Input for © registration cost increase

L

lightstand

Member
The Copyright Office is looking to increase their registration price up to $100. My feelings this is a tax to deter artists(USA) from protecting their hard work. While the internet has spurred the free sharing culture, we artists/photographers, should be able to protect our work and this increase truly seems to make that impractical.

The link below is looking for opinions and I hope others will voice their support for artists/photographers being able to protect their work economically.

https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/feestudy2018/
 
You do not have to register your work, it is copyrighted from the moment you create it.

I think those offices should work on a cost neutral basis, i.e. the taxpayers should not fund copyright registrations.

Talking about copyright there already are new initiatives to extend the copyright duration yet again, another "Disney bill" in the making.

I for one am against this. I think it is reasonable to enjoy the advantages of copyright but only for a reasonable time, I for one don't think that having a copyright on something decades after the creator diseased is reasonable.

I rather see less stringent copyright laws.
 
Last edited:
You do not have to register your work, it is copyrighted from the moment you create it.
Click to expand...
While this is 100% true, it is also about 98.3% pointless because of the practical realities involved. The inherent copyright protections upon creation are minimal; they are greatly, greatly, greatly enhanced if you register the copyright. If you haven't registered your copyright, you are unable to sue infringers in federal courts. If you haven't registered your copyright, you can't seek statutory damages or attorney's fees. If you haven't registered your copyright you can't record your registration with the US Customs office, which can be used to prevent infringing material from entering the US.

So yes, your copyright is technically effective the moment you put the material into tangible form. But the protections offered by that copyright are practically minimal, in that you are limited to only suing for ACTUAL damages, which can be very difficult to prove. A registered copyright is much more valuable.

Regarding the rest of it: that's a political discussion that doesn't need to be fought out here. The OP made a link to where individuals can express their opinions on the issue, and they should be expressed there, not here.
 
Barry_Green said:
While this is 100% true, it is also about 98.3% pointless because of the practical realities involved. The inherent copyright protections upon creation are minimal; they are greatly, greatly, greatly enhanced if you register the copyright. If you haven't registered your copyright, you are unable to sue infringers in federal courts. If you haven't registered your copyright, you can't seek statutory damages or attorney's fees. If you haven't registered your copyright you can't record your registration with the US Customs office, which can be used to prevent infringing material from entering the US.

So yes, your copyright is technically effective the moment you put the material into tangible form. But the protections offered by that copyright are practically minimal, in that you are limited to only suing for ACTUAL damages, which can be very difficult to prove. A registered copyright is much more valuable.
Click to expand...
Frankly I do not see many situations where an entity would have trouble with a $100 filing fee for a copyrightable work to be able to sue someone in federal court on copyright violations or having US customs involved.
 
Some of you may find this interesting. I don't know if the whole number of hours of the Senate Judiciary Cmte hearing video is available on the changes to the copyright laws but I stumbled upon it on C-SPAN and watched it until it wrapped. A couple of very interesting hours and in general I felt the changes were for the better. The full length session addressed most of the issues surrounding an individuals copyright claims and ability to press these claims.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4729475/music-creation-copyright

Chris Young
 
Last edited:
IronFilm said:
Not true in all countries :-( Here if someone hires you then by default the copyright lies with the person who commissioned the work, not yourself.
Click to expand...
Yes, if it is a hired for work situation then that means the copyright lies with the person who commissioned the work. But in that case registering copyright is not a concern of the creator.
 
Cary Knoop said:
Yes, if it is a hired for work situation then that means the copyright lies with the person who commissioned the work. But in that case registering copyright is not a concern of the creator.
Click to expand...

Hope not to derail the thread & I'm no legal expert - but I have been told by a copyright attorney - your above statement is not true - at least in the U.S. Even if you hire & pay me lots of $ to produce a photograph or video - I am the owner of the copyright for that photograph or video - unless there is a legal document stating otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top