Showing posts with label unpublished works. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unpublished works. Show all posts

Friday, July 21, 2017

Bo's bLAWg - Cost Benefit Analysis of Copyright Registration, and Derivative Works


MJ Bogatin (“Bo”) of Bogatin, Corman & Gold, is an Arts and Entertainment Attorney in San Francisco.  He is also a long-time President of California Lawyers for the Arts. www.calawyersforthearts.org. Bo is available to answer some of your questions surrounding the business of Art Licensing. - THANKS BO!

Dear Bo,
I have two questions if you don't mind. I am a casual print-on-demand artist for about eight years now. I have never registered my work for copyright.

1) Let's say I have about 100 designs published over time with about 30% of them actually sold through PODs. Am I understanding correctly that each design would now require a separate copyright at this late date? I do not know the dates of each uploaded image.

2) In the event I use the same design and change out the text in the picture do I copyright the design only or copyright each rendition including text? This question applies to color only changes too.

I bring in at most one to two thousand dollars of income a year. It seems like it is very costly for me to go back and copyright them at this late date. I currently don't license my work but have been approached several times over the years to consider it. I didn't have the time and knowledge back then but could be interested in the future.
“Anonymous”


Dear Anonymous,
First Q:   I agree that it is likely unduly expensive for you to individually register if you have in fact “published” your 100 +/- designs at different times, so would not be eligible to register them as a group such as “My Best Designs of 2016.”  You read last month’s bLAWg closely and are certain that the 70% that have never sold have in fact been ‘published”?  http://annietroe.blogspot.com/2017/06/bos-blawg-copyright-registration-of.html

As I mentioned last month, the designs must have been offered online or otherwise with the purpose to distribute copies to people who will license it for merchandise and further distribution.    If you have ‘merely’ displayed your designs online on your own website and not did necessarily specifically offered them to be licensed, some or all of the 70 might still be unpublished. And, as I mentioned last month, unpublished works can be registered in a group under a single fee if they are all yours alone.

Assuming that it is clear the 70 unlicensed designs were in fact clearly offered for licensed use, and they were not posted in groups that would qualify for registration together because they have the same publication date, then, to save money, I recommend that you focus on the designs that have been licensed.  It is likely that those designs will have broader public dissemination and thereby be more vulnerable to infringement. If a group of those 30 were licensed together, then they too could be registered as a group rather than individually.

Otherwise, pick and choose among the 30 as to popularity and quality and begin your registration efforts with those, since presumably, they are the ones that are most likely to be infringed, so you want the statutory benefits that accrue with registration before infringement for at least those.  Once you prevail on a copyright infringement claim, you may well be able to afford registration of all the designs you have ever created!

As for the changed designs, Q2, unless the text is sufficiently ‘creative,’ like an original poem, and not just a quip or caption, the short answer is yes, you would likely want to register the new work as appropriate. However, if the text you use are mere catchwords or phrases, mottoes, slogans, or short expressions, such verbiage is not eligible for copyright
(See https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf )

If the text is a new poem, but being used in conjunction with a previously registered image, it would be eligible for its own registration on the TX (text) application form, not as VA (Visual Art).

If you are just changing the color scheme to a previously registered design, I would say that you need not re-register the new color scheme.  Indeed, merely changing the color scheme is not likely eligible for a new registration as it lacks sufficient ‘new creative expression.’ 
(See https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf  ) 

It is interesting to note what the Copyright Office does offer as examples of derivative works of visual art that should be registered:
•  A sculpture based on a drawing;
•  A drawing based on a photograph, and
•  A lithograph    based    on a painting.

What all three of these have in common is that they truly transform the pre-existing artwork from one ‘medium’ to another.  Anything short of that level of transformation may not require a new registration.  What this means to me is that the new color version of your design has full copyright protection by the original registration, since it does not qualify for its own registration.

So, to the extent that this applies to a large number of your designs, maybe you can save some application fees after all!


Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is not intended as legal advice. Because the law is not static, and one situation may differ from the next, we cannot assume responsibility for any actions taken based on information contained herein. Also, be aware that the law may vary from state. Therefore, this website cannot replace the advice of an experienced attorney. Receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. MJ Bogatin, Bogatin, Corman & Gold, www.bcgattorneys.com
© 2017 mjbogatin 


Have a legal question? email it to info@AnnGraphics.com. I will forward it to Bo. It might be a blog post! You can search "Bo's bLAWg" to read more posts. I am looking forward to your comments and thanks for sharing this great information on social media.

Make my day! and Buy me a cup of coffee (PayPal Link in right side bar, you don't need a PayPal acct.)

 Don't want to miss the good stuff? Sign up for my newsletter ;-)

 

 

Monday, June 19, 2017

Bo's bLAWg - Copyright Registration of Published and Unpublished Works



 MJ Bogatin (“Bo”) of Bogatin, Corman & Gold, is an Arts and Entertainment Attorney in San Francisco.  He is also a long-time President of California Lawyers for the Arts. www.calawyersforthearts.org. Bo is available to answer some of your questions surrounding the business of Art Licensing. - THANKS BO!

Dear Bo, I just sold a new original painting (I also license my art on products). Is selling the original painting considered “publishing” it? I haven’t had a chance to copyright the image yet. I am hoping I can include it in a group copyright with several unpublished, un-sold images. If I add the new painting/image to a site like Pixels.com for print sales, is that considered “published”.  Thanks in advance, Bo! Terri

Good questions, Terri.  “Publication” is an important term in the Copyright Act.  You appear to be aware of the fact that as an Artist you can save a good deal on Copyright Registration fees if you can register multiple images together as a group, and that it is easier to group unpublished imagery than published imagery for registration purposes.

Before I answer your question about whether your sale of the original painting constitutes Publication under the Act, I want to address one particular in your email: “I haven’t had a chance to copyright the image yet.”  You most likely mean that you have not had a chance to register your copyright in the image yet.  However, not everyone knows that they ‘have’ a copyright in their image as soon as they have created it.  As long as the image has sufficient creative original material in it, it is immediately subject to a claim of copyright by its Author/Artist.  So, to be sure, you have a copyright already.  Registration adds specific important statutory protections for the benefit of the Copyright registrant.  (See http://annietroe.blogspot.com/2015/01/bos-blawg.html )

“Publication” is defined in the Act as “the distribution of copies of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication.”  (See the alphabetical definitions section of the Copyright Act: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a )

So, there is a quick answer to your first question.  Yes, sale of the painting is deemed a “publication” under the Act even though you have not “published” it in a conventional sense by making copies and distributing them.

The more intriguing question these days is whether artworks posted online are deemed to have been “published” under the Act.  Interestingly, when you post online yourself, even though theoretically you are displaying your imagery to the whole world, the mere “display” of a work does not of itself constitute publication!  “Mere display” has been deemed to include showing your artwork in a gallery or museum as well.  It is only when the gallery sells the artwork, or the museum purchases it for its collection, is that artwork will be deemed to have been “published.”

When it comes to registration, one of the Application questions is when the artwork was first published.  If you are selling your works individually, and not registering them prior to sale, then they likely will all have different publication dates.  That means separate registrations at $55 a pop.

However, it is possible to include multiple published works in a registration application if they were all originally published at the same time.  Circular 1 from the Copyright office says multiple published works can be registered as a group “if they are all first published together in the same publication on the same date and owned by the same claimant.” 
(See https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf page 8.)

Your recently sold artwork would not need to be registered individually if you actually published it prior to its sale as part of a group.  How might that have happened?  I’ll tell you.

You indicate that you list your artworks on pixels.com.  By posting the imagery at that website, if I am not mistaken, you are offering it with the purpose to distribute copies to people who will license it for merchandise and further distribution, right?  Well, that is specifically a kind of “display” that fits within the Copyright Act definition of “publication” (above).  So, if you were to post a bunch of previously unpublished images together on pixels.com for such purposes, then I think you would qualify for registering them all together since they share the same publication date.
 
Alternatively, you can register a group of unpublished artworks together for one fee as well.  These can be registered together as a “collection” if they satisfy all the following criteria:
1) The elements of the collection are assembled in an orderly form; 2) The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole; 3) The copyright claimant or claimants for each element in the collection are the same, and 4) All the elements are by the same author or, if they are by different authors, at least one author has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element.  (Note: Works registered as an unpublished collection will be listed in the records of the Copyright Office only under the collection title.)

Hope this is helpful, Terri and that these tips save you a lot of registration application fees.  We give the Feds enough in taxes as it is! 

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is not intended as legal advice. Because the law is not static, and one situation may differ from the next, we cannot assume responsibility for any actions taken based on information contained herein. Also, be aware that the law may vary from state. Therefore, this website cannot replace the advice of an experienced attorney. Receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. MJ Bogatin, Bogatin, Corman & Gold, www.bcgattorneys.com
© 2017 mjbogatin


Have a legal question? email it to info@AnnGraphics.com. I will forward it to Bo. It might be a blog post! You can search "Bo's bLAWg" to read more posts. I am looking forward to your comments and thanks for sharing this great information on social media.

 

Make my day! and Buy me a cup of coffee (PayPal Link in right side bar, you don't need a PayPal acct.)

 Don't want to miss the good stuff? Sign up for my newsletter ;-)

 

 

Monday, April 24, 2017

Bo's bLAWg - Copyright Term and Unpublished Works


MJ Bogatin (“Bo”) of Bogatin, Corman & Gold, is an Arts and Entertainment Attorney in San Francisco.  He is also a long-time President of California Lawyers for the Arts. www.calawyersforthearts.org. Bo is available to answer some of your questions surrounding the business of Art Licensing. - THANKS BO!

Dear Bo, I was in my mother’s attic and discovered a box of my Great Aunt's personal writings and illustrations.  It appears they date from 1880 and earlier to her death in 1925.  I don’t think any were published, but I do not know!   I would like to publish them.  You indicated in a prior bLAWg that works published before 1923 are in the Public Domain.  What about unpublished works from that date and earlier?  Thanks!  Teri

Good question, Teri.  The Term of copyright for never-published works does require a different analysis from that we use for published works.

Start with the contemporary Term:  the life of the author/artist plus 70 years.  Working backwards, if the author/artist died more than 70 years ago – before 1947 – then their unpublished works are in the Public Domain.  So, if you knew that none were published, we could conclude with certainty that all her writings and drawings are in the Public Domain (“PD”).

Had any been published, and the copyright registered as required under the 1909 Act, you will recall from my earlier bLAWg, that a registration in its Renewal 28-year Term 1923 through 1963 was granted a Term of 95 years after its original publication date.  So, were you able to determine that certain works were published, the 1923 rule applies.  Those published in 1923 would have their last year of copyright protection in 2018.  Works first published in 1924 would be protected through 2019, and those published in 1925 would lose protection as of January 1, 2021.  (See http://annietroe.blogspot.com/2016/09/bos-blawg-copyright-term.html )

I would add that there is a different rule for unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship).  In the case of these, the Term is 120 years from date of creation.  So, had you found these materials but their author was unknown to you, it is quite possible that those works could still be subject to copyright protection.  It is just a matter of knowing when they were created.  As of this year, creation before 1897 would make them PD.


Here is an online Chart that addresses this Term information for both published and unpublished works:  http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
 

Now, I want to say a few other things about works in the PD.  First, while you have an absolute right to use these works any way you want, anyone else who has access to them would have the same right of use.  Were you not to grant any third party access – or limit access to those who sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement with you – you could be the first to publish, and thereby have that advantage on any third party who might want to publish or make other commercial  use of them.  Even better, were you to publish them in a manner that includes contribution of new elements and materials by you, you have an absolute right to claim a new copyright for your additions to the PD material.  By publishing a copyright notice with respect to your own contributions, would anyone else necessarily know which is your new material and which your Great Aunt’s?  Not necessarily…

More likely, however, even if you made known which was your Great Aunt’s original work, it would be impractical for any third party to ‘separate’ the PD material from your own additions and/or material enhancements.  For instance, with your Great Aunt’s pen and ink drawings, were you to add colors, they might make a line of beautiful new greeting cards.  While third parties would legally be able to strip out your color and look to add their own color choices, more likely than not, they would honor your copyright notice and published efforts.  There would be little economic incentive to go to that trouble since your line is already available for sale. 


Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is not intended as legal advice. Because the law is not static, and one situation may differ from the next, we cannot assume responsibility for any actions taken based on information contained herein. Also, be aware that the law may vary from state. Therefore, this website cannot replace the advice of an experienced attorney. Receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. MJ Bogatin, Bogatin, Corman & Gold, www.bcgattorneys.com


Have a legal question? email it to info@AnnGraphics.com. I will forward it to Bo. It might be a blog post! You can search "Bo's bLAWg" to read more posts. I am looking forward to your comments and thanks for sharing this great information on social media.

 

Make my day! and Buy me a cup of coffee (PayPal Link in right side bar, you don't need a PayPal acct.)

 Don't want to miss the good stuff? Sign up for my newsletter ;-)

 

 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...