Hacker News Reader

Comment by chris_wot | Hacker News Reader

If Innman hasn't registered his work with the U.S. Copyright office, then he can't sue for copyright infringement damages. Not that he can't claim copyright, just can't litigate. Not sure if he can file after someone posts his copyrighted material and then claim damages though - here's hoping he can!

View on HN

Copyright for artworks in this context is automatic. At least that's how it works in the UK. Once your create your own art, you hold the automatic copyright. Unless you made the art under commission to someone else.

Now I might be wrong but that's the impression I have had for years.

Not entirely true. Under 17 USC § 411, if you are bringing civil action against someone for copyright infringement, you must have registered your work. However, under 17 USC § 106, owners of copyright have exclusive rights to their works (with some caveats), which doesn't have any baring on their ability to sue someone for copyright infringement.

Where I'm a little hazy is in my reading of 17 USC § 411(c) - I believe that you can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being "first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours after the work has been "transmitted".

You are granted copyright automatically yes, and this gives you certain protections like the ability to file DMCA takedown notices etc. However, in order to sue for statutory damages you have to have filed the copyright with the US Patent and Trademark office before the infringement occurred. You can still sue if you register after, but only for actual damages which is harder to prove.

It's irrelevant, because Inman never said he was going to sue. In fact, he didn't even file a DMCA complaint. He's just exposing FunnyStuff bullying.

I never said that Innman was going to sue. He has made it clear that he won't. However, I'm responding to the comment that "he has stuff on him". As part of the conversation being had, I didn't see what I wrote as irrelevant :-)

Uh, why was this downvoted? The U.S. Copyright Office has this in their FAQ - see here: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register

It's downvoted since it does not apply. Inman does not litigate for copyright infringement, so this is a straw man argument.

As I stated above, I never said that Innman was going to sue. He has made it clear that he won't. However, I'm responding to the comment that "he has stuff on him", one of the examples being brought forward was "copyright infringement". As part of the conversation being had, I didn't see what I wrote as irrelevant, as the poster specifically talked about copyright infringement :-)

It's not clear from that FAQ itself but if you read PDF (to which the link is broken, but here it is: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf ), they make it pretty clear that the registration can occur after the infringement. However he'd only be able to get actual damages (not statutory damages or attorney's fees) unless it's been less than three months since the work was created.

I did a bit of research, and I believe that it's covered by 17 USC § 411(c). You can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being "first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours after the work has been "transmitted".

Not sure if there is some other part of the U.S. Code that applies though.

>You can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being "first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours after the work has been "transmitted".

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think 411c applies in this case. That subsection refers to works whose transmission and fixation are simultaneous, which I believe is specific to live broadcasts and performances. I'm not entirely clear on how all of the timing language there is supposed to work, but I don't think any of it applies to webcomics anyway.

What would apply, however, is section 412 below that, which basically says what I outlined above; if you want to sue for anything beyond actual proved damages, you have to have registered either before the infringement, or within 3 months of creating the work.

Because it's wrong. The FAQ itself states that the benefits of registration are prima facie evidence and statutory damages. You can still litigate, you just need to provide alternate evidence and you don't get to claim statutory damages (you have to prove the damages you're claiming).

Perhaps you should reference title 17 of the U.S. Code. Section 411 deals with registration and civil infringement actions. Specifically 17 USC § 411 (a) says:

"Except for an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), and subject to the provisions of subsection (b), [1] no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. "

That is not how copyright works.

Copyright protects your articles, illustrations, posts, photographs, videos, and other works of creative expression from the time that they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It gives the creator of an original work exclusive rights to the work, for a limited time.

That is the true definition of copyright, the second you put pen to paper. You do not need to register with a copyright office.

Indeed. I never said you have to register your copyright. I only said you need to register your copyright to sue for infringement within the U.S..

Don't know why you're being downvoted, dude. Your comment (and your clarifying comments above/below) are accurate.

Copyright is automatic, but the right to actually litigate a copyright is dependent on manually registering a work. If you register prior to infringement, you are eligible for very generous "statutory damages", which are roughly $100k per act of infringement. If you register after the infringement, you are only eligible for the actual damages (i.e., lost sales or the defendant's ill-gotten earnings from the infringing uses) that you prove in court.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com