Michael Lohr  wrote:

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
please do not talk about stuff you do not have knowledge of. In particular please do not talk about the law or medicine as you risk doing real harm.  you raised 5 points. None (zero, zip, zilch) are correct. That's a pretty bad average zero for five. actually the last one is really two sub-points (two sub-zeros?).  Thats horrible.  even my cats would do better (and two of them are dead). I'm going to steal your 3rd point. One of my buddies teaches the copyright portion of the IP law class at my alma mater. he's gonna use it as as one of the multiple choice answers on his next exam.

.

1 You can not sue for damages without registering your pictures at the copy right office. If you do not register you can only sue for copright infringement.

This is a HUGE difference. For example If I took a killer picture and someone used in a national ad. I would be able to sue for damages at the prevailing rate. This could be for tens of thousans of dollars on top of the copyright infringement.

2/3 If a model and photographer shoot together on a free shoot. No contract, No release, No exchange of money. Then the photographer susbsequently gives the model pictures from the shoot. The model has rights to use those pictures.

Example, I have done my fair number of shoots here. I can not go back and contact models who have worked on a TFP basis, No release, no contract. and tell them they can't use my pictues anymore.

4 Credit. Even on a paid shoot there is no law that states a person using a photographers work MUST credit the photographer.

As a copyright holder I can negotiate terms in advance if I so choose. This falls under liscensing requirements. So I can liscense a photograph with specific terms. IE, How long the photo can be used. Usage Fees, whether or not the photo will be credited. or anything else. So absent  an agreement in advance. A model would not have to credit the photographer.

Just an FYI.
Not sure why some people here feel the need to be snarky. If one disagree with another points then fine. Point out what is wrong so others can learn.
Simply saying the other person is wrong provides no benifit to the community.

Everything mentioned here is stated on the copyright.gov site. Fair use, what IS copyright infringment, etc.

But it doesn't sound as good as "I own the copyright, damnit!"

MC Photo wrote:

Do you think there has been a court case over a back rub or a penny? If there hasn't been, there's no ruling on that.

actually there has ..see below

In order for a model release to be enforceable, the party seeking to uphold the release must have given consideration. Consideration in the context of model releases often refers to a sum of money paid to the model and/or prints to be made of the photos for the model.  "Although courts do not ordinarily inquire into the adequacy of consideration, if the consideration is given as a mere pretense, joke, or sham, it will not suffice." R. Kelso, Supplementary Material for Contracts I, p. 12, (1994).

Michael Lohr  wrote:

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
please do not talk about stuff you do not have knowledge of. In particular please do not talk about the law or medicine as you risk doing real harm.  you raised 5 points. None (zero, zip, zilch) are correct. That's a pretty bad average zero for five. actually the last one is really two sub-points (two sub-zeros?).  Thats horrible.  even my cats would do better (and two of them are dead). I'm going to steal your 3rd point. One of my buddies teaches the copyright portion of the IP law class at my alma mater. he's gonna use it as as one of the multiple choice answers on his next exam.

.

1 You can not sue for damages without registering your pictures at the copy right office. If you do not register you can only sue for copright infringement.

This is a HUGE difference. For example If I took a killer picture and someone used in a national ad. I would be able to sue for damages at the prevailing rate. This could be for tens of thousans of dollars on top of the copyright infringement.

You cannot sue for copyright infringement without registering with the copyright office.  If you do not register, you cannot sue for infringement.

What you appear to be confused about are actual damages versus statutory damages.  Pictures registered within 3 months of publication or before infringement are eligible for statutory damages.  Any images that are registered after that point are only eligible for actual damages.

If you are infringed and you didn't register your work, and you don't normally sell your work, your actual damage is pretty low, and not really worth suing for infringement.

If you did register in time and you are infringed, you can sue for statutory damages of $750-$30,000, and up to $150,000 for willful infringement.

You cannot sue for copyright infringement without registering with the copyright office.  If you do not register, you cannot sue for infringement.

David Parsons wrote:
What you appear to be confused about are actual damages versus statutory damages.  Pictures registered within 3 months of publication or before infringement are eligible for statutory damages.  Any images that are registered after that point are only eligible for actual damages.

If you are infringed and you didn't register your work, and you don't normally sell your work, your actual damage is pretty low, and not really worth suing for infringement.

If you did register in time and you are infringed, you can sue for statutory damages of $750-$30,000, and up to $150,000 for willful infringement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Other than a couple legal terms I am not sure how this is any different then what I am saying. It is still a copyright infringement case even if you are suing for actual damages. As  I stated and you confirmed, there is virtualy no money  If you do not register your pictures.

Here is a perfect case to show why one needs to register their work.

http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawye … copyr.html