What good are copyright laws if...

[Tuffcookie]

you don't have the $$$ to pursue it thru federal court???

Even if you have a copyrighted picture, and register it, have signed releases/waivers, you would still have to pay, in access of, $10,000 to even take it to court! And that is probably a very low figure, because copyright infringement is handled in federal court.
I guess copyright infringement suits are only for the very wealthy photographers, not for average citizens.
I think it's wrong that anybody can print/publish your pictures because the odds are in their favor that you can't afford to do a darn thing about it!
Now, if there was some sort of "small claims" court for novice photograhers maybe that would be more of a deterrent against copyright infringement.

TC

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

In many cases that I've read on other forums, it's not always necessary to go the whole way through the court system.

Because the *laws* are pretty straightforward, sometimes it's enough just to get a lawyer to send a letter to the infringer, and work for an out-of-court settlement. That's usually only a couple of hundred bucks. Sometimes, if the infringement seems pretty blatant (like still has your watermark on it or something) you can write the letter yourself and merely hint about taking it to a lawyer. Since the law is unequivocally on the photographer's side, it's kind of hard to defend.

If it gets to court, too, you can also get court costs as part of the judgment and some (most?) lawyers will work with photographers on that basis.

 

[jann1033]

unfortunately i don't think it's always a matter of what the law says..some companies know you won't pursue due to the cost and take their chances...we have had our own business for 20+ yrs and in the past few yrs we have had 3 "clients" who were perfectly happy with the work but didn't want to pay for it so we had to take them to court for it...one was thousands so it was worth it to get an attorney but we still only got 1/2 of what they owed us, the others by the time we would have paid for fees it would have cost us more than it was worth and in every case we later found out they habitually did this to other contractors( one guy to the tune of over $100,000.00)...some people are just unscrupulous and unfortunately usually know how to get around laws and rip people off...your only defense is always get a written contract and even then you take your chances( we have always had a signed contract) and i guess don't post anything online you might not want taken which limits you ...if you read the article skbell posted it seems like that is commonly done...a nasty fact of present day life, lots of dishonest people
the problems with small claims court is they don't make them pay, just say they owe it then if you want them to pay you have to do some kind of garnishing or something, not really worth the bother for a couple hundred $.
just so you know, in OHio, ( not sure if it's the same anywhere) if it's under $2000 you can use small claims for and don't need a lawyer for...so if you do a job over that ever, get a deposit, or draws so by the end they only owe you under $2000 just in case. that way even if you lose that money you got some of it. and sign any contracts with your title ie jane smith, president, that helps in case they want to come after you personally

 

[sk8belle]

I posted that article on "Whose Photo..." earlier this week with you in mind. If you haven't seen it already, you might want to check it out and see if it might not give you some ideas for a resolution.

What about bringing this to the attention of your local paper or TV station? Shame AT&T in to giving you credit or monetary compensation.

 

[boBQuincy]

Copyright laws are written for the corporations. They are vague, open to all kinds of interpretation, and are designed so they can sue you for almost anything yet you can spend a great amount of your time, effort, and $$$ only to have them stall forever.

ATT should be ashamed but corporations have no shame and certainly no sense of decency. If you have the time bring it to the attention of the press, the news, whoever, in the hopes that someone will take up the cause and make enough commotion that it is cheaper for ATT to pay you than to suffer the bad publicity.

It is sad that it comes to this, that they can't even honor a simple agreement with someone from their own community.

 

[fwm]

Copyright laws are written for the corporations. They are vague, open to all kinds of interpretation, and are designed so they can sue you for almost anything yet you can spend a great amount of your time, effort, and $$$ only to have them stall forever.

Actually, copyright laws are written to protect the authors. If a work is timely registered and there is willful infringement the courts frequently award attorney fees to the copyright owner. Also, the court can award statutory damages if actual damages are minimal.

 

[fitzperry]

Actually, copyright laws are written to protect the authors. If a work is timely registered and there is willful infringement the courts frequently award attorney fees to the copyright owner. Also, the court can award statutory damages if actual damages are minimal.

The problem is getting to court to have those damages and attorney fees awarded to the copyright holder. IIRC an award of fees to the prevailing party is not mandatory, so unless the damages are substantial, you're likely to encounter difficulty finding an attorney who will take the case. This is a situation where it's easy for a big corp. to stonewall and take advantage of an individual.