I am arguing that people should not get their expectations up as to the
nature of the protection that copyright registration provides, the ease of
enforcement, the extent of the costs of insuring against copyright
protection in terms of time and money, and what they anticipate by way of
punitive damages and regular damages or other sanctions from infringers. It
is not a good thing to leave the impression that, once one registers a
copyright, one's work is automatically protected by some sort of magical
enforcement that provides universal coverage without requiring any time,
effort, or expense on the part of the copyright owner. It is also not a
good thing to leave the impression that, once one has registered one's
copyright, one will automatically receive the full amount of the statutory
damages provided for in the US law if the infringer is found to have
actually infringed by a court of law.
In short, I think that the original remarks tended to present a very
oversimplified picture that could cause more misunderstanding than not and
lead to higher expectations than is practically the case in actual reality.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 5:47 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
At 02:16 AM 7/22/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are
> >not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images.
>
>Correct.
Then what are you arguing about? And why? I'm concerned that the effect of
your argument will be to convince people that it is not worthwhile to go to
the effort of registering their images. That would not be a Good Thing
would it?
Stan
=======================================
Photography by Stan McQueen:
