Copyright Infringement Evidence - Shooters
 

OK.. Will try here for possible further clues from shooters who have actually had a need to produce evidence in court re copyright violation...

Brief background... the copyright issue is an element in a much bigger action, but would illustrate the mentality/track record of the 'perps' and their disregard for the property of others, and, put together with the main case, it just adds weight towards conviction.

Question is this.... What evidence have you ever used to establish that you did, in fact, own copyright of images?

I'm talking about seriously concrete evidence which would stand up as "core evidence" in court. Sure... there may be support evidence such as witness testimony etc, but, stuffing on the devils advocate hat, any witness can lie.

This is not an adult-related case, however an adult type example could be...
You shot a series of images of a model on X date and at that time you had the model sign a model release etc. From the lighting setup, set background/s and sequence of images, it becomes clearer that X image was part of that image sequence. I'm still having a struggle to consider this "concrete evidence" - tho you could introduce the testimony of the model to support it.

Judges are a fussy breed and it needs "concrete" evidence as opposed to "supporting evidence" from the human species. Normally concete evidence would be introduced and, if challenged, supporting evidence would then be introduced to support the core evidence.

If establishing copyright evidence is messy or have an angle of doubt - it's prob not worth keeping this element in the case since it would probably detract from the stronger core issues.

OK... you may "know" it is your content and that you own copyright, but any clues how concrete evidence could be presented to a judge to leave no doubt???

matching exif data?

If you were a POV shooter you could explain to the judge that's your cock in the chicks mouth.


(that might only work if you have your name tattooed on it though) :-(

Greywolf, my opinion (I ain't a lawyer) is this:

Your model release (and proof of payment / valuable consideration) is a contract between you and the model. Signed on the date of production, which would match the date of production on the images or video (if digital) or close to the date of processing (if using negatives or positives/slides). Your model has signed, you have signed, and more than likely a third party signed witness to the agreement.

You can also (if you plan for it) take a few candid pictures of the model in the set, showing the actual set, the equipment, and similar. You could even have the model hold up that day's USA Today while standing in the set with your model release in the other hand, example if you are so paranoid. It is also good for your craft to have that sort of footage or images so that if you need to or are inclined to reproduce a set or a setup, you have images to work from.

Basically, your images are produced under contract, the model knows what day he or she worked, you know what day you worked, the contract is dated the day you worked, the images are dated the day you worked, and that in and of itself should be enough.

Remember, the other side will be able to produce NONE of this. At best, the will produce a false model release, and false documentation that you and the model can both contest. Most people won't produce faked documents because that could potentially lead to fraud charges or worse. Even if you have limited documentation and a flakey model, you will still have about 100% more than the other side, unless they are truly morons.

Ahah :)

Thought of that Ma D and got a few problems with it - the images were shot over... four years on different locations and exif data had since been removed - dammit!

Probably the most positive aspect is that one of the "perps" is actually in a number of shots, so hard from them to claim copyright when they were in front of the camera. Tho they "forgot" they are in the same shoot sequence and could be a surprise if introduced in court :)

How about a registered copyright?

Thanks for your feedback RA :thumbsup

Better explain some background... The images are not of models and a conventional shoot. They vary a lot and comprise 'lifestyle images" - eg.. horseback riding along beaches in sunsets blah, wildlife shots - eg parrots, monkeys, reptiles etc., "elegant living" content - eg .. glass of wine on foreground balcony and sunset in the background type of stuff blah.

OK... there are even in the wildlife shots, frames with my hand (and watch on wrist) where I was enticing critters with food to get closeups. In the lifestyle content, some of the perps are eg... on the horses on beaches etc.

Currently, tho better not ID them here, there are at least eight websites using considerable numbers of these images and all known websites have been recorded over a period of time and showing the copyright content - just letting the rope hang out on them for the moment tho most now know there are "issues" and a couple of these sites have pulled all imaging a few days ago (tho got it all recorded).

The website operators are not part of the main case and have their own possible problems arising re transacting biz without licences to operate in that biz - but that is more re financial regulatory stuff, specifically in Canada. The only connection to the main case is "association" with my perps and they may well be innocent parties, despite the image copyright violation stuff. The real perps are basically involved in deception/fraud/corp law violation type areas and involving considerable amounts of money (millions).

Kinda smell this can be a messy case to prove and it may interfere with the more relevant case. But, it may be possible to pull out all of the more solid images where it is hard to contest these and forget the rest.

Again, it gets back to the basic issue: If they are using or selling them images, they would need to have paperwork to back up their rights to the images, and if they claimed to have shot them on their own, then to show the dates, locations, etc.

If you shot them as chromes, you have the originals and there isn't much to argue about.

If you shot them digital, you should still have the original copy on CD or other media, plus any digital data that was in the original shots.

However, all that aside, you said the most important thing: "possible problems arising re transacting biz without licences to operate in that biz - but that is more re financial regulatory stuff, specifically in Canada" - If these people are conducting potentially illegal business, they have very little concern about someone waving a copyright lawsuit at them. Remember too, if they are a Canadian corporation, you can go after the corporation but you will have a very hard time going after the individuals that own the corporation.

Good luck.

As far as website paperwork is concerned - tho still have not seen this, a number of website operators alleged they were provided with a website license to use images by the main perps and where the main perps allegedly claim they own copyright of all images. OK.. this is false paperwork and, in effect, they stole the image content. (Tho that is minor in relation to other offenses).

The Canadian corp problems with website operators are not really my biz - it's just a sub-section of info which surfaced during some enquiries and not worth us spending legal time on. Tho had a good look at them and caught em all on video - they are just kids who don't appear to have much clue of what they are doing (tho a couple are allegedly lawyers and have other qualifications etc) and will probably end up shit creek at some point.

The only relationship between the Canadian connection and my perps is "association" and where the Canadian guys could well be lead up the garden path by my swamplife perps - they are too enthusiastic and could be conned :) But, at the same time, there is concrete evidence of them claiming to own properties which they do not own (and these properties are included in some of my images) - and offering these properties for sale *lol* Tho hell knows how they would actually manage to produce the paperwork to sell them. Gut feeling - I "know" they were being conned by my perps, but that will probably surface as things progress.

It is possible, tho too early to say, that they could be pulled into this case for witness testimony (ie.. when did you first meet Mr X? Who introduced the possibilty of a business relationship? What did that biz relationship involve? etc)

Yep - got all the images on original sizes on CD's :thumbsup But keep doubting that is enough for a pedantic judge - they always like to see nice neat evidence. Example... you gave someone a check. They want the original or a notorized copy of that check shown to be processed thru the banking system and both back and front to illustrate where it was cashed and into what account etc - boring detail and work :)