How the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Works

September 2, 2014 by 5 Comments
Hueco Tanks Lightening Storm by Dana Le from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Hueco Tanks Lightening Storm by Dana Le from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

I got a message from a photographer friend who said a company is using many photographers’ work on their site without permission. He investigated the company’s copyright policy and was astonished that they make people provide six things to get an image removed. He sent me the link. Here’s what they require:

  1. Information reasonably sufficient to permit us to contact the complaining party (e.g., address, telephone number and email address);
  2. A physical or electronic signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyrighted work(s) that is/are alleged to have been infringed;
  3. An identification of the copyrighted work(s) you claim is/are being infringed or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site;
  4. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, and information reasonably sufficient to permit us to locate the material;
  5. A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material is unauthorized; and
  6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

When I saw the list, I smiled. This is how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) works. When you send a DMCA takedown notice, you have to tell the web host who you are, which of your photos is being used, where they can find the image on the alleged copyright infringer’s site, and you have to promise that you’re telling the truth. If you provide this information, they are required to remove the image from the alleged infringer’s site.

This is what disturbs me about this situation. This company uses many images on its site. As an outsider looking in, it appears that they at least suspect that infringement is happening and their way to dealing with it to remove the infringing images when they’re notified. I would not be surprised to learn that this company outsources their content creation so they wouldn’t know if their use of an image was violating someone’s copyright. I hope they have a policy to fire contractors with a track record of copyright infringement.

Sending a DMCA takedown notice is only one option when a photographer suspects their work is being used without permission. Some photographers opt to send a bill or file a lawsuit against them instead.

If you want a resource that explains the legalities of copyright and social media in plain English, I recommend my book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. If you want to chat more about this topic, feel free to connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Intellectual Property, Internet law, Legalities of Blogging, Photography & the Law Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Copyright FAQs

June 24, 2014 by 2 Comments
Large Copyright Graffiti Sign on Cream Colored Wall by Horia Varlan from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Large Copyright Graffiti Sign on Cream Colored Wall by Horia Varlan from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

When I speak, I often refer to previous blog posts as potential resources for attendees. I frequently talk about copyright issues and I realized I haven’t written a post about copyright basics. So let me fix that.

What is Copyright?
The copyright law gives you rights to your original work. Your work may be comprised of text, drawings, photographs, video, sculpture, music, etc. When you create something, you have the right to control where your work is copied, distributed, displayed, performed, and what derivative works can be made from it.

What’s a Derivative Work?

When Do You Get Copyright Rights?
You get your copyright rights the moment your work is fixed in any tangible medium. It has to be a work you’ve created, not just an idea in your head. You do not have to register your work with the U.S. Copyright Office or even put a copyright notice on your work (“©[YEAR] [YOUR NAME]”) to get your rights.

How Long Does Copyright Last?
For all works created on or after January 1, 1978, the duration of copyright is as followed:

  • For work created by an individual: Life of the author + 70 years
  • For work created by a company: 120 years from the date of creation

After this time period, the work become part of the public domain and anyone can use it for any purpose without needing the copyright owner’s permission. The owner of a copyright can give up their rights to their work at any time by releasing it into the public domain. If they release a work into the public domain, they can never reclaim their copyright rights.

What’s the Difference Between Copyright and Trademark?

What’s the Benefit of Registering a Copyright with the Copyright Office?
There are two main benefits for registering your copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office:

  1. It is strong evidence that you actually own what you claim you own.
  2. You cannot sue for copyright infringement unless you register your work with the Copyright Office.

If you want to be in a position where you can sue for copyright infringement when someone steals your work, talk to a copyright attorney about your copyright strategy. There are many ways to protect your work. This is where the law can get really complicated and you want to make sure you’ve set yourself up for your desired outcome.

How Do You Register Your Work with the Copyright Office?
You can register your work on the Copyright Office’s website. You’ll need to fill out the form, upload a copy of your work, and pay a filing fee. The filing fee for a single work is $35-55. You can do this yourself, but the Copyright Office’s website is not very user-friendly.  I recommend at least hiring an attorney to walk you through the process the first time.

Legal Side of Blogging Book CoverIf you want to do it all yourself, allot at least 2-3 hour to get through it the first time. And you might want to have an adult beverage on ice as a reward at the end of the process.

To put it in context, it took me an hour the first time I registered my own work and I knew what I was doing. (I have a certificate in intellectual property in addition to my law degree.) Now, I can submit an application to register a copyright in under 30 minutes most of the time.

I hope this has been helpful. If you have questions about how copyright works in terms of the internet, social media, and /or blogging, please check out my book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. Approximately half the book addresses copyright issues.

If you want to talk more about copyright, feel free to connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Intellectual Property, Photography & the Law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Is It Fan Art or Copyright Infringement?

June 3, 2014 by 12 Comments
Toying with the Men by JD Hancock from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Toying With The Men by JD Hancock from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

I have the pleasure of speaking about copyright and fan fiction and fan art at Phoenix Comicon this year. It’s always fun to hear about the projects fans are working on, and to see that so many of them are mindful about the copyright. I wish I had more black and white answers for them about what they can and can’t do.

Fan fiction and fan art falls squarely into the murky realm of copyright and fair use. The owner of a copyright controls where and how their work is copied, displayed, distributed, performed, and what derivative works are made. Fan fiction and fan art can be derivative works but they also may be protected by fair use.

Fair use is part of the copyright laws that acknowledges the fact that many works are inspired by past art. This law allows artists to build on existing works in creative and innovative ways. One thing to always remember is that fair use is a defense, not a permission slip. There is always a risk that the copyright holder will claim you’re infringing on their copyright and you’ll have to basically tell the court, “Yes your honor, I used their work but it’s OK because . . . .”

When a court considers a fair use case, these are some of the main factors it considers:

  • Purpose and character of your use of another’s work (Is what you did transformative and did you do it for commercial use?)
  • Nature of the copyrighted work (What did you copy?)
  • Amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work used (How much of the original – quality and quantity – did you copy?)
  • Effect on the market (Would someone seek out the original and accept your work as a substitute?)

These are some of the main factors, but the court can consider others if it wishes. This is also not to be treated as mathematical equation. Regardless of how many fair use factors favor you, you can always lose.

For Phoenix Comicon this year, I wanted to create an easy mnemonic device that fans can use to remember the fair use factors; and here it is: PAIN.

P = Purpose and character of your use

A = Amount of the original used

I = Impact on the market

N = Nature of the work you copied

Another thing to consider if you want to use another artist’s work is how the copyright holder historically responds to fan fiction and fan art. Some encourage it; some are OK with it as long as you’re not making money off of it; some are OK with it as long as it’s not sexual (i.e., slash fiction); and some dislike all fan fiction and fan art and will try to lay the smackdown on you if you create it.

If you want to talk more about the legalities of fan fiction and fan art, come see me at Phoenix Comicon on Sunday, June 8th at noon. Both talks will be in North 130. I’m also doing a panel on Creator Rights on Saturday, June 7th at 10:30 a.m.  You can connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Featured Post, Geek Law, Intellectual Property, Photography & the Law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Register Your Copyright Before You Self-Publish

May 27, 2014 by Leave a Comment
Eero facepalmaa by Tuomas Puikkonen from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Eero facepalmaa by Tuomas Puikkonen from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

A few days ago, a friend and fellow author posted on Facebook that someone put his book online as a free download without his permission. Some authors make their work available for free as part of their marketing campaign and that’s their prerogative, and they control where and when they do this.

My friend and I started chatting about what he wanted to do to remedy this situation. A person who owns a copyright has the right to control where their work is copied, displayed, and distributed and has recourse if someone else steals or uses their work. If someone blatantly copies your work and is giving away copies of it, it’s likely copyright infringement.

I thought my friend could qualify to sue for copyright infringement and sue for statutory damages. The copyright laws say that if someone willfully steals your work, you can ask the court to award you up to $150,000 plus attorneys’ fees. Alternatively, you could ask for actual damages, which is how much money you actually lost due to the infringement.  My friend is self-published in this case, so I suspected the potential statutory damages would be higher than the actual ones.

Then my friend dropped a bomb – he hadn’t registered his copyright yet.

I cringed with defeat.

My friend is a smart guy, so he knew that he couldn’t sue for copyright infringement until he registered his copyright.  What he didn’t know what that you have to register your work within 3 months of publication or 1 month of learning of the infringement – whichever happens first – to be eligible for statutory damages.  He can still register his work and sue for the actual damages (which is likely low) and he’d be responsible for paying for his attorneys’ fees. If he doesn’t want to put in the time, energy, or money to sue for infringement, he can still get is legal eagle friend (that’s me) to send a cease and desist letter or a DMCA takedown notice to try to make the infringement stop.

So here’s the take-away lesson from my friend’s experience: If you are a self-published author, register your work with the U.S. Copyright Office before you offer it for sale or download. That way, if someone steals your work, all your options for recourse will still be available to you. You can register your work online and the application fee is only $ 35 or $55, depending on your situation. And if you don’t want to register your work yourself, it’s not that expensive to hire a lawyer to do it for you.

If you want to talk more self-publishing and copyright, you can connected with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me.  You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Intellectual Property Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Be Leery of Free Image Sites: You May Inadvertently Commit Copyright Infringement

February 27, 2014 by 2 Comments
Palm Sunset by Lawrence Rayner from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Palm Sunset by Lawrence Rayner from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

I cringe every time I hear people says they use Google Images to find pictures for their websites because I know most of them are using anything they find in the search results without adjusting the settings to only show images that give them permission to use them. And I love it when people, especially entrepreneurs, use Creative Commons, seek out other sources for free images, or purchase a license to use images from iStock. Unfortunately, there are times when business owners think they are doing everything right, and they don’t realize they’re not until they’re threatened with legal action.

I have heard about a few situations over the years when someone has stolen images from a photographer and made their work available for free without the artist’s permission. Sometimes the person who steals the original image cuts off the photographer’s watermark or signature before posting them online. These photo thieves may post these images on their own site as free images or wallpaper. You might download this work and use it on your site, thinking that you are acting within the limits of the law.

When the photographer realizes that their work has been stolen, they’ll probably be angry – and they might send letters than demand payment or threaten legal action to every site where their work has appeared without their permission. And rightfully so – as the copyright holder, they have exclusive right to control where their work is copied and distributed. The fact that you didn’t know that you were doing anything wrong will not absolve you. If you’ve used an image where the watermark or other copyright notice was removed, they could accuse you of committing copyright infringement (punishable by up to $150K in statutory damages per violation) and removing the copyright management information to facilitate the infringement (punishable by up to an additional $25K per violation).

So what do you do if you receive one of these demand letters? Contact a copyright lawyer immediately. You want to verify that the claim is legitimate and strategically plan your response. If the claim is legit, the artist likely wants you to pay their licensing fee and/or stop using their image. It’s probably best to let your lawyer respond on your behalf but if you choose to respond to the letter yourself, it’s a good idea to have your lawyer at least review your response before you send it to make sure that it’s thoughtful and reasonable.

What should you do to avoid this type of problem in the first place? Be leery of free wallpaper sites. I have more faith in images I find through Creative Commons – though it is possible that someone could steal another’s image and make it available with a Creative Commons license. You can always run the image you want to run the image through the Google Image search engine to see where else it is being used online. That may help you determine if the image might be stolen. If there ever is an image that you want to use on your site and you’re unsure if you have permission to use it, explicitly ask the artist for their permission.

If you want to learn more about copyright issues on the internet, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. It has several chapters dedicated to copyright. You can connected with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Business Law, Intellectual Property, Internet law, Legalities of Blogging, Photography & the Law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Why You Have to Respond to Suspected IP Infringement

January 16, 2014 by 4 Comments
Cease and Desist by H.L.I.T. from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

Cease and Desist by H.L.I.T. from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

A few weeks ago we all had a good laugh when Jeff Briton, owner of Exit 6 Pub and Brewery in Cottleville, Missouri got a cease and desist letter from Starbucks when he named one of his craft beers “Frappicino.” Starbucks said this was too similar to their Frappuccino and even took the liberty of contacting the beer review website Untappd to get the Frappicino beer listing removed.

Briton responded with a letter and a check for $6 – the profit he made from selling the beer to the three people who reviewed it on Untappd. If you haven’t read this letter yet, go do it. It’s hilarious.

My hat’s off to Briton for writing such a brilliant response and turning this situation into an awesome opportunity to promote Exit 6. Some people might say that Starbucks’ lawyers were being jerks for sending a cease and desist letter to the little guy who wasn’t their competition anyway. But it was what Starbucks had to do to protect its intellectual property.

When you have a copyright or a trademark and you know that someone is using your intellectual property without your permission and you do nothing, you send a message that you don’t care about protecting your intellectual property rights. If you let the little guys get away with things like Frappicino beer and then one of your big competitors does something similar and you try to lay the smack down on them, your competitor will have an argument that your track record shows that you let others use your property without permission or penalty. By not protecting your intellectual property, you put yourself at risk of losing your intellectual property rights.

It’s because of this risk that Starbucks has to send cease and desist letters to Exit 6 Pub. This is why I tell clients to keep an eye out for other people using their intellectual property. In trademark situations, a cease and desist letter is usually the proper response, even in situations like Frappicino beer.

This is also why I tell bloggers and photographers to be diligent about who is using their work. If they find that someone’s using their copyrights without permission, even if they’re ok with it, I often recommend they contact the alleged infringer and grant them a license after the fact and request an attribution if the infringer didn’t give them one. If they’re not ok with what the alleged infringer did, we discuss whether the artist wants to send a cease and desist, a DMCA takedown notice, a licensing agreement with a bill, or sue for infringement. There should always be a response.

If you have questions about your intellectual property rights or your strategy to protect them, please contact an intellectual property attorney in your community. If you have questions related to copyright or trademark and blogging, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed.

If you want to chat with me more about this topic, you can connected with me on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Business Law, Intellectual Property, Internet law, Legalities of Blogging, Photography & the Law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

To Watermark or Not To Watermark

January 9, 2014 by 5 Comments
How to Create a Watermark in Photoshop by Michele M. F. from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

How to Create a Watermark in Photoshop by Michele M. F. from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

I was recently asked to talk about whether there are benefits to putting a watermark on your photos before posting them on the Internet. Is it worth the extra effort? Do they really prevent people from stealing your work?

Like all legal questions, the answer is, “It depends.” But let’s look at it.

When you take a photograph, you have copyright rights in your work the second the image is put on film or saved in your camera. You have the exclusive right to copy, distribute, display, and make derivative works from your picture, even if you don’t register it with the U.S. Copyright Office  or put the © [Your Name] [Year] on it. If you want to sue for copyright infringement if someone steals your work, you have to register your work and if that’s the case you should consult a lawyer to determine the best copyright protection strategy for your work.

I look at watermarks similarly to home security. Your home doesn’t have to be fortress; it just has to be less appealing than the other houses on the block. A watermark makes your photo less appealing to potential infringers who can probably find (and possibly steal) a similar image elsewhere that doesn’t come with a watermark.

For people who understand copyright, a watermark is a visual reminder that they don’t own the image and they should contact you if there’s an image they really want to use. The problem with watermarks is they can obscure the image itself and interfere with people’s ability to enjoy the image which was the purpose of posting it online in the first place.

You could try to avoid this problem by putting the watermark in the corner so it doesn’t obstruct the image, but then you open yourself up to the possibility that someone will steal you work and crop off the watermark before using it. If an infringer does this, it is a separate additional penalty to copyright infringement. If you sued the infringer you could ask for damages for the infringement which can be up to $150K if you qualify for statutory damages and up to an additional $25K for removing or altering the “copyright management information.

So, should you take the time to put watermarks on your photos? It’s your call. You can deter potential infringers with watermarks and/or using software that prevents them from downloading your images from your website. But if someone is dead set on stealing your work, there’s probably nothing you can do to completely stop them. The questions then become how much energy are you willing to put into prevention and how do you want to respond if someone steals your work. How you want the situation to be resolved usually tells you what you have to do on the front end to set yourself up for the desired outcome.

If you want to chat with me more about this topic, you can connected with me on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. I’m also available to speak at events on Copyright for Creatives.
You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Intellectual Property, Internet law, Photography & the Law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Burning CDs and Copyright Law

December 5, 2013 by 57 Comments
CD Reflections by spcbrass from Flicker (Creative Commons License)

CD Reflections by spcbrass from Flicker (Creative Commons License)

One of my favorite minimalists shared a post by Lindsay Schauer about the eight things you can live without on Twitter last week, and it kicked off a legal discussion and he asked me to comment. One of the things Lindsay said to get rid of is your CD collection – burn them to your hard drive and get rid of the physical CDs themselves. That makes a lot of sense. A single CD doesn’t take up much space but a collection of jewel cases does.

I put my CDs in a CD binder and chucked the cases years ago, but can you legally copy a CD you own and keep that instead of the disk?  Probably.

The copyright holder (likely the record label or the artist) controls when/where/how their work is copied, distributed, and performed. When you buy a CD, you only purchase the tangible object – not the intellectual property rights. Just like when you want to get rid of an old book you can give it away, throw it away, or sell it to a second hand store, the same is true for CDs. However, you can’t make a photocopy of the book so you can keep the original for yourself and give a copy to a friend. The same is true for CDs. (Yes, all those copies of CDs you burned from or for your friends are probably illegal.)

CDs by borkur.net from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

CDs by borkur.net from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

If you legally purchased a CD, you can make a copy of it for “archival” purposes. This prevents you from having to buy a new one in the event the CD gets lost, damaged, broken, or used as a Frisbee, coaster, or for an art project. The same rule applies for making a copy of computer software that you’ve legally purchased.

So can you take Lindsay’s advice and copy all your CDs to your hard drive and chuck the originals? Yes, if you legally purchased the albums. You can only make one copy for yourself. You can’t make copies for your friends.

The purpose of the copyright law is to give artists rights in their work and allow them to profit from selling it. An archival copy is supposed to be a backup for the original, so some copyright holders may frown on people who make an archival copy of a CD and sell the original. (You’re starting to look like the guy who sells a book to a friend but keeps a photocopy of it for himself.) There’s an argument that you’re committing copyright infringement; however, the amount you’re making isn’t really cutting into their profits, and the artist might be happy that more people are being exposed to their music. If someone is concerned about their rights and maximizing profits, they might be less upset if you throw the CD away or repurpose it into a coaster so anyone else who wants the album has to buy it.

The good news in copyright infringement cases is the only person who can come after you for copyright infringement is the copyright holder. If they don’t know what you’re doing or don’t care, they will never come after you.

If you want to chat with me about this or any other topic, you can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me.
You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Intellectual Property Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Guerrilla Movie Shot at Disney Parks

September 12, 2013 by Leave a Comment
Escape from Tomorrow - Image from EscapeFromTomorrow.com

Escape from Tomorrow – Image from EscapeFromTomorrow.com

This is one of the most innovative projects I’ve heard about this year – Escape from Tomorrow – a film that was mostly shot at Disneyland and Walt Disney World without Disney’s knowledge. The cast and crew blended in with other park patrons by storing their scripts and communicating via their phones, using video cameras that were the same type that regular park-goers use, and they used natural lighting. Besides the fact that the cast wore the same outfits every day and they had to go on the same rides over and over again to get the shots, no one could tell they were up to something.

Escape from Tomorrow was written and directed by Randy Moore and it premiered at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival. The fact that the film was shot at Disney parks was kept under wraps until the premier and then it got a lot of attention from reviewers, many of which expected Disney to try to prevent the film from being shown during and after the festival. Disney has acknowledged that the film exists but hasn’t taken action against it yet. Escape from Tomorrow will be available in theaters starting October 11th.

I’m excited to see the film, not for the story itself, but to examine the legal arguments that Disney may have against the film.

What about Intellectual Property Infringement?
The general rule is “Don’t fuck with Disney” because they’re known for laying the smack down on anyone who uses their intellectual property without permission. Moore reportedly was diligent about removing excerpts from Disney movies and songs that were caught on film. Disney won’t likely try to claim copyright in everything it owns inside its parks and even if they did, Moore has a strong fair use argument.

Disney probably wouldn’t win on a trademark claim either, even though I’m sure Disney trademarks appear in the film. I bet Moore’s lawyers would make an argument that the film’s use of Disney is like Thomas Forsythe’s use of Barbie dolls in his work. Mattel lost the case against Forsythe because he couldn’t make the same artistic statement without using the iconic dolls. Tim Wu, professor at Columbia Law School also brought up the argument that no one would see this film and think that Disney was involved in it.

Shouldn’t this be a Non-Issue since Disney lets Visitors Shoot Photos and Videos in its Parks?
Of course Disney lets visitors take photos and videos inside the parks. It’s basically a form of free advertising for them. And even if they didn’t like it, they would have accepted that there’s nothing they could do to stop the hordes of people who visit every day from snapping photos or making home movies. This has become even more prolific now that everyone has a smartphone.

The issue isn’t that they were shooting video, but that they were shooting video for a commercial purpose. Disney parks are private property and they can require people to pay for a location release to use their property. I suspect their lawyers have contract templates ready and a fee structure for anyone who approaches them about shooting a movie at a park.

This gets into a gray area when people go to Disney for personal/recreational purposes, shoot videos, and then post them on YouTube. If the patron monetizes their videos and they get enough hits, they could make money off of their Disney experience. I suspect the amount in question would be too low for Disney to care, but it raises the question of how much financial success can you have via YouTube before you have to worry about legal repercussions.

What about People in the Background?
Moore and his people didn’t get releases from anyone who was caught in the background of any of his shots. He might be accused commercializing their images without their consent if he doesn’t blur them out. I wonder if there are enough pissed off people who were caught on film that they would pursue a class action against Moore.

If I heard that Moore was filming at a Disney park the same time I was there, I’d be running to the theatre to see it, hoping that I made it in the background. I suspect some people would be excited to be on it and may only ask to be listed in the credits for posterity if possible.

It’s uncharacteristic of Disney not to respond to a potential legal fight. On one hand I wonder if they’re waiting to see if the film will be a commercial success before deciding if they’re going to pursue it because there’s often no point in winning a lawsuit (besides pride) against someone who can’t pay up. Alternatively, Disney may be ignoring the film out of fear that if they respond that it will lead to more attention, and more people will see the film, and Moore will make more money.

You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me.
You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Geek Law, Intellectual Property Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Poor Man’s Copyright Doesn’t Work

June 20, 2013 by Leave a Comment
Self-Addressed Envelope after it's been through the Mail

Self-Addressed Envelope after it’s been through the Mail

Every time I speak about copyright to a group of artists or writers, someone always asks me about how poor man’s copyright works and whether it’s valid. Poor man’s copyright is the idea that you can establish that you created something first by mailing a copy of your work to yourself and using the date on the postmark as proof of when you created it. If anyone copies your work and claims a creation date that’s after your postmark, you can use the postmark to show that you created the work first.

To anyone who’s been sending their work to themselves, you can stop. Poor man’s copyright is crap and a waste of your time and money. A postmark on an envelope tells you when the post office processed the envelope, not what was inside of it. You could easily send an unsealed envelope to yourself and put your work in it later and seal it.

Self-Addressed Unsealed Stamped Envelope Ready for the Mail

Self-Addressed Unsealed Stamped Envelope Ready for the Mail

You get the exclusive rights to copy, distribute, display, perform, and to make derivative works based on your work the second you’ve fixed your work in any tangible medium. (Sorry, there’s no copyright protection for ideas that only exist in your head.) If you want to maximize your rights in your work, including the ability to sue for copyright infringement and collect statutory damages, you need to register your work with the U.S. Copyright Office. You can do it online and most application fees are only $35.

To demonstrate why poor man’s copyright doesn’t work, I recently addressed an envelope to myself and sent it, unsealed, through the mail. I made a video about the result. You can see it below or here.

If you want more information about how you can protect your rights in your work, please contact me or a copyright attorney in your community. You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

Filed Under: Featured Post, Intellectual Property, Photography & the Law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »