Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I think your information is wrong.

You cannot bring about a copyright infringement suit in Federal Court unless you have a valid, registered copyright. Anyone can put a copyright watermark on the front of an image, on the rear, or even in the metadata if it is an electronic image. It is not proof of anything. Copyright registration allows the suit to enter into the court system.

Registration also allows the owner to sue for statutory damages if the work was registered before the infringement, attorney fees etc.

If the unauthorized seller doesn't have a copyright owner's permission it is reasonable enough to assume permission wasn't granted.

https://copyrightalliance.org/ca_faq_post/copyright-protection-ata/

And this, quoted from US Copyright website:

"Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register

You clearly are no expert in this area and should not give out any advice other than "get a real attorney" on which we both agree.

You also many want to peruse the US Copyright website to correct some of your incorrect perceptions. It can be a real eye-opener.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Statutory penalties.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Shockingly clueless and 100% wrong.

maxlieberman Loc: 19027

Folks, I think we have exhausted this topic. Time to put it to bed.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

You are not permitted even to file a copyright suit without having registered, and received a Certificate of Registration.

canonclicker

There is an organization called 'Lawyers For The Arts' which is especially set up for artists. If one is an artist they will be supported accordingly to their income, free if necessary. <https://www.calawyersforthearts.org> Each state has an organization. San Francisco (415) 775-7200 is one branch.

Check with your state office.

Facelessman

I heard tale of the Ronald Reagan days of trickle down economy but nothing like what's going on here.

CaliforniaDreamer

You might want to look at Tony and Chelsea Northrup's pod cast on this very subject. They are obviously professional photographers and the copied photo obviously theirs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUEbi4r8Pg0

Blues Dude

Hold off on the lawyer. It looks like NewsTimes is owned by Hearst Corp, which is a reputable media company. Contact one of their editors and explain the situation: https://www.newstimes.com/contact/

I'd be surprised if you have any problem with them.

You also might look at this as a business opportunity: tell them you're a pro photographer and would be interested in selling more photos thru them.

spaceytracey Loc: East Glacier Park, MT

Thanks, that's what I thought as far as registration of copyright.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

If you need to go to court,- and have any hope of recovering damages, statutory, treble (triple the amount of compensatory damages), etc - you need to register the image(s) with the Copyright Office - why is this still being questioned? The remedies for those harmed are clearly written in the US Copyright Law.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

This whole thing is odd ...

The link supplied to the photo is to a news company called "News Times.com". The advertising tab is open to a running add for the parent company "My Capture inc." They are a promotional company.

You must have submitted the photo into a contest type, promotional contract, or the band did so with or without you knowing.

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

These are true- on my mothers grave, stories of intentional illegal copyright infringement experiences.

I have a good friend and business associate who is a higher-end professional photographer who shot many hundreds of product images for a company to be used for a specific use at a cut-rate, not to be used for anything other than that use that was spelled out specifically without revisiting the contract for further reasonable compensation. It was all spelled out in a very tight and official signed contract! One of his assistants was on-press working on an unrelated project in a remote printer and recognized some of the images being used in packaging- which was one of the uses they were specifically NOT to be used for. He also found out from an art director who had a conscience, that they were distributing the images to 3rd parties who sold the products- to be used in catalogs the 3rd parties produced. They became an asset in selling the products for the manufacturer... ( buy our products and we will include these great images) The result was a 100g's in provable lost revenue. Greedy bastards.

He settled for less than a 10th of what it should have cost them, basically he ran out of funds to continue on. Thats what the justice system has come to- how much cash you have and what loses you can prove they cost you. So in short, unless you have substantial damages- no lawyer is gonna touch it, and you will incur more costs than you will receive in this particular case. A cease and desist will probably be the only justice you get. Funny thing, after all this, they hired other photographers, but they did not deliver what he did, and the company contacted him to see if would consider shooting more stuff for them... balls I know... at least he got that satisfaction of telling them to go F&*&^% themselves- they burnt that bridge.

In another case, same photographer, he shot some images on spec for a major furniture company that everyone has heard of... the in-house Art Director who hired him rejected them, they didn't meet her standards or some other crap. Later he saw several of these images from that shoot, one being used on the cover of a major run on a sales flier she produced- he was never paid a cent, and she knowingly stole them. The furniture company was embarrassed - never heard what happened to the art director who knowingly rejected, and then used the images. She deserved the name he called her.

To cut your loss, try and sell the image to them, and see if you have anything else they might value, or perhaps strike up a business arrangement if they market such images. Hey- it is sort of a backhanded compliment after all- not that that is worth anything in itself, but get whatever positive you can out of it.

Sucks I know... Sorry... we see all sorts of examples of law not being equally applied out there- its not what is fair- its who you are and how much cash you have to buy justice.

Doug Mitchell

My attorney fees came to less than $200, including a referral from our family lawyer. Short form: I learned some important terms... copyright, watermark, contracts & obligations, and real/intellectual property rights. Remember: unlike film work (those were the days) there are no digital "copies," just generations: mother, daughter, etc. If at all possible, guard your work. The legal paperwork was minimal, and it was well worth the time. All our best!

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

Good try! Not sure what law school you went to but the one I went to never used Peta pixel as a reference. You apparently did not read the article and are unfamiliar with the ruling. The case stated in the article is completely different than what the op is asking. It actually has to do with something called fair use doctrine which does not apply in this case. In the article the images were not being sold and as I stated the question of whether there was reasonable knowledge of copyright is important. A photographers name watermarked on the image is enough for a reasonable person to know that the image is the property of the photographer. That did not exsist in the case in the article. However the OP did state his name was on the images.
Furthermore in my post if you bothered to read it my question was to the value of Zenfolios protection. Was it worth and neccesary for $4 a month. Keep in mind the question was to the value of zenfolio monitoring the internet for you then procescuting violations given that on top of the $4 per month they would also take a hefty percentage of any judgements. So basicly you would pay them to chase ambulences for them. Again not applicable to this situation or my comment.
Fact: a photograph does not have to be registered to have copyright protection. Copy right protection under US law is created at the time the image is taken. You said a judge would never rule in your favor if it wasn’t registered Fact courts have awarded damages to photographers for images that were not registered. I will give you an easy one to look up. Tony Northrup won a copy right judgement of $60k for a non registered image.
This is a very easy case. The OP had someone take his images which were watermarked with his name on them and they were selling them without his permission. Maybe you were absent the day they went over this in law school but You do not have the right to take someone else’s intellectual property, (in this case images)and sell it without permission. That is theft and theft is a violation of copyright laws. The Op needs to prove only two things. 1 the images were his. They were watermarked and even selling them with his name on it. 2 that they were not licensed and or the person who was selling them was not granted a license. He does not have to register the photos. The law is on the Op’s Side. However as a practical matter the cost of litigating is most likely going to far exceed what they could potentially recover.
Now the next time you accuse me of being a troll I suggest you get your facts straight first and maybe make sure they apply to the situation at hand. Legal stuff just doesn’t seem to be your thing.