Category: registration

Posted on

The CCB and Me

The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is about to launch (June 16). Although I have written about my concerns (see previous post), that doesn’t mean I won’t be available to clients who wish to pursue claims through that process. It is a legitimate legal process, definitely an option to all but especially to those who have not timely registered their works, who will now be able to elect limited statutory damages* (unlike in federal court), and I intend to help as many of you though it as I can.

(* To quote from the CCB itself: In a CCB proceeding, the amount of statutory damages cannot exceed $15,000 for each work infringed. Because the overall cap on CCB awards is still $30,000, however, you will not be able to recover more than that amount no matter how many works are involved in the proceeding. The caps for statutory damages will be lower if you do not register the work(s) within the timeframe established in section 412 of the Copyright Act: $7,500 per work and $15,000 per proceeding. These are all upper limits; a successful claimant will not always be awarded these full amounts. And unlike in federal court, the infringer’s knowledge or intent is not considered in determining the amount.)

Although you don’t need to have a lawyer to use the CCB system, I would advise using one anyway. Like all things legal, there are details to look out for and it will save you time and angst if you hire someone to help. Particularly early on, I think having counsel would be the smart thing to do since there are bound to be bugs in the system and having someone who understands the related law and rules in detail will help navigate any surprise issues.

I will be taking select cases starting day 1 of the system. I say “select cases” not only for my usual review of “Is this a viable case and can I help on a contingency fee basis?” but also because I am limited to 40 CCB cases per year–total. This is a hard-line and all attorneys are limited to that number, per attorney. Firms of 2 or more lawyers are limited to a total of 80 cases per year.

I’ll be posting more about how the system works, or doesn’t, as I learn about the process from my own experience as well as from others who file claims in the CCB. As the old radio shows used to tease: stay tuned!

Regardless, I still highly highly highly encourage all creatives to register works with the USCO as soon as possible after creation. Today is better than never, even for older works! Remember that timely registered works open more doors to you, including higher statutory damages than you can get from the CCB.

Posted on

Time

In copyright law, time matters in several ways. Each is important.

First, there is the timing of the registration which fits into three categories. Generally speaking, you should register your work as soon as possible after its creation. More specifically, though, a registration that is made before a work’s first publication* will make enhanced remedies (i.e., statutory damages and possible attorney’s fees) available for virtually any infringement of that work. A registration within three calendar months after the first publication* of a work will invoke a bit of legal magic: the law says it is as if you registered the work on the day of its first publication*, again making enhanced remedies available for virtually any infringement. Finally, any infringement that starts after a work’s registration, no matter when the work was registered vis-a-vis its publication* date, has enhanced remedies available.

(*Publication here is that awful, nebulous definition provided by the Copyright Act–it does not necessarily mean what a normal person would think publication means. )

Time also matters as regards the statute of limitations–that is, the amount of time you have to file a suit for infringement. The statute of limitations is a strict clock–so pay attention to it.

In most places in the USA, courts have held that the discovery rule applies, meaning the clock starts when you discover (or reasonably should have discovered) an infringement. From that date, you have 3 years to file suit. 3 years is a lot of time to find, document, and try to work out a non-litigation resolution to an infringement. But it isn’t all the time in the world and you should make a big note in your calendar about 6 months before the 3 years would end, so that you can talk to a lawyer about filing in plenty of time.

In a few places, courts have said that the injury rule applies (mostly the 2nd and the 11th circuits, but even in those circuits there have been some exceptions). The injury rule means that the clock starts when the infringement actually starts, not when you discover it. I happen to think that the Raging Bull case (Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 677-78 (2014)) essentially said that the discovery rule should apply everywhere (sure, in dicta, but still), but you don’t want to rely on that in court. At least not yet.

By the way, if you don’t know what circuit you’re in, you can check out the Court Finder tool on the US Courts website; or, better yet, ask your attorney.

While there are a few situations where the law permits “tolling the statute” (that means suspending it for a period of time, thus giving you more time), those exceptions are complex and rare. You shouldn’t rely on your attorney finding some obscure out to give you more time. Instead, once you find an infringement, act quickly to start the process of resolving the matter–preferably through settlement negotiations if possible.

But all of the negotiations in the world will only get you a little money (usually) if you don’t have a timely registered copyrights in the works at issue in the first place.

Posted on

USCO Fees Increasing

Starting March 20, 2022, the fees for registrations and other services from the US Copyright Office are going up. You can get the whole story in the Federal Register, here, but it’s a long slog of a read. Here’s the skinny:

There are more changes, but the screenshots above show the ones you are most likely to face.

The good news for photographers is that the fees for group registrations have not changed. The bad news for stock photo agencies is that the database registration for photos has jumped quite a bit ($250!).

Still, no matter how you slice it, registration is still the cheapest “insurance” you can buy.

Posted on

Details Matter, But…

Legal things are notoriously detail-oriented. Whether you are getting a driver’s license or filing suit, the details are important. Sometimes, the teeniest details can make or break a case. You’ll always hear we attorneys harping on the details, and for good reason.

One of those reasons in my world is that, sometimes, getting the details wrong on a copyright registration can break (void) the registration. I’ve preached for years that you need to be careful with your registrations because certain errors can be so dangerous.

Luckily, near the end of February this year, the US Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Unicolors v H&M copyright case which may save some registrations. In that ruling, the court said, roughly, that an error of fact or of law, as long as it was unknowing, won’t break a registration. That is, the safe harbor under 17 USC §411(b)(1)(A) applies to both mistakes of fact and of law.

Now, here’s the important bit: unknowing. For a mistake to be truly a mistake, you can’t be willfully blind, for example. It won’t do for you to just say “I don’t know what to do so I’ll do whatever and it’ll be okay.” Nope. So, for example, if you have read my blog post about some of the details you need to pay attention to, like not mixing published and unpublished work in a group photo registration, and you don’t bother to check on the publication status of all the photos in a group registration, I would expect that registration could still be voided (at least in part).

So while this ruling is important, it really shouldn’t change how you approach your registrations. You still need to do your best to be accurate. But if you legitimately accidentally aren’t accurate and you sue with a flawed registration, you have a lower chance of being kicked out of court for a voided registration now.

Posted on

Ah, the Case Act

Assuming that Trump actually signs the huge bill that includes the CASE Act, something that has not yet happened as I post this (and, knowing how crazy he is, it’s not a for-sure thing he will), the much-touted bill will become law. **UPDATE 12.28.20: he signed**
What does it change in copyright law and what does it mean for the average creator? Here’s my take…

First, the CASE Act changes nothing in existing law except that, before, you absolutely had to have a timely registration to get any statutory damages but you can get some without it under CASE; also, you can file a claim without having your certificate as long as you have filed an application for registration. For statutory damages, if you choose to use the small claims system without a timely registration, you can get very limited ones—up to $7500 per infringement but with a maximum per case of $15,000. That maximum limit means, for example, if one infringer used 3 of your photos, you can’t get more than $15K total, even though 3 x $7500 is more than that. As for the application/registration issue, you can file a small claim as long as you have applied for a registration and that application has not been refused. Under existing law, you must have a certificate in hand (or a refusal) to file suit. Under the CASE Act, if the registration application is later refused, the claim is dismissed but can be re-filed later (for example, if the registration is later fixed and then approved, file again). 

Besides those changes, the existing copyright law is left pretty much as it was, only added to with the small claims system regulations. For example, you can still get actual damages and the infringer’s profits attributable to the infringement in the small claims system, you still own the copyright from the moment of creation, the exclusive rights are still the same, the statute of limitations doesn’t change, etc.

What do you give up if you use the small claims system? Besides procedural things like the number of witnesses, discovery limits, etc., which are all lawyer stuff, really, here are the things people need to know they are giving up if they choose to use the new system:

  • The constitutional right to a jury trial
  • Increased damages for willful infringements
  • Appeal in the regular courts (there are appeal-ish procedures, in the small claims system, but no appeals or re-litigation in regular court)
  • Attorney’s fees, except for bad faith situations (notoriously hard to prove up) and then generally limited to $5000.

Also, you can’t bring claims for CMI removal or false assertion (§1202 claims), in the small claims system. That is a big deal, in my opinion, since you’d be giving up a minimum of $2500 (and up to $25K) per violation, and attorney’s fees, if you chose to use the small claims system. While this may change down the road (the bill requires study of issues in three years, including probably the §1202 one), for now, you have to let go of those claims. That is walking away from money.

Here’s the other thing: any party can opt-out, so you could be throwing away at least $100 (filing fee) and likely more (service costs, etc.) often, as your infringers say, “Nope, I won’t do the small claims court—sue me in regular court if you want to bring a claim!” and there is nothing you can do about it. 

But let’s say the opposing party doesn’t opt-out, and it’s a big enough company that it has in-house counsel or is willing to pay an outside attorney to represent it. If you were planning on going without an attorney, you’re going to get your ass kicked, more often than not. No matter how much the powers-that-be try to simplify the system, copyright lawyers simply know more than you and know how to use that knowledge to make the right kinds of arguments to other legal pros (those making the determinations in the small claims system). That means you’ll have to find counsel. If you can only get a maximum of $7500 and probably no attorney’s fees, it’s going to be much harder to find an attorney to take your matter on contingency or your going to have to pay an hourly rate that’ll eat up your award quickly.

I wrote a lot about how I didn’t like the CASE Act, as a litigator and counsel to copyright plaintiffs, in a post more than 3 years ago. My reasons still hold in regards to its final form, today. But if this is the new reality, I will, of course, work within it. As will we all. 

So, here’s what I still recommend for all creatives: apply for copyright registrations as soon as possible after the creation of your works. Just like before, this is still the best thing to do. Post-CASE, it is even more so. If you have a timely registration (effective date is either before the infringement started or the registration is made within 3 calendar months of the first publication of the work infringed—see here for more), and you choose to use the small claims system, the maximums increase to $15,000 per infringement and $30,000 total per claim. That’s double the amount available if the registration is untimely. 

Most importantly, a timely registration gives you much greater leverage to negotiate a settlement without filing a claim at all because your opponent knows you can file in regular federal court where the maximums are as they have been ($30K non-willful, $150K willful, per infringement and no maximum overall total, possible attorney’s fees). Also, you don’t have to give up your CMI-related claims (which, by the way, are not dependent on timely registration, see more here). When it comes to settlement negotiations, those timely registered factors and the CMI-related ones give a creative a much stronger starting position, which will generally result in more settlements, less litigation, and lower attorney’s fees (contingency fees often go up when any sort of litigation starts). More money in your pockets.

Now I know lots of creatives see the CASE Act as a good thing, and I get where they are coming from. It sounds great and it does open a door to getting some money that didn’t exist before. But I still think the downsides are significant. I also know that when I talk to other copyright lawyers who actually litigate, their positions have been much like my own.

As in all things legal, talk with your own attorney to learn what may be the best for you.

Posted on

Copyright Registration Suggestion

I’ve written a lot on the importance of registering your copyrights and, no, this won’t be another nag on that topic. Instead, I want to talk about something you aren’t required to do when you register, but which would be potentially very helpful down the line: make copies of your deposit copy uploads.

Often, an infringement defendant will demand proof that the work was submitted to the USCO as a deposit copy in the registration cited. Now, it’s not the plaintiff’s responsibility to provide that proof[1], particularly if the registration is before or within 5 years of the first publication of the work, but it does help shut up a defendant if you can whip out screenshots of your upload pages along with the works so that they can see, yup, that work was indeed included in the deposit copies submitted to the USCO.

Keeping a folder of everything you submit to the USCO for a registration is a great idea, and if you aren’t doing that yet, start. I suggest you keep copies of the titles list (for group registrations), the actual files submitted, any correspondence you get from the USCO (or send in reply), etc. When you get your certificate, make a scan of it and include the whole thing in that folder, too. Making screenshots of things like the upload page(s) and confirmation(s) takes little time but completes that folder[2]. Then, when the infringer tried its “prove the work is in there” you can not only show the list of title names on the certificate, you can show the work as it was submitted. That’ll shut ’em up… at least on that point.

Basically, the idea is to take away as many of the BS defenses defendants try to assert whenever they’re caught ripping off work. For example, use a proper copyright notice on or adjacent to each work you publish on your website and then no one can claim “innocent infringement” (more on that, here). This “is it in the registration” issue can be a big block with some defendants; removing their ability to claim the work isn’t part of a cited registration can significantly help move negotiations forward.

The more evidence you have to support your claims, the more likely your attorney will be able to negotiate a good settlement for you, so it’s worth the minor effort to make those copies, even if it isn’t your legal responsibility to do so.

______________

[1] This point was again made in the recent Iantosca v Elie Tahari, Ltd. No. 19-CV-04527 (MKV), 2020 WL 5603538 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 18, 2020) where the court noted “It is the Defendant’s obligation, during discovery, to contact the USCO and request deposit copies to be used to rebut the validity of the copyright registration.”

[2] Remember, when you make the screenshots, the metadata about their creation date, etc., will be in those screenshot files, too. More handy proof in case they try to claim you created the screenshot, nefariously, later (and yes, they might).

Posted on

Bad Registration Advice

Recently, I was approached by a photographer about an infringement matter. It was a good-looking case, until I checked the registration. The work had been registered as unpublished, but it was admittedly published before being registered; in other words, it was knowingly registered wrongly. That makes a big “No, can’t take this on contingency” from me.

When I explained this to the photographer, the response was surprise if not full-on skepticism. Seems the photographer had been told, allegedly from several sources including at least one major national photographers’ organization, that one could register a work as unpublished if registered within 90 days of publication. 

Yikes. The amount of wrong there is worrisome.

Let me make this perfectly clear: one must never knowingly register a published work as unpublished. Ever. There is no way around it, short of lying, and lying is a very, very bad idea. Full stop. 

Registering under the wrong publication status is bad; but registering work you know was published as unpublished is a fast route to having the registration voided for that work. Now, if you are litigating and you get busted for the “error,” you will quite possibly (I’d say probably) end up paying the other side’s attorneys’ fees when you lose your case. Ouch.

Look, we pretty much all hate the published/unpublished thing—lawyers, artists, everyone. It’s an administrative hoop that is, in my opinion, arguably outdated and unnecessary. But, it is very much still the law. 

When a work is published, one must provide the US Copyright Office with additional information about that work in its registration application (date and place of first publication). That data is included in the certificate and USCO records. Registering the work as unpublished omits this information. That’s why it’s particularly bad.

So, where did this photographer’s misinformation come from? Hard to tell, but I suspect it was started by someone trying to get around certain limitations in order to register more works for less money. See, before the recent-ish changes in registration procedures, one could register a virtually unlimited number of unpublished photos in one “unpublished collection” registration. The limit was one of upload size, not number of works. However, published photos were limited to 750 per group registration (as well as other limiting factors, like the photos must be published in the same calendar year). In other words, it would cost more to register 1500 published photos than unpublished ones. 

This irked photographers. I know, I’ve been asked at talks I’ve given about copyright registration, back when those rules applied, “Can’t I just say the work is unpublished so I can do everything in one registration and save money? Who’s gonna know?” Of course, I pointed out the errors of that line of thinking, but I’m sure some may have errantly given it a try. Thing is, the USCO relies on you being honest so if you do misrepresent the work as unpublished, you will still get your certificate. But that doesn’t mean it will hold up in court. Anyhoo, once someone did it and got his* certificate, the info likely got shared and, boom, bad info gets out to the photo world.

Now, the rules are more equal. There is no more “unpublished collection” for photographs but rather Group Registration of Unpublished Photographs (GRUPH). That registration, like for published photos, is limited to 750. Like it or not. So, the incentive to misrepresent a work’s status is much less now. 

The 90 days thing, though, in the photographer’s response above? Well, that is extra rules-bolluxing. Contrary to popular thought, there is no 90-day anything in copyright registration for photographs. There is, however, the 3-calendar-month safe harbor for registering published photographs. It is NOT 90 days, but many people have wrongly said/written it as such. Remember, three months does not equal 90 days (hello, February) and you can get bitten if you get that wrong. Anyway, I think that safe harbor got mixed into the mess and we end up with this strange idea that there is a way around the publication status-related registration rules. 

You can fix bad registrations, but it is a process and it will cost you both USCO and your own attorney’s fees. Oh, and when the error is like what I’ve been talking about here, you’re almost surely going to get a new effective date, too (that can affect statutory damages for some cases). 

This stuff can be complicated. Remember, while your creative friends may think they know the rules, if you have any questions regarding your registrations, your best bet is to hire a copyright attorney for legal advice.

Posted on

You Are the Cause of Your Own Suffering

I heard a dharma teacher speak those title words on a podcast this morning. A related Buddhist phrase is “Pain is inevitable; suffering is a choice.” In my spiritual practice, I think about this idea often. It is, roughly speaking, that bad things happen to us all the time and we can never protect ourselves against all of these bad things (not even most of them); however, how we react to the bad things in our lives is directly related to the suffering we feel.

I also think about this idea often in my other practice, my legal one. What does this have to do with the law and, more importantly, your business? Lots! 

For example, when you find an infringement of your copyrights, like your art on someone else’s website, that is painful. The infringer has violated your rights and it seems perfectly reasonable for you to feel angry and upset. Instead, as an attorney, I counsel quiet acceptance of the way things are. This isn’t flakiness, it’s wise legally. I mean, you can’t control the infringer’s behavior and the infringement has happened already: no matter how angry or hurt you get, you won’t change those facts. But if you get angry and strike out, you’ll definitely feel worse, not better. So, take a breath and, gather your thoughts… and your emotions. 

If you strike out at the infringer in anger (even righteous anger), that will make things worse. You might send an email that amounts to legal threats/extortion, or publicly shame someone and later find out you had the wrong “bad guy,” or lose a client because you embarrassed it. But even if none of that bad stuff happens, attacking like that will not make the infringement go away or get you made whole. Instead, you’ll just suffer more because you’ve behaved badly and you haven’t made the pain go away or changed the reality of the infringement. 

Playing the victim won’t help either. It won’t make the infringement stop, it won’t punish the infringer in any way, and it won’t get you paid (if that’s what you want). You’ll just feel worse. There is your suffering, brought on by your own choices.

Now, “quiet acceptance of the way things are” doesn’t mean “do nothing.” Instead, after you take that breath and gather your thoughts, gather evidence. Here’s a post I wrote on that. Even if you decide to do nothing now (one option), you’ll have the evidence if you change your mind (you have three years from when you discovered the infringement, usually, to file suit). After you get the evidence, think about what will make you feel better, feel whole now. Then, take the calm and rational steps to make that happen, like hire a lawyer to get you money, ask the infringer for a credit line and payment yourself, filing a DMCA Takedown, whatever.  

As for protection, you can’t stop determined infringers. You can let go of feeling guilty, like it’s your fault they infringed–it’s not– and feeling guilty is choosing to suffer. However, you can make it easier to get satisfaction after they do their bad deeds if you take the right steps like using watermarks (especially in the form of proper copyright notices), registering your copyrights, using good metadata in your files, and getting good evidence.

Things like infringement are going to happen to you. When they do, there is no reason for you to suffer.

Posted on

Registration Needed, or Not?

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court clarified that a work’s copyright has to have been registered (or had registration refused, but let’s not go there for now) in order to bring a suit for copyright infringement. [1] No longer would applying for the registration be enough–you had to have that certificate in hand when you file suit. So there will likely be a ton of confusion when people start talking about the ruling that came down in Texas last week [2] in which the court ruled that a failure to register a work didn’t kill a copyright case.

Not to bury the lede: the Texas case was not an infringement case, technically; it was a case with a claim for improper removal of the owner’s copyright management information (CMI) under Section 1202. Hence the different result.

In the ruling, the Texas court points out that, although Section 1202(b) includes language about how the removal must be connected to an infringement, it is not a claim for infringement. The court then explains that the plain language of section 1202 does not indicate that the registration requirement under Section 411 applies and that, furthermore, a claim under 1202 is not an infringement claim but rather a claim for removal or alteration of CMI. While there is an infringement underlying the removal of CMI, the claim under 1202 is about the scienter (a fancy legal word for “knowledge”) of the infringement, not the infringement itself. The court then explains (citing the same SCOTUS opinion mentioned above):

Although a DMCA claim requires the defendant to know of potential infringement, such requirement does not necessitate registration because infringement can occur absent registration. A copyright owner’s exclusive rights vest at the time of the creation of the work, and infringement occurs any time those rights are violated, even if registration has not occurred.

This is going to confuse lots of non-lawyers (and probably more than a few lawyers). Let me try to explain, roughly. Infringement happens whether or not a work is registered. That is, the copyright in a work comes into creation the moment the work is made (“fixed in a tangible medium”). At that moment, the creator (usually) owns the copyright in that work and has the rights in and to that work. When that work is copied illicitly, the copyright is infringed. However, an artist whose copyright is infringed cannot file suit for that infringement unless that work’s copyright is registered before the case is filed. The registration is the key that unlocks the court’s door, so to speak, for an infringement claim. Registration gives an artist standing (legalese for the right to bring a specific claim to court). So, the artist has to register the work, even after the infringement, to get to sue for that infringement[3]. However, since CMI removal (or the addition of false CMI, under subsection a) is not a claim for infringement, the artist does not need to have registered the copyright in the work to have standing for the CMI-related claim.

Now, standing is claim-specific, so just because one has standing for a CMI related claim under 1202, one doesn’t get to throw in an infringement claim. No sneaking around the rules–each claim needs its own key to unlock its own door, to continue the metaphor. If you filed a complaint with a 1202 claim and an infringement claim, without a registration, the infringement claim would get dismissed for lack of standing but the 1202 claim would stay. Got it?

So, the skinny is that you still need a registration to sue for infringement, but you can bring a claim related to your CMI without registration. While the statutory damages are from $2500-$25,000 for each 1202 claim, less than the max $30,000 for non willful or $150,000 for willful infringement (assuming the registration was timely, i.e., before the infringement or within 3 months of the work’s first publication), it still isn’t nothing. Proving a CMI claim is more complicated because of that scienter requirement I mentioned earlier, but it’s worth considering the next time you find your unregistered work infringed. But, as mentioned, that’s only if you have visible CMI on or immediately adjacent to your work in the first place, as I explain here.

This stuff is complicated. Please seek personal legal advice before proceeding on any of these claims, including sending that angry email you may really want to send when you find your work being used without your consent. You can run any infringement/CMI claim by me for free review by using the form here.
__________________________

[1] Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019).
[2] Diamondback Industries, Inc. v. Repeat Precision, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-902A (ND Texas 2019), available at https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.309307/gov.uscourts.txnd.309307.83.0.pdf
[3] Unless you register the work (a) within three months of its first publication anywhere by you, or (b) before the infringement started, you won’t be able to get statutory damages or attorney’s fees, but you will still be able to file suit.

Posted on

Why Not?

I recently noticed that I have a lot of non-US clients. Canadians, Germans, Scots, Australia… they’re from all over, really. Percentage-wise, it’s a very surprisingly large chunk of my business. While I’m thrilled for the work and that these people are protecting their rights here in the USA, it does make me wonder why I don’t have more American clients. 

All of these non-American clients have registered their copyrights properly here in the USA (some with English not being their first language) and pursue infringers with the assistance of their own personal attorney. They track their own work online and send me cases they find. Despite being overseas (or at least in Canada), I have filed suit for some of them, even. Those clients couldn’t do that without the understanding that at some point in the process they would have to make the trip here to the USA, on their own dime, er, pence/Euro (whatever), to appear in court. For some of these clients, that would be a big hit financially, but they believe in their rights strongly enough to do it and, of course, it has paid off for them.

So, the question I find myself asking is why don’t American artists take the simple steps to register their works regularly and do the same? What is it about the process that compels Americans either to not bother registering at all (and far too many of you fall into that category) or to choose to use a “service” that compels the artists to use the company’s “infringement protection” process where the company will collect a far greater percentage of any settlement than an actual, personal attorney. Oh, and the settlements are often for far less than an attorney will negotiate, for bonus points.  

I know of some very well respected artists who make beautiful work that is ripped off all the time, but who tell me they can’t be bothered with registering much less going after the bastards. At the same time, they complain about how often they find their work being used… all over, by companies large and small. I tell them “Register it now and future infringements will have statutory damages available!”

They nod, say they know they ought to, but then do nothing.

The logic escapes me. 

Terms of Service Proudly powered by WordPress