RITsters, So many questions about copyright! But why not? This list is for creators of intellectual property and folks here should have an interest in the subject. But here are some non-lawyer suggestions/thoughts: Guy, you are Canadian, so I have no idea what recourse you have about the person that ripped off your images. In the US, there are a couple of things you could do if you cannot afford a lawyer. First, if you did NOT register your images with the Copyright Office, you can sue through a Small Claims Court without a lawyer. But in all probability, the perp (okay, every time you see me use the term "perp," it means "alleged perp") lives in another city, state or country and you probably would have to travel to the perp's location to file a claim. By doing this, you can probably recoup the value of the images that were inappropriately used, but you cannot get the big penalty bucks that you can get with registered pictures. It should be easy to show willful disregard if the perp had privileges jerked by his ISP, but still continued through other means to display your wife's images. The amounts you can recover in Small Claims Court varies from one jurisdiction to another, but is usually in the $5-10K range. Second, if you DID register your images, you can possibly interest a high-powered intellectual property rights lawyer to take the case on contingency, as each infringement could be worth $150,000. The "possibly" comes in because if the perp has no real assets, you aren't going to get a lot, even if you win. But if the perp has $$, lawyers will be interested. So, the hint here is to learn how to register your images with the Copyright Office and then do it. You do have rights without this formal registration, but you have more rights if the pictures are registered. Lastly, there is a sticky area of the US copyright law that makes allowance for "fair use." That's why you can make a videotape of a television show off the air for your own use to watch later. You just can't sell or otherwise profit from that tape. But the concept of fair use is REALLY ambiguous, and is decided on a case-by-case basis. So the person who appropriates your image and uses it as a background for their computer may NOT be breaking any laws. But of course the person who takes your wedding proofs and has them copied for their personal use IS breaking the law. This is, as I said, a very sticky area. Emily and Alan: Emily has the right idea with the reference to the EP Web site and the Fed's Web site. But Alan can have a contract written by a good lawyer that will stipulate what uses the image he is allowing the purchaser to have. This is not copyright law, but contract law. And you can write a contract with any kind of terms you want. As long as you own and possess something someone else wants, and there is no other valid copyright, you can share your objects under any conditions you choose. But again, this is now contract law rather than copyright law. Contract law, by the way, is understood by many more lawyers, and may be the best way to ensure no one rips off your wedding proofs or other images. Have your lawyer add a clause to your contract that says something like, "Any reproduction of these proof images are permitted for any purpose, but the signatories below agree to pay the Photographer $150,000 for each reproduction not purchased from the Photographer." Then put that in bold print and follow it by your normal price for prints they purchase from you. Someone may claim that they were not aware that the copyright law would not let them copy the image for their personal use, but it is difficult to argue when they signed a contact saying they would pay you if they reproduced the images themselves. Lawyers, of course, would add the necessary verbiage to make it more airtight. I have not actually seen anyone do this, but I always thought it would be a good idea. Talk to your lawyer. The reason, as I understand it, that Gates' folks can charge for use of government property is because of this contract law. The Gates' group probably feels, and perhaps with some validity, that the time and effort they spent in digitizing, storing, cataloging and then locating literally millions of images is worth something. What they don't tell you is they are not the only source for the Government images. You can still get the photographs from the Feds for free or almost free. But if you are a busy producer or art director, it may be worth the extra cash to just call someone, tell them what you want, have them do the research and then sell you the rights to the image. And their library greatly exceeds the images supplied by the government. All RITsters: it would probably behoove us all to buy a book about the subject, read it and keep it in your personal library. Your local library may have something that would suffice, but it wouldn't be on your bookshelf for instant reference. Books frequently do a better job of putting things into perspective than do Web sites, as they go into more depth, are better indexed (sometimes), etc. My personal favorite is Philip Miller's _Media Law for Producers_, but there are others. HTH someone. peace to all, rand
