John Harrington has done the leg work to check out c-registry.us and discovers some nefarious marketing and language that would potentially make them an agent for your work.
“According to c-registry, photographers who fail to “claim” their copyright at c-registry do so at their own peril. While you should register your copyright, this is alarmist marketing, but it gets worse.”
23 Comments
… ha, you think that’s a scam …EVERYONE should consider very carefully the FULL implications of what’s involved with the so-called ‘Google Settlement’ …
… we’ve basically given them permission to tap our brains ad finitum and giving them ALL ‘Rights’ in perpetuity…. READ that FINE PRINT …
see: http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/
Rob, be careful when using the word “scam.” Scam implies fraud or some other illegal activity (e.g., identity theft, etc.). As far as I can tell from spending a few minutes on the C-registry.us site, they are offering a service and the details of the service offering are documented on their site. While the value of this service could be debated, until there is some proof that they aren’t delivering as promised, or doing something else illegal, it’s not really a scam.
I read through the user agreement a couple times and could not find the passage mentioned by John Harrington. Either it has been removed, or I’m just going blind. There is, however, the same legal boiler plate “rights grab” language that has been used on other sites (e.g., Facebook, Adobe, various image posting sites, etc.) and intensely debated. It’s hard to prove the intent of this language. In most cases, it’s intended as blanket protection against lawsuits. But the language could also permit broad misuse of images by the current, or future, owners of the site. So I think the “beware” warning is justified.
Harrington is correct that this site makes liberal use of fear mongering — particularly surrounding U.S. legislation that has not actually been passed into law. It’s also not really free. A “basic” registration is free, but a useful registration costs $25/year. So I think it’s fair to say there are some very questionable marketing tactics being used.
Then there is the question of whether there is any actual benefit of registering images with this site. To me, C-registry.us is more a vision than a reality. If enough people registered images on the site; and enough image consumers used the site to verify ownership of images, it COULD become an important service. That doesn’t appear to be the case today. Even their own FAQ section states registering images on the site should be done in addition to registering with the government.
Bottom line, C-registry.us seems to be a high risk, questionable value proposition. I think they have to modify the language in the user agreement to ever achieve a critical mass of registered images to make it an important tool. But it does appear to be a service that attempts to address a legitimate issue of online copyright management. Time will tell if it gains market acceptance. Personally I think some major modifications are required to make the service viable.
I don’t understand how this can work? I can’t / won’t register my photos with any US copyright registry as I’m in the UK, so surely my photos will be orphaned works in their eyes? But, everything is global with the internet?
well the scammers have to survive to in these hard times don’t they?
Adam:
The whole Orphan Works nonsense would be US-only. It would only apply to you if you tried to sue an infringer in the US and they raised the OW defense. If you sued them in a UK court, for instance, the judge could tell them to go pound sand.
That being said, you certainly can register your works either with the US Copyright Office or any potential private registry. In fact, you cannot sue in a US court without registering your works first. Technically this is a violation of the US’s treaty obligations, but the way we get around it is that you can register at any time, even for the express purpose of filing suit, and so it is considered a procedural, not a substantive, requirement.
You get no statutory or punitive damages if you didn’t file before the infringement in most cases, but that’s also okay because our treaty obligations don’t require statutory or punitive damages, so you’re not losing anything that we’re required to give you – it’s a bonus you might earn, not a punishment you might avoid.
I think the whole thing is a pile of sophistry and twaddle, but nobody asked me. I was at a lunch the other day and MaryBeth Peters, the Registrar (she is a person, not a book, and so to me she will always be the Registrar no matter what “modernization” may take place) of Copyrights, spoke. One of the things she was most proud of was all the work the Office had done on OW last session. I did not throw my dessert at her (it was too good to waste) but I was sorely tempted.
M
@MarcW, Exactly right, the OW breaks the Berne Convention and Madrid Protocols treaties. That would make it unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the barriers to challenging this in the US are the huge amount of time it would take to go through the US court system, and the vast expense it would require to challenge it. The US government has learned what some corporations did several years ago, namely that if you make something prohibitively expensive to challenge, then it will stand against any tests.
The real benefactors of the OW legislation are a couple of registrars who will create and maintain the database. Interestingly, the initial funding came from some of the very large database companies who already (mis)manage large amounts of government data. Seeing as how poorly the US government does with protecting information, and maintaining information, this OW legislation isn’t good enough to wipe your a$$.
The real remedy, at least for those outside the US, or foreigners working in the US, is to go through other court systems. Perhaps the French and German courts are the places to fight this. Another odd approach might be defamation of character, in that your images were used for something that places you in an unflattering or negative association.
My crackpot theory on this and the other “agreements” that seem to be popping up out there. It’s just one more step along the spiral of how language is becoming an impediment to communication. More and more often the fine print actually contradicts the initial idea. They spend a lot of time phrasing an idea into something it’s not.
I call your attention to the ongoing answers posted to the C-Registry Copyright Forum, and to the most recent group titled C-Registry Answers APA
This is just the first. Orphan Works URLs have been purchased, we’re looking at for-profit exploitation now and down the road IF the OW Bill were to pass. Can we remember it is an IF – I’d laugh my arse off if Randy Taylor has dropped a load of cash on this and the whole thing were to die a death.
We all currently need multiple revenue streams; regrettably it’s the sad Randys and megalomaniac Googles who are using the current disarray to build those streams off other people’s content.
Have you been to the site and tried it? Not one image is uploaded, not one image is stored on the site, it is a link to a URL where the image is located. You remove the image from the page of the URL, the image is gone. Noone is selling your image but you. You are in total control. And it is free. Is this not what photographers always want?
Dadaflo, you’re not getting it
Stockphotofinder.com, the owner of c-registry, is launching c-registry as a new type of stock agency. First, they are posing as an image registry so that they can capitalize on the fear and uncertainty generated by orphan works, to lure in as many trade associations and photographers as possible.
They are posing as an image registry because the orphan works bill, which failed and has not been reintroduced, included a provision that would have allowed the copyright office to authorize image registries, and that would have allowed infringers to use any photograph that could not be found in a registry, without obtaining permission from the photographer.
Even though the orphan works bill failed, the publicity surrounding that bill created a climate of fear – the perfect climate for the launch of an image registry -during a period when launching a stock agency is just about as smart as throwing money into a bonfire.
Preferring to avoid the bonfire, stockphotofinder.com, which is going nowhere, decided to launch a new stock agency brand, hiding it behind the facade of a “copyright registry.” They launched by labeling the orphan works bill as “the orphan works act,” which is the same as announcing to infringers that the orphan works bill had passed into law. (A “bill” is proposed law, an “act” is law).
In fact, c-registry launched by announcing to infringers that if they searched c-registry for a particular image and did not find that image, the image was an “orphan work,” and that under the “orphan works act,” the infringer could then use the image. To top that off, c-registry then offered to provide infringers with a certificate proving that the image was an orphan work.
As of this week, c-registry was still advising infringers that if they went ahead and used a photograph without permission from the photographer, they should be willing to act in good faith and pay the photographer a fair fee if the photographer ever discovered the infringement. C-registry was also telling infringers that if they used a photograph editorially without permission, they should indicate the location at which the source photograph can be found. That’s like feeding the digital file to millions of infringers on a silver spoon.
They’ve just changed the phrase “orphan work” to “work of unknown origin” under the guidance of asmp. Slick. But stupid and still harmful to photographers. They continue to offer certificates to infringers for any image that a photographer has not registered. This encouragement of infringement is unbelievable, and is apparently endorsed by ASMP, which has again endorsed c-registry this week as a “valuable” service to photographers.
C-registry also launched with a deceptive name “Copyright Registry.” Then they stepped WAY over the line by warning photographers repeatedly that photographers must “claim their copyright” by registering their copyright with c-registry. C’mon stockphotofinder , you’re smart enough to know that photographers own their copyright instantly upon creating an image, and don’t need to claim or register their copyright anywhere to receive broad protections under copyright law. Bonus protection can be purchased ONLY from the US copyright office, for the price of an official copyright registration. Very, very misleading marketing by c-registry, and it was no accident. Now with asmp’s guidance, c-registry has changed their ad slogan to “reclaim your copyright.” It’s a joke, and very unfunny.
C-registry’s ability to track your work is based on an idea that sounds great at first, but when applied in the real world is a failure. Their “technology” involves sticking a few specially colored pixels into the corner of a digital image, and then using those pixels to track usage of the image across the internet. Problem is – it doesn’t work, and they admit it. The pixels are wiped out whenever the file is altered or resaved.
But that’s not all. While image licensing was not mentioned anywhere on the c-registry site, the real story was buried deep in the fine print of their terms and conditions. The terms stated that c-registry had the right to license and negotiate license fees for any photograph, at the sole discretion of c-registry. Sound familiar? That’s because these very same terms are in every stock agency’s terms and conditions. Apparently ASMP didn’t bother to check out c-registry before sealing a deal to offer c-registry as a membership benefit, and recommending that all photographers register their images with c-registry. ASMP fell for c-registry’s scam, which was designed to trick trade associations into recommending c-registry to their members.
ASMP is the leading trade association for photographers and does a great job in general, but they blew this one, big time, and not only that, they tried to cover their tracks, didn’t admit their mistake, and then instead of backing out of their endorsement, they re-endorsed c-registry again this week. Like pouring salt into a wound. C’mon guys, its okay to change course when new info comes to light.
Once c-registry attracts enough registered users, you can bet that they will announce that they have a new feature. Can you guess what that feature will be?
Stock licensing.
That’s right. C-registry will announce to photographers that c-registry will handle licensing of images found by searches of the c-registry site, in exchange for a piece of the action. Sounds like: stock agency. The fact that c-registry doesn’t store images (they just store links to images), just means that photographers must bear the burden of the costs associated with storage of their images. Great, a stock agency has finally found yet another way to shift even more costs to the photographer.
C-registry has repeatedly refused to directly answer questions regarding their licensing plans, and tried to throw photographers, bloggers and associations off the scent by announcing that the registered images would not be included in stockphotofinder’s search engine, and that photographers images would not be licensed “by default.” ASMP took the bait,hook line and sinker, as did certain bloggers. Other orgs and bloggers persisted and c-registry now finds itself in a corner, forced to reveal its true colors.
There is nothing wrong with launching a stock agency or with offering to put buyers and sellers together. But it is very wrong to purposefully mislead and harm photographers and their trade associations by making false claims, hiding your true business behind a façade, and encouraging infringers to use photographer’s images if photographers decide against falling for your BS and don’t register with your stock agency.
C-registry – you can try to tap dance your way out of this one, but this community has been screwed many times before, we are under extreme duress as the result of the economy, declining image value, intense competition with each other and with stock agencies, and no matter what text you change on your site, we will not forget.
I’ve been informed that someone else has regularly commented on this blog under the name “A Photographer.” I apologize to that person for using his/her moniker in my post #10, above.
Hey Randy Tayor of c-registry —
Lots of information and misinformation about c-registry floating around. What is needed is a simple straightforward description of your offering, without the hyperbole and without the adjectives and claims, without explaining the why the service is needed, the benefits, or how you believe it will help. Just the indisputable facts as to the mechanics of your services and the steps involved.. I can’t find this concisely stated anywhere. I see that you started a blog but you and padding it with marketing fluff. Can we just get the plan and simple facts from you?
I’ll give it a shot, based on what I read on your site.
Please correct this and fill in the blanks, but avoid the temptation to add any claims or marketing text.
Photographer registers with c-registry and enters contact info. Photographer can verify identity using a paypal payment. Registration is free to members of certain trade associations.
Photographer places 3 specially colored pixels in the corner of each photograph. These pixels uniquely identify the rights holder for the image, not the image or any specific instance of an image. With 3 pixels, each with 256 possible combinations, there are 256*256*256 possible IDs, for a total of approximately 17 million different users, unless the brighter/more saturated pixels are omitted due to visibility in the image. Veripixels can be lost ore removed by cropping or by resaving a file with compression or by making any changes to the image that affect the pixels (color, density, contrast, resolution, size, filters, sharpening, etc)
Photographer submits URL for each image to c-registry. URLs can be on photographer’s site or on any site, and for one image or all images at the URL. Photographer can also add a bookmark to a webbrowser and use that bookmark to register all images at a particular URL.
c-registry does not fingerprint each image registered and does not search using image recognition at this time. This service is planned for a later date.
c-registry does not search for matching veripixels at this time, but this service is planned for a later date.
c-registry spiders each URL submitted by a photographer, looking for images that match theimage that was at the URL at the time that the photographer registered the URL. The “match” is accomplished by taking the sum of 0’s and 1’s of which every image file is comprised. A check sum. When c-registry finds an image file at registered URL, and when that image matches the checksum of an image registered at that URL, c-registry includes that occurrence in a report to the rightsholder.
In addition, c-registry spiders the web for image files existing at any URL, and then looks for matches to the checksums of registered images. This is not image recognition based upon fingerprints of feature points of the image.
Matching is accomplished by a checksum comparison. Any number of images may have the same checksum. Also, every copy of a particular image will have a different checksum, if the image was resaved as a jpeg or tiff or gif, or if the copy is altered in size, crop, compression color, or any other variation. Images will also have a different checksum if any metadata is edited or otherwise changed (such as a new modification date resulting from making a file copy). Only exact file copies are recognized by the c-registry process.
A person seeking to identify a rights holder can use a c-registry browser bookmark to submit a URL of the image to c-registry. C-registry will then calculate the checksum of that image file, and will determine if that checksum matches the checksum of any image registered with c-registry.
In any event, if the image submitted by the image user has been altered or resaved or is in any way exactly identical to the image file registered by the rights holder, c-registry cannot identify the match. The file must be an exact copy.
if a match is found, c-registry provides the rights holders’ information to the searcher.
If a match is not found, c-registry offers a certified report as evidence that the searcher searched for but did not find the rights holder.
In the event of a dispute, c-registry will validate that the report has not been modified, and will also provide a report detailing the dispute.
according to your posts elsewhere, I understand that you are unconditionally promising that:
neither c-registry nor stockphotofinder nor any other in which you are an owner will solicit photographers to license the registered images (those for which the photographer has registered a URL) on behalf of the photographer or in association with the photographer. C-registry will not be involved in image licensing in any way, whether retroactive or otherwise.
and that
c-registry will never take part in invoicing for usage discovered via c-registry, and will never ask photographers or infringers/image users for a fee or royalty resulting from the identification of an infringement or from the usage of any registered photograph
Is that right? Just a yes or a no would be great.
What other services are to be provided by c-registry now and in the coming months. Again, please answer concisely and without indicating benefits or making any other claims.
Again, I am asking you to correct the above. I am sure that I have some of it wrong.
Unbelievable. PDN just completely wiped the slate clean of the entire thread of 50+ comments and questions from the photo community on the C-Registry scam, and added a new post from C-Registry referring readers to the C-Registry Blog, and then closed the thread for comments.
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/03/apa-vs-asmp-smackdown-over-copyright-registry.html
Next we’ll see C-Registry ads in PDN, and we’ll know why PDN decided to censor the opinions of so many PDN readers. Or maybe ASMP pulled some strings over at PDN to get the unanswered questions removed from PDNPulse because ASMP has endorsed C-Registry.
What ever happened to integrity and neutrality in journalism. Shame on PDN.
Meanwhile I’d like to hear what Randy has to say about some of the unanswered questions about his registry plans. Randy I can understand why you want to sweep this all under the rug, but its not going to work. Makes you look like you have something to hide.
@Chris, Blogs have no liability what soever when it comes to responsibility. They love it when there is traffic coming their way to attract kudos and advertising, but as I have been reminded of recently, liability to being responsible to anyone is frictional at best and based on convenience to the blog operators. BTW, Great homework, reading pays off, sometimes. .
@Chris,
That is interesting because Randy has been sending me emails asking me to remove this post.
The bigger can of worms PDN just opened is that when you start editing the comments on a blog you are suddenly responsible for the content of the comments. If you just let them happen you are not. I wonder if they removed that greenberg thread as well because there’s plenty of actionable content in the comments of that one.
@Chris, you are wrong about PDN.
There were a total of four comments on PDNPulse. Now there are two. I deleted two anonymous attacks because I decided it was better to delete them than to give the person who they were attacking a venue to defend himself (ie., simple fairness). I almost never do that, but in this case it seemed the least of all bad options.
As for traffic, that impressions on that post have been absolutely anemic. It’s one of the lowest-performing stories on our site in the last two weeks. (Other posts in the last two weeks have done well.) That tells me it’s a hot topic for a small group of people, but not most PDN readers.
– Daryl Lang, PDN
More information is at:
http://c-registry-copyright-forum.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-to-photography-community_3409.html
(There seems to be a limit as to the quantity that can be included in one post. Hence, the following sequence of posts)
Much of the information posted above is not true. C-Registry is a free service created by photographers for photographers to help clients find copyright owners from their uncredited images online. The following Open Letter addresses this misinformation. (Thank you “Capture” for your suggestion). Accurate information is also available at:
C-Registry Blog:
http://c-registry-copyright-forum.blogspot.com
C-Registry FAQ:
http://c-registry.us/pages/index.php?pID=45
Open Letter to the Photography Community about C-Registry,
This open letter to photographers and the photography community
corrects misinformation in distribution about C-Registry and is
intended to foster public dialog about copyright.
C-Registry acknowledges that some wording was unfortunate in earlier
phases of our beta website. To clarify some points, we do not claim
the Orphan Works Act has become law. We don’t claim to be the first
registry, nor do we claim that we inform photographers of all
possible online uses of their creative works. We continue to improve
our terms and conditions as suggested by trade associations and
proponents of copyright in ways that further protect photographers.
(In referring to “photographers”, we include by inference the
broadest definition of other creator types since C-Registry also
applies to art, illustrations, music, video, mashups and other
creative works.)
The following clarifies the policies, intent and functionality of
C-Registry:
———- Background, Purpose and Vision of C-Registry ———-
C-Registry is an Internet-only service that is owned by
StockPhotoFinder.com, Inc.. C-Registry is a commercial service and
is not affiliated with the U.S. Copyright Office. For marketing
purposes, it uses the trademarks “The Copyright Registry”, “Lost and
Found” and “C-Tools”. Its beta website is located at
http://www.C-Registry.us.
C-Registry was created specifically to anticipate and address key
elements of the 2008 House of Representatives Bill HR5889 (known as
the “Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008”) and Senate Bill S2913
(which passed the Senate and is known as the ‘‘Orphan Works Act of
2008’’). These and other versions that were introduced in preceding
years are commonly known as the “Orphan Works Act”.
Registries have long existed in many forms. C-Registry differentiates itself with technology-driven solutions that address
the anticipated requirements of possible orphan works legislation in
various countries. C-Registry was created specifically to reduce the
risk to rightsholders of orphan works and related legislation.
The core services of C-Registry use existing and emerging copyright
laws to help find rightsholders from uncredited creative works
online, to provide licensing inquiries to rightsholders, and to
create revenue streams for rightsholders. C-Registry is not a stock
photo agency and will not become a stock photo agency. C-Registry
provides fee-based services described in this letter. For all
services, photographers may opt to participate or not at their
discretion.
———- Protections For Photographers ———-
In its technology, business model and Terms of Service, C-Registry
has built-in the following protections for photographers and for
copyright itself:
No Search Of Orphaned Works
C-Registry does not and will not enable search of “orphaned” works.
The starting point for using C-Registry is to first have the image
or to be at a website that has an image file (or other creative
work) for which a user or client wants to find or contact the
rightsholder who is likely unknown at that site.
Access, Not Use
In C-Registry, photographers are granting rights to access their
images in digital form via a web browser or similar, not for users
to use, modify or copy their images, except when applying a
copyright notice.
For more contract info, see “What rights do photographers grant C-Registry?” at:
http://c-registry-copyright-forum.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-rights-do-photographers-grant-c.html
and “Terms and Conditions” at:
http://www.c-registry.us/pages/index.php?pID=47
Functions Await Law
Some functions of C-Registry’s beta website that are designed to
adhere to requirements of the Orphan Works Act if it passes, such as
certain reports, are not available for public access until they are
needed by law.
No Uploads
By eliminating image uploads, C-Registry enables a scalable solution
that has no risk for photographers beyond what currently exists for
images that are already online.
———- Services and Fees ———-
C-Registry provides two core services for free:
1) Finding Photographers from their Images Online
C-Registry enables users to find and contact photographers from
copies of their images at any website, in any language, provided
that A) the image either contains appropriate IPTC/File Info OR the
rightsholder has registered that specific image in the C-Registry.us
database, and B) the website using the image is not hiding access to
files at that site.
2) Finding Online Uses of Images
C-Registry documents online image use, including the URL of the
website of use, the URL where the image is stored, and the date
range in which each image is discovered at those URLs.
Although core services are free, C-Registry charges or intends to
charge fees for the following optional services:
Photographer Verification & Bulk Functionality
For identity verification and upgraded services (such as bulk data
import, file locking for professional photographers and their
agents, and image recognition functions), there is a recurring,
annual fee of $25 that can be waived for members of trade
associations that support copyright.
Report Certification
For report tracking and verification (such as the date range of use
at a specific URL that might be used by a trademark attorney, or for
DMCA Take Down orders), we anticipate the fee will start at $30 per
report when this service becomes available.
Advertising
For site advertising (such as banner ads), these fees will be based
on market rates for equivalent advertising elsewhere.
Facilitation of Copyright Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office
For use of the streamlined process that facilitates registration of
images with the U.S. Copyright Office, fees will be determined upon
completion of that function.
Time Dedicated for Providing Testimony
For time dedicated to provide legal testimony (such as expert
witness in a court preceding as it relates to disputes within the
C-Registry database or reports), fees are variable.
For more info on fees, see “Where will the revenue come from?” at:
http://c-registry-copyright-forum.blogspot.com/2009/03/where-will-revenue-come-from.html
(part II)
———- Technology ———-
C-Registry uses the following methods for enabling users to identify
rightsholders from their images online, for identifying online
usages of registered works, and for enabling photographers to add
copyright notice to their photographs:
Finding Photographers from their Images Online
Each image online is the starting point for finding its owner, even
if the owner is unknown at that website. Any user or client can
click the C-Tools bookmark to find the owner of images on that page,
provided the rightsholder has claimed ownership to that image in the
C-Registry database. Every image on the Internet is instantly
associated with its owner if any copy has been claimed by the owner
in the C-Registry database. Photographers and their authorized agent
can be found from images at any website, in any language, assuming
that site is not blocking the technology. The ability to find owners
from images at any website does not depend on spidering, Veripixel
nor image recognition.
Finding Online Uses of Images
Images found by spidering or user actions are matched with the
unique ID of identical files found elsewhere. For each image,
photographers can view a list of URLs of known uses at other
websites. Unlike finding the photographer from the image which is
global and instantaneous, this free service requires an
ever-expanding database of file locations online.
New Copyright Notice – “Veripixel™”
C-Registry provides photographers a new form of copyright notice
called Veripixel™. This is similar to putting “© John Doe” into the
IPTC/File Info or affixing a text notice adjacent to an image,
except that this new form of copyright notice is visible in the
image itself. This can add a new layer of defense for photographers
since it can be a violation of copyright law to remove a copyright
notice. This copyright notice is discrete, appearing as a series of
colored pixels in a predictable location (the upper left corner).
Each copyright notice is derived from a unique ID for that image,
which can be almost limitless (16 million to the sixth power).
Veripixel™ is optional and is not required for successful
functioning of any aspect of C-Registry.
PLUS Compliance
C-Registry will be PLUS Compliant and will work closely with PLUS to
build on its pre-existing relationship. (StockPhotoFinder invented
the numbering system for and orchestrated assembly of the PLUS Media
Summary Code.)
Image Links to U.S. Copyright Registration
Photographers can optionally enter their official U.S. Copyright
Registration Number, which enables users and clients to see both the
image and the text record at the U.S. Copyright Office website
side-by-side.
Ecommerce Link
Photographers and their agents can optionally enter a URL link to
any website or ecommerce process of their choosing to facilitate
direct licensing on a per image basis. (ie, PhotoShelter,
GettyImages, Alamy, a personal website, etc.)
Exact Match
C-Registry uses exact match to connect images and their owners.
Exact match is essential since some aspects of copyright ownership
claims and image use will need to be verifiable in a court of law.
For more tech info, see “How does the technology spider and track infringing images on the web?” at:
http://c-registry-copyright-forum.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-does-technology-spider-and-track.html
Image Recognition
Whereas exact match is required for legal reasons, image recognition
is provided by C-Registry as a nice convenience for photographers.
Image Recognition is not necessary for successful functioning of
C-Registry’s core services.
IPTC
If a photographer has populated the IPTC/File Info of their image,
that copyright information will be automatically extracted from the
file and displayed whether or not the image has been claimed in the
C-Registry database. IPTC is not required for successful functioning
of any aspect of C-Registry.
Retrospective Knowledge
Because all users are registered and all actions are tracked, when a
photographer reclaims an image in the C-Registry database, they gain
access to view past inquiries by users about that image that
occurred before the owner was known.
(part III)
———- Policies of C-Registry ———-
It is the policy of C-Registry that:
C-Registry Does Not Encourage Infringement.
C-Registry does not and will not encourage, support nor in any way
condone copyright infringement. The http://www.C-Registry.us website
clearly states, “Prior to using any and all images or other content
whose ownership is checked in C-Registry, users must have a license
for use from the rightsholder(s). C-Registry is not a licensing
agency. Only the rightsholder or their appointed agent can issue a
license for use of their creative works. Failure to obtain
authorization from the appropriate rightsholder prior to use could
be a copyright infringement that could be subject to statutory
damages.”
C-Registry Grants No Rights via Reports
C-Registry does not sell any right to publish images via its
reporting process. The http://www.C-Registry.us website clearly states,
“C-Registry Reports do not grant any rights of any kind to users or
recipients. They state the status of information available in the
C-Registry database at that moment in time in a way that each report
is verifiable and trackable.”
Reports Required by Law Will Not Be Available until that Law Passes
Only if the Orphan Works Act passes, and if that law requires
registries, and if it requires a report of a “reasonable” search,
only then will C-Registry make that report available to fulfill the
requirements of that law. Until the Orphan Works Act passes,
C-Registry will not make available any services that were created
for the sole purposes of addressing that law.
Finding Photographers from Images Online is a Free Service
C-Registry does not charge and will not charge for users and clients
to find photographers from their images online. Users will not be
required to pay to access the name and contact information of the
rightsholder of images. And, photographers will not be required to
pay to include the URLs to their images in the C-Registry database,
nor to receive sales leads from potential clients who inquire about
their images.
Photographers Retain 100% of Revenues They Invoice
Photographers may directly invoice users and clients based on
information they discover in C-Registry and retain 100% of the
resulting revenues they receive. C-Registry does not require fees
for invoices by photographers.
Privacy Rights of Photographers Are Protected
C-Registry does not sell or abuse the private information of
photographers or other users. Photographers can opt to not display
their contact information and to block being contacted via
C-Registry by entities they specify. C-Registry provides an option
for double-blind communication to protect privacy if desired.
For full details, read the C-Registry Privacy Policy at:
http://www.c-registry.us/pages/index.php?pID=46
The preceding reconfirms substantially all of the policies, intent
and practical application of http://www.C-Registry.us. We welcome all
suggestions that would benefit photographers and nurture copyright
protection.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Randy Taylor
StockPhotoFinder.com, Inc.
http://www.C-Registry.us is a service of StockPhotoFinder.com, Inc.
http://www.RandyTaylor.com
Part III, last part, is not being accepted for some reason.
So where it to find?,
Comments are closed for this article!