Ellen show used my photos

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>And you say one can't sue, yet copyright protections exist (well, you don't say the latter, only the law does).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't say one can't sue, nor did I say copyright doesn't exist without registration. I merely explained that registration is required to commence an infringement action in Federal District court.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"So you're saying that no one has any right to restrict use of their creative works unless they register them, because one can't sue?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. I'm saying that copyright exists upon creation but, to file an infringement action, registration of the copyright is required. Copyright owners constantly restrict use of their works without registration and without suing anyone. If they <strong>ultimately</strong> file an infringement claim, however, they will need to have the works registered.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What you're saying is copyright, absent registration, has absolutely no value whatsoever. Defend that, please."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's nothing to defend because I'm not saying anything remotely like that. Commerce involving copyrights without registration occurs constantly. If one intends to file an infringement claim, however, they will need to register the imagery in order to proceed.</p>

<p>I can only surmise that you presume registration must occur before the infringement in order to file an infringement action. Nobody said that. Timing of registration can affect the amount and nature of damages available but the case can go forward upon registration. Registration can occur at any time during the life of the copyright.</p>

<p>Its actually very simple...</p>

<p>Copyright ownership doesn't require registration. To file an infringement action, the copyright will need to be registered. Registration can be done at any time (within the lifetime of the copyright which is many many years). Unregistered copyrights have value because infringement of the copyright may inspire the owner to register the work (if it is not already registered) and to file an infringement claim. Timely registration is better because it allows for some remedies that untimely registration doesn't, but, you still get to file the infringement claim in either of those events.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>There are statute of limitations issues, incidentally, but those are a separate additional analysis to the above.</p>

[russell_flynn]

<p>- Fix your title tag ("Blank Title - HOME" right now) and upload a favicon<br>

Thanks Ian.<br>

This is my first web page, and I can’t figure out how to change this. It’s driving me nuts, and I have to contact the server (Ipage) to figure it out.<br>

As for the home page picture, I’m really not into the photojournalism thing, and don’t really want to start. The two times I’ve had my photos on the TV are more about interesting things about myself. Kind of a footnote if you will. My main purpose for this web page is to show my friends and acquaintances my work. I have sold several prints by simply showing them to people, and feel that I could sell more through the web page if I can ever get it “right”. But for now, this is more of a hobby that pays a little here and there.<br>

Thanks a bunch for the advice. I can see your point on everything (except the Ellen show picture on the home page)<br>

Cheers!</p>

[tony_clark]

<p>There are so many problems with this story. You allowed the local media to use images for free, you've done this in the past, you didn't clearly word your response to contact information sent to Ellen and you limited your compensation for use of the images. <br>

Are you actually in business or simply in the right place at the right time and fail to sell images? If you continue to give away images, why should anyone pay for the next series?</p>

[russell_flynn]

<p>Tony,<br>

all I can say is that I am NOT in the business of photojournalism. Simply "in the right place at the right time". Allowing the local stations to use the pics for free was done because I was told they would not pay for them. My fall back was to allow them to be used as long as I was given credit for the shots. Not having any experience with the copyright law, I expected to be compensated for unauthorized use AFTER they were copyright protected. I guess I was wrong. A learning experience. Now I know a bit more about this part of the game. I'm quite sure we have all gone into something new with expectations that were not realized because of inexperience. No real harm done. </p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Going after the "Ellen Show" means going after a 'corporation' which happens to have "Ellen" as the host of the show on network television. The network likely has 'several' lawyers for situations like yours. Once you 'gave' the OK to use your images for 'credit as the photographer,' you likely did not limit the use to just that one station. Right? There was no limit on the station 'sharing' your image.</p>

<p>You may likely get a 'oops, we made a error in not giving credit to 'Russell Flynn' as the photographer' that were aired on September xx, 2012. Since the program did not put your images into a advertisement for 'Safe Brand Fire Detectors' as one example, you have to find a lawyer willing to go after 'editorial use' vs. commercial use of your image.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

 

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>you have to find a lawyer willing to go after 'editorial use' vs. commercial use of your image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Or do it yourself. Either way is probably not worth the bother.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p><em>you have to find a lawyer willing to go after 'editorial use' vs. commercial use of your image.</em><br>

<br /> Or do it yourself. Either way is probably not worth the bother.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Editorial use vs. commercial use isn't relevant to copyright infringement in any event. Even if it were, it would have nothing to do with the photographer, the claim would be by the person shown in the image against the party showing the image. Plus its obvious editorial use anyway.<br /><br />The whole issue is pointless.</p>

<p> </p>

[danny_wong2]

<p>The fact that your lawyer is not willing to take the case on contingency basis should be an indication of what is his/her opinion of winning and the potential award. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>You might try calling/writing Ellen, she sounds like a nice lady maybe she might recompense you for the pictures.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Ever heard of a website called http://www.thecopyrightzone.com ? If not get your butt over there ASAP.

[russell_flynn]

<p>Ellis.<br>

I went to the copyrightzone page, but I'm unsure what you were pointing out. If it's the new rules for Canada, I thank you, but I live in the good old U.S.A.<br>

If there was something else, please let me know.<br>

Thanks!<br>

Harry,<br>

Thanks for the tip, but my calls were not returned and my letters went unanswered.</p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

I was a) pointing out a source of real knowledge of the subject and b) making a subtle hint that you contact Edward

Greenberg.

[russell_flynn]

<p>OK. Thanks. I will indeed. I guess I should have figured that out...been a VERY long day</p>

[russell_flynn]

<p>UPDATE:<br>

I had pretty much written off getting anything out of this, and was prepared to caulk it up to experience. However, I got home Monday night to find an email from a rep of the Ellen Show.<br>

She said that they honestly thought they had permission to run the photos, and offered me the “going rate” for the licensing of the two pics. After some give and take we settled on a total of $750.00.<br>

I did find out something interesting in our emails…<br>

She sent me the email chain between the show and our local news station. In those emails the show asked “if they had secured permission from the photographer to run the photos on the Ellen Show”. The response was “yes, can you tell me when the show will air?”.<br>

Why in Sam’s hell someone who didn’t own the photos and never even laid eyes on the person who does own the photos would give permission to run these photos on a national show is WAY beyond me.<br>

I’m not done with this yet. As soon as I get the release, and find out if the local affiliate is under the protection of that release, I will go forward against the local. At a minimum I will contact the mans boss.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

Nice move on the part of DeGeneres production company. Now you need to find who else your local station distributed

the photo to. That may require a discovery order, which will require an attorney.