Marek,s web site

[marek]

A friend of mine and myself just finished this web site.

It is directed to stock photo agencies, so do not feel like

i,m trying to sell anything to you.

This is in hopes of generating some funds for my next

himalayan dream. Please feel free to comment on images.

[kurthicks]

link?

[tele_nut]

Oh yeah the originator of "YOU ARE SO SUCK"!

[marek]

That,s funny ?

www.frozenimage.net

there it is

[Rodchester]

Some great pictures....

 

Did you apply for Federal copyright? Or are relying on common-law copy right?

[marek]

copyrighted with library of congress DC,

under "cascade climbers and "frozenimage.net"

 

[catbirdseat]

Marek, are you planning any more winter climbs on Rainier this year? How about Nisqually Icefall?

[Off_White]

I understand wanting control of your images, but there must be a better way than watermarking "copyright blah blah" in large letters across the center of your pictures. It sucks the enjoyment right out of the viewing: I looked a three or four and gave it up.

[thelawgod]

Rodchester said:

Some great pictures....

 

Did you apply for Federal copyright? Or are relying on common-law copy right?

 

All copyrights are Federal copyrights in the U.S—Federal law preempts all state law w/regard to copyright. You don’t have to apply for the Federal protection, you automatically have such protection by default. The registering of a copyright simply (1) Makes it possible for the owner to sue for infringement of the registered copyright; (2) entitles the owner (in the court’s discretion) to statutory damages; (3) entitles the owner to attorney’s fees.

 

And the watermarking of the “copyright” notice on the photos doesn’t have to be so blatant—a small © symbol anywhere on the photo would do. In fact, since March 1, 1989 (when the US joined the Berne Convention), marking a photo (or any copyrightable work) as “copyrighted” is no longer required for protection (although, by using a copyright indicator, infringers cannot successfully argue that they didn’t know something was copyrighted).

 

 

[erik]

thelawgod said:

All copyrights are Federal copyrights in the U.S—Federal law preempts all state law w/regard to copyright. You don’t have to apply for the Federal protection, you automatically have such protection by default. The registering of a copyright simply (1) Makes it possible for the owner to sue for infringement of the registered copyright; (2) entitles the owner (in the court’s discretion) to statutory damages; (3) entitles the owner to attorney’s fees.

 

peter, i see what you mean now...................

 

[Rodchester]

thelawgod said:

Rodchester said:

Some great pictures....

 

Did you apply for Federal copyright? Or are relying on common-law copy right?

 

All copyrights are Federal copyrights in the U.S—Federal law preempts all state law w/regard to copyright. You don’t have to apply for the Federal protection, you automatically have such protection by default. The registering of a copyright simply (1) Makes it possible for the owner to sue for infringement of the registered copyright; (2) entitles the owner (in the court’s discretion) to statutory damages; (3) entitles the owner to attorney’s fees.

 

And the watermarking of the “copyright” notice on the photos doesn’t have to be so blatant—a small © symbol anywhere on the photo would do. In fact, since March 1, 1989 (when the US joined the Berne Convention), marking a photo (or any copyrightable work) as “copyrighted” is no longer required for protection (although, by using a copyright indicator, infringers cannot successfully argue that they didn’t know something was copyrighted).

 

 

This is a very common misconception, or misunderstanding of the law. I've litigated copyright infringement actions under both federal law, 17 U.S.C § 101 et seq., in Federal Court and under common law in State Court.

 

If you have not registered the copyright with the federal copyright office, then you are not afforded the protections of the statute: i.e. access to federal courts, attorney fees/costs, statutory presumptions of damages, etc.

 

In order to bring action under the Copyright Act, an owner must, in addition to holding exclusive right, register copyright claim in accordance with Copyright Act. See Tang v. Hwang, E.D.Pa.1992, 799 F.Supp. 499. However, one may still register the copyright after an infringement and thereby access the Federal Court and the protections of the Copyright statute. Morgan, Inc. v. White Rock Distilleries, Inc., D.Me.2002, 230 F.Supp.2d 104. While a copyright holder can register copyright and file suit after infringement occurs, doing so negates recovery of statutory damages, as opposed to actual damages. See Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo Co., C.A.8 (Iowa) 1994, 23 F.3d 1345, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1798, rehearing denied.

 

So preemption ONLY applies IF you register the copyright with the federal copyright office. (This is often referred to as “statutory copyright.”) Even then state courts can still have concurrent jurisdiction, applying the Federal Copyright statute.

 

So it is correct to say that regardless of registration a copyright still exists, however it is incorrect to say that preemption always applies. The same is true for trade names, trade dress, and trademarks. However, very few ever proceed solely under common law protections, because the common law protections pale in comparison to the protections of the Federal Copyright statute.

 

I’m sure that I bored the hell out of many of you. However, this is a very common misconception that I find to be very pervasive among amateur photographers, especially climbers. If you are actually selling the photos, through a retail outlet, I highly suggest that you register the copyright with the Copyright Office.

 

TheLawGod's statement is not incorrect, but it is not correct either.

 

Good luck.

 

 

 

[thelawgod]

Rodchester said:

thelawgod said:

Rodchester said:

Some great pictures....

 

Did you apply for Federal copyright? Or are relying on common-law copy right?

 

All copyrights are Federal copyrights in the U.S—Federal law preempts all state law w/regard to copyright. You don’t have to apply for the Federal protection, you automatically have such protection by default. The registering of a copyright simply (1) Makes it possible for the owner to sue for infringement of the registered copyright; (2) entitles the owner (in the court’s discretion) to statutory damages; (3) entitles the owner to attorney’s fees.

 

And the watermarking of the “copyright” notice on the photos doesn’t have to be so blatant—a small © symbol anywhere on the photo would do. In fact, since March 1, 1989 (when the US joined the Berne Convention), marking a photo (or any copyrightable work) as “copyrighted” is no longer required for protection (although, by using a copyright indicator, infringers cannot successfully argue that they didn’t know something was copyrighted).

 

 

This is a very common misconception, or misunderstanding of the law. I've litigated copyright infringement actions under both federal law, 17 U.S.C § 101 et seq., in Federal Court and under common law in State Court.

 

If you have not registered the copyright with the federal copyright office, then you are not afforded the protections of the statute: i.e. access to federal courts, attorney fees/costs, statutory presumptions of damages, etc.

 

In order to bring action under the Copyright Act, an owner must, in addition to holding exclusive right, register copyright claim in accordance with Copyright Act. See Tang v. Hwang, E.D.Pa.1992, 799 F.Supp. 499. However, one may still register the copyright after an infringement and thereby access the Federal Court and the protections of the Copyright statute. Morgan, Inc. v. White Rock Distilleries, Inc., D.Me.2002, 230 F.Supp.2d 104. While a copyright holder can register copyright and file suit after infringement occurs, doing so negates recovery of statutory damages, as opposed to actual damages. See Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo Co., C.A.8 (Iowa) 1994, 23 F.3d 1345, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1798, rehearing denied.

 

So preemption ONLY applies IF you register the copyright with the federal copyright office. (This is often referred to as “statutory copyright.”) Even then state courts can still have concurrent jurisdiction, applying the Federal Copyright statute.

 

So it is correct to say that regardless of registration a copyright still exists, however it is incorrect to say that preemption always applies. The same is true for trade names, trade dress, and trademarks. However, very few ever proceed solely under common law protections, because the common law protections pale in comparison to the protections of the Federal Copyright statute.

 

I’m sure that I bored the hell out of many of you. However, this is a very common misconception that I find to be very pervasive among amateur photographers, especially climbers. If you are actually selling the photos, through a retail outlet, I highly suggest that you register the copyright with the Copyright Office.

 

TheLawGod's statement is not incorrect, but it is not correct either.

 

Good luck.

 

 

i.e., state law may not contradict federal law. If federal law completely addresses a particular area, then state law in that area is preempted . E.g., the United States Patent and Copyright Law (after the 1976 Copyright Act); otherwise states may legislate.

 

I don't think what I said was wrong—my point is that state law does not trump the Berne Convention provisions.

 

 

 

 

 

[Rodchester]

I think we agree on the majority of it...

 

Either way, failure to register is detrimental.

[erik]

thelawgod said:

I don't think what I said was wrong—my point is that state law does not trump the Berne Convention provisions.

 

tho like a lawyer or a woman instead of coming out and saying what you mean you put up a bunch of mumbo jumbo in hopes that everyone understands!

 

[thelawgod]

Fuckin Lawyers!

[Dru]

better a lawyer than a midget!

[ChrisT]

I agree that a smaller copyright symbol would have been more aesthetic. The large watermarks really mar and detract from your wonderful photography. Everyone who publishes their photography on the internet takes the risk of having it "stolen" - I've been a victim of it myself!

[marek]

I guess, just about all the aspects of copyrighting have been covered. I do underestand that the watermarking

poses some degree of viewing difficulty. The website

was created with a commercial purpose. For someone

from ( example ) stock photo agency watermarking is just not affecting the image. Combination of

watermark+copyright+low resolution web image was

the way we decided to go. About 50 % similar web sites

use it ( at least upstarts like myself ). On a personal

note, OFF WHITE ! don,t give up just yet !

I still would like to hear comments about images, the ones you like or would never try to publish.

Marek

www.frozenimage.net

[Alpine_Tom]

I agree that a smaller copyright symbol would have been more aesthetic. The large watermarks really mar and detract from your wonderful photography. Everyone who publishes their photography on the internet takes the risk of having it "stolen" - I've been a victim of it myself!

The problem with having a discreet little copyright logo in the corner is that it's really easy to crop off. Not that I'd know about something like that, but that's what I heard.

[iain]

If you are registered on DigiMarc you can embed copyright information as digital noise to the image. It is generally impossible to see. You can make the watermark more permanent (though potentially more visible) if needed. It will survive printing and rescanning. For more info, www.digimarc.com. It is included with Adobe Photoshop these days.

[Winter]

Hey guys, as a fellow lawyer can politely ask you to KYBOSH THE LEGAL SHIZNIT?! Go impress your litigator buddies with your citation forms.

[willstrickland]

I still would like to hear comments about images, the ones you like or would never try to publish.

Marek

 

I'll give you my $0.02. Take this with a grain of salt, it's criticism, not intended in bad faith.

 

Cimbing shots:were ho-hum. An interesting perspective in one or two, but nothing that really made me take notice.

 

Landscapes: had potential, but most missed the mark. To elaborate...

 

1. The 003 N Face of Ama Dablam was really nice as far as lighting, etc, but the nearer sub-peak on the right detracts from the image. Still a very nice shot.

 

2. The Ama Dablam and swinging bridge shot could have been superb. But, the lighting was not so good. If you could have caught this in morning or evening light it would be spectacular. I'd assume you took it as you were hiking through and couldn't hang around for that one image.

 

3. On the S. Face of Lohtse: Crop more @ top, there are branches in the top edge of the frame. The haze and midday lighting detract from the image's potential.

 

4. 002L, too contrasty, bland sky, would have benefitted from morning or evening light.

 

People: I think this is the strongest collection on your page. Couple of comments.

 

1. On 020P, crop a little more off the right side, the lighter elements beyond the edge of the building draw the eye away. Otherwise I love this shot.

 

2. On 052, I'm a little conflicted. On one hand, the upper left corner's series of ridges gives a nice sense of being in the mountains, but the lightness of that area distracts the eye from the people. Also, the railing in the foreground is distracting. I would personally crop this image quite a bit at both the top and bottom. I'd crop the bottom just above the railing, and the top a little above the highest bundle that the nearest man is carrying but below the are where the very light area on the left starts.

 

3. On 045P, I'd try cropping just below the lens flare. It looks like there was a scratch on your slide from the highest spot of lens flare to the top of the frame, and with the two lens flare marks, I think it would be a better image cropped. It also eliminates alot of the cloudless sky of you crop it here.

 

Many good shots in the people section! Thanks for sharing them.

[marek]

Will !

Too bad you are not living in Pacific Northwest, it would be

educational to go out and practice image taking.

It,s also intresting how difrent people notice different pic,s.

You are right on with comments regarding south face of Ama Dablam. My wife and myself were involved in a rescue of an Australian trekker in near by Pheriche village and left 2hrs

late ( it,s just 30 min walk from the village )

It took me almost an hour to get to the position with active rock runnell.

I think part of the problem with contrast and lighting is

my cheap scanning device (diamage scan dual III AF-2840)

For some reason looks way better on the slide. In addition

verry little or no photoshop work was done to the pic,s.

20 p ? personaly i did not like the shot that much myself,

but several friends sugested i should include that one too.

I hope despite those mistakes i,ll be able to sell them.

Thank you for your comments Will.

[chucK]

Hey guys, as a fellow lawyer can politely ask you to KYBOSH THE LEGAL SHIZNIT?! Go impress your litigator buddies with your citation forms.

 

Yeah shit! Enough of this pertinent information from people who know what they're talking about. I'd much rather read mindless and/or misleading speculation!