Help with registering bulk copyright

[DesertDarlene]

I am getting no help at all from the Copyright office and I was wondering if anyone here has had any experience with copyrighting multiple photos at once. I would like to bulk copyright a year's worth (or even three months worth) of blog photos published online, only, but published on different dates. I tried to do it online, but it only let me put one date in per batch, so I think I have to do it on a paper form and submit two copies of each photo.

One question is if I'm copyrighting my blog photos in bulk, do I have to copyright every single one I've published or can I skip a few on each post?

Second, should I send the original, unedited photos to their depository or the edited and watermarked photos I originally published on the blog.

Third, is it really worth it to put together such a big package? I mean, I know of people who still were able to recover license fees and other incidental expenses without a registered copyright. And, I hear that getting the big punitive awards are extremely rare and often are more expensive than the costs of suing someone for those awards. And, it can take years to do so. Will it work for me, legally, to do this in bulk? Or, will it hurt my case.

[DesertDarlene]

I meant to say the cost of suing for punitive damages are often more expensive than what you would get awarded.

[Rusalka]

I'm very curious where you got the idea you have to do something like this?? Works are automatically copyrighted when they are published or fixed in tangible form. (putting them online counts as "publishing"). A painting is copyrighted when it is completed. It helps to put the date on it. You don't need to "register" anything! You make it sound as if you're expecting to sue someone for copying your blog pictures and hoping to make a lot of money that way. That is very unrealistic. I think you are wasting your time and money doing a registration.

[DesertDarlene]

Thank you for your input.

I am NOT planning a lawsuit or thinking that if I did sue someone I would win a lot of money if I was. That is so NOT like me to think that way at all. I know copyright lawsuits are expensive to start and time consuming and I roll my eyes at people who claim they can get $150,000 just because someone used one of their photos or a copy of their artwork once or twice. I was just wondering if anyone has done bulk copyright and whether or not it is worth doing or only registering work that has a higher likelihood of getting stolen one at a time. I've seen lawsuits were people blatantly and egregiously copied someone else's work and the judge gave them absolutely nothing for it because they weren't registered with the copyright office.

The thing is, you never know what might "take off" and become popular later on. Copyright registration is said to help you in court even when you haven't had any tangible damages.

[Rusalka]

You have to register each work separately if you want to have the protection you describe. In my opinion, if it were common to get punitive damages from someone for stealing an image off the internet, you'd be hearing a lot more about it. Can you find any court cases with the scenario you're imagining? I haven't heard of anyone getting $100K for stealing an image off the web. It doesn't seem very logical an expectation. Even though the law allows for such a punitive award, it doesn't mean any judge is going to think it's reasonable to give you that kind of money for such an infraction. The punishment must fit the crime.

With that in mind you'd have to weigh the chances of that "big payoff in the sky" against the time and money it costs you to register each painting. I wouldn't bother with it unless I was a very well-known artist. That's just my opinion.

[DesertDarlene]

I mostly just want to bulk copyright because I have hundreds of photos and, from what I understanding from the copyright office that you can bulk copyright things that are published all in one location all in one year. I mostly need advice on how to put the package together. I think I have to use the paper form.

I don't think I would get $100K if someone infringed on my (or most people's) registered copyright. Like I said before, I scoff at people who think that. But, I know of cases where people have gotten absolutely nothing because they didn't register their images. I have had images stolen before and I'm not a famous anything. Many non-famous people get their work stolen all the time. I think if someone steals my image(s), I should be compensated for my work effort, and I've heard that some judges won't even hear the case if your work is not registered. So, it might be worth registering all, or most of them.

OK, well, it looks like I'm on my own about this.

[Rusalka]

Originally Posted by DesertDarlene

But, I know of cases where people have gotten absolutely nothing because they didn't register their images. I have had images stolen before and I'm not a famous anything. Many non-famous people get their work stolen all the time. I think if someone steals my image(s), I should be compensated for my work effort, and I've heard that some judges won't even hear the case if your work is not registered. So, it might be worth registering all, or most of them.

.

You claim that people got nothing because they didn't register their images, but it doesn't necessarily follow that registering images would have gotten them any more. Can you cite the actual court case that states they got nothing BECAUSE they didn't register their images? Have you found a case where someone actually got money in the case of an internet image theft where the artist didn't lose any potential profits? I doubt you will find one. If there isn't a case out there, my point is that it isn't worth the money and trouble to register the images because it won't pay off. Are you prepared to pay lawyers 1000s of dollars for a court case they tell you won't pay you back if someone steals your images off the internet?

The idea of compensating for your work will only get you a court award, if you can prove you have lost money by someone appropriating your images. Have they sold your work? Did they profit? Did you lose profit? Can you prove you were economically damaged by the appropriation of your work? (you have to prove that, which is a difficult thing) Did they ignore your cease and desist letter? Those are all factors that figure into a copyright lawsuit.

[DesertDarlene]

Thanks. I'm done discussing this unless I get some advice in the actual topic.

[Rusalka]

Originally Posted by DesertDarlene

Third, is it really worth it to put together such a big package?

This question makes the others you asked before, moot. I answered it as "advice on the actual topic", but apparently you don't like the answer.

Each work of art you want to register has to be protected separately, if you're going to go through the trouble of doing this. If you "skip" an image, and god-forbid, someone uses it and is subject to statutory damages by the courts for such a crime, you'll just have the standard copyright protection for the skipped image.

[J.W.]

According to the copyright office's faq, work may only be published as a collection if it was originally published as a collection. I'm guessing a blog does not fit the criteria. They say other conditions must also be met for a collection, but I haven't found them yet.

As for what to register, that's really up to you. If changes to the photos are merely editorial (color correct, red eye, etc) it doesn't qualify as a derivative work. Changes have to be "substantial and creative" to require a separate registration.

I don't believe I would mail in the registration unless it was required, as it's more expensive than filing electronically.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

[timelady]

the US Copyright office allows bulk registration for sets of work. This doesn't diminish the benefits of that registration, bulk vs. individual. However, I was under the impression that bulk registration did require all the works have a relationship in some way. (so say a larger set of work all released/exhibited/published for the first time at the same time) Bulk, to them, isn't about money saving but about a natural grouping of work that should be together in some way.

In the USA damages are generally only awarded if your work is registered. (This is not true for artists in other countries, keep in mind) Protection is automatic on making a piece, but with that you can only sue for cease and desist of usage. There will be exceptions of course but that's the usual

[Rusalka]

Originally Posted by timelady

In the USA damages are generally only awarded if your work is registered.

That is an incorrect statement. "Statutory" damages require registration. Actual damages do not.

I found a very informative article written by a lawyer, here's a quote:

"In determining the measure of statutory damages to be awarded, courts consider the following factors:

Expenses saved and profits gained by the defendants in connection with the infringements; revenues lost by plaintiffs as a result of defendants’ conduct; and the infringer’s state of mind, that is, whether willful, knowing, or merely innocent. Moreover, the court should consider the purposes of the Copyright Act, including restitution to prevent unjust enrichment, reparation of injury, and deterrence of further wrongful conduct by the defendants and others."

The blog cites this quote from a court ruling:

"Although Plaintiff has suggested in its motion that the “Defendants saved substantial license revenue expenses and reaped enormous profits,” Plaintiff has offered no evidence of the expenses saved by Defendants for licensing fees, etc. Plaintiff has simply asked this Court for an arbitrary amount of $50,000 per infringement based upon the finding of willful conduct."

"A mechanical application of the statutory damage provision of the Copyright Act leads to absurd results. While Section 504′s compensatory purpose should not be minimized, its deterrent provisions should not be converted into a windfall where, as a practical matter, the plaintiff has suffered only nominal damages. "

and finally,

"Statutory damages are not to be regarded as penalties. The purpose of statutory damages is to permit a wronged plaintiff to recover where there is insufficient proof of actual damages or profits. Moreover, substantial damages should only be awarded for substantial injury."

In the cases cited, statutory damages awarded were only $1500 or $2000, not the $100,000 that DesertDarlene imagines gets awarded. I'm sure the awards would be much less if no actual damages occured. Remember, these examples were from cases where potential income was lost, not just "nominal damages".

As the blog notes: "Many plaintiffs, believing they needed only “show up and collect” their statutory damages, have been taught a harsh lesson when refusing to submit economic evidence as a factor on which the court could base an award"

Here's the link to the blog: http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com...pyright-cases/