Why don't you vent your anger towards the United States Copyright office?
I did not write the statement, they did.
The work MUST be registered in order for the plaintiff to succeed in
infringement.
That is what registration gives you. LEGAL authority.
Not actually - you are interpreting the law broadly or just trying to
see what you want to see:
"THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF COPYRIGHTS:
1. UNREGISTERED COPYRIGHTS: This is copyright protection at its most
basic level. Upon creation and fixation, a valid copyright exists -
your rights are created the moment your pen leaves the paper, the
camera is clicked, etc. However, only minimal protections exist for
unregistered copyrights. You can only sue infringers for your actual
damages, such as the amount of the infringer's profits or the value of
your loss by not being able to sell or license the protected work
yourself. "
http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/artsaction/copyright.htm
The above means that Duende cannot sue you for the maximum amount of
$150,000 for the image.
Then there is this to consider:
"III. Copyright
A. Registration as Jurisdictional Requirement and Limitation on
Available Remedies
1. Jurisdictional Requirement -- Section 411 of the Copyright Act
probhibits, under certain circumstances, commencement of a copyright
infringement action unless the copyright at issue has been registered
with the Copyright Office.
a. Exceptions: Non-"United States" works and "works
consisting of sounds, images, or both . . . ." "
Page 15 from
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...right+infringement+cases"++unregistered&hl=en
Page 17 shares the range of statutory claims where $150,000 for
infringment is applicable for Willful Infringement ... around $200 to
$30,000 per infringment for Knowing Infringement.
I doubt, with you stating publically more than once where and how you
got the image and the subsequent threads you have created on the topic
that you could try to plea Innocent Infringment thoughts. However, if
you have had the image on two sites - the GeoCities one and the
BatCave one - then that could be viewed as two infringments versus
just one so the monetary amount could be doubled in what you could be
fined.
Then there is Section F about Punitive Damages where a case is cited
about the defendent citing infringment that did not fall under
statutory damages but was able to go after punitive damages based on
"malice and ill will" thoughts. I am not a lawyer, then again -
neither are you, but your posts toward Duende could probably show
"malice and ill will" existing on your side of the coin in this issue?
This is if a person goes the above route with the older copyright
laws. The DMCA has introduced some new thoughts that apply, but not
limited to, digital thoughts and does not, you will love this Richard,
require registration that you love to cite being part of the thoughts
for legally seeking damages to the fullest extent that the law allows:
From page 27:
"8. Registration Requirement for DMCA Claims
a. The statute is silent on the issue of whether the
registration requirement under Section 411(a) applies to claims under
the DMCA.
b. Limited authority does suggest, however, that Section 411(a) is
inapplicable to claims under Sections 1201 and 1202. "
There are various other links using the search phrase of 'images
+"copyright infringement cases" +unregistered' that I used just to
scratch the surface a little bit.
[snip]
Duende is a coward. Pure and simple. He made the threat, let him speak for
himself.
He made NO threat; he did what is recommended to be done in instances
like this - he asked you to take the image down. You have been the one
taunting him [and others] and misinterpreting copyright laws.
Hopefully the above will help illustrate only *part* of the reasons
why people have informing you that your interps of the laws, shared
here, were not wholly accurate or terribly flawed in how you tried to
interprete them.
Carol