vast fields in front of the factory and airport terminal. Must be 15-20 acres of open grass. Imagine them full of cars....these USED to be the parking lots for Piper's employees. These days the parking lot at the factory has about 60 cars on average. You see, lawsuits resulting from light aircraft accidents nearly put the company out of business.

For example: In the late 1980's, the owner of a Piper PA-12 Cub decided that he wanted to go flying. The only problem: the runway at the airport was under construction and was closed. The pilot decided to argue about flying with the airport manager...who decided that it was best to park a Ford van on the runway in order to prevent this guy taking off while workers were present. Well, said idiot got in his Cub and tried to take off anyway... and wound up running his fabric and tube airplane into the van at about 70 mph. He wound up paralyzed from the neck down and decided that Piper was at fault for not building an airplane capable of being flown into a Ford at 70 mph and protecting its pilot from injury. He sued for $30 million, a lawsuit that Piper spent millions of dollars in legal fees fighting.

OH...YEAH...that makes sense to me~

Normy!
'85 S2 5 Speed