Multiple Works of Art Registered As a Collection on One CD

[drcarl]

Greetings,

I have an NDN friend who will soon be distributing his native art. He's still figuring out his game plan for selling (a) original paintings/drawings (b) limited edition photographic reproductions and (c) unlimited numbers of photographic reproductions. He is an older man (an "Elder") and there is a great deal of cultural and spiritual history depicted. I have many questions about this, yet...well...here's my question:

A man paints 100 paintings, takes them to a photographer friend (me) who photographs all of them and makes subsequent "tweaks" so that they will be most attractive and reproduce well on photographic prints. The artist is interested in copyright protection and therefore registration. In order to have one registration fee instead of 100, and have each of the 100 paintings/drawings be more fully protected by registration, can one CD or DVD of all of the images be submitted for registration by giving the <Title of the Collection> as the "Title of the Work Being Registered," and list the <Name of Each Painting> as "Contents Titles" on the application for registration?

TIA

~drcarl

[flyingron]

First off, he's got copyright protection as soon as the works are created. REGISTRATION gives you some additional features.

He may have issues with this however. If the works were ever disseminated to the public as individual works, then they can't be registered in a collection. Here's the operative text from the law (you should definitely by the way read Copyright Circular 1 before you even think about doing registration yourself):

Under the following conditions, a work may be registered in unpublished form as a “collection,” with one application form and one fee:
• The elements of the collection are assembled in an orderly form;
• The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole;
• The copyright claimant in all the elements and in the collection as a whole is the same; and
• All the elements are by the same author,

[drcarl]

...If the works were ever disseminated to the public as individual works, then they can't be registered in a collection. Here's the operative text from the law (you should definitely by the way read Copyright Circular 1 before you even think about doing registration yourself):
Under the following conditions, a work may be registered in unpublished form as a “collection,” with one application form and one fee:
• The elements of the collection are assembled in an orderly form;
• The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole;
• The copyright claimant in all the elements and in the collection as a whole is the same; and
• All the elements are by the same author,

I suppose I should have mentioned the "additional" protection of registration since we know copyright actually exists on creation of the work.


Further, the works have never been disseminated, they are all of an orderly form as they represent the spiritual and cultural history of his tribe and even have a story, the collection can easily bear a single title (kinda like my original post), and the claimant and author are the same man.


Seems to me that since this family is prolific, as long as the guidelines above are followed, and perhaps even a (C) displayed with their works as a reminder, that his 100 piece collection would qualify, and that future "collections" would too, as long as each collection were to be registered to one individual artist and before dissemination.


I'll read Circular 1, too (unless I have already)


Thank you for your reflections


~drcarl

[flyingron]

First off (C) does not now have, nor has it never had any meaning with respect to copyright. With the adoption of the Berne convention in 1989 (for the US, the rest of the world had sanity earlier), there's no obligation to mark things to assert copyright. Even pre-berne in the US, either you right out the word COPYRIGHT or you use the proper typographical copyright symbol ©

[drcarl]

Well, excuse the cr*p outta me me for abbreviating for © with a (c).

Have you anything substantive and non-condescending to say? You have a bad day or something? Have you lost all sense of charitableness, patience and class?

I have your "first off," -where's the second off [secondly]? Anything relevant?

{checked your profile and see that "flyingron has not made any friends yet." I wonder why; not!}

PS - If you actually read what I wrote, you might understand that I understand that there is no obligation to mark anything to assert copyright. We're talking REGISTRATION <-- for its additional weight, should the copyright holder be forced to pursue legal options. When I so flagrantly abused my keyboard with a (C), in case you have difficulty intuiting it, I was thinking of its use "as a reminder" which are three words I ~copied~ from a government circular. I wonder if they'll sue me - LOL!

[flyingron]

Fine. You're an expert. If you don't want the CORRECT information that (C) is not a valid "abbreviation" as far as the LAW goes, fine. How am I supposed to differentiate your sloppiness in describing the problem versus your overall ignorance of copyright law?

And being a jerk in response to help, isn't likely to get the other board members to jump up and subject themselves to further abuse.

(And the reason there are no "friends" in my profile is because I never answer PM's and Friend Requests. This ain't Facebook. I could not care less if people "friend" me.

[drcarl]

However deserved the intended "abuse," I must admit that it's my bad for being at all rude. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'll admit that as I age, I find it more and more difficult to tolerate and to be at all enabling when I detect condescending attitudes. Perhaps I am growing into being a bitter old man. For any lack of class on my part, I apologize.

Now, let's split some hairs...*smiles*

Fine. You're an expert.

Never claimed that I am at all an expert. That is your incorrect conclusion. The fact that I am even here proves that. I post making the assumption that a kind and real expert will come along with direction, information, and to shoot holes in whatever I present....just like you did ©ome to think of it. Thanks.

If you don't want the CORRECT information that (C) is not a valid "abbreviation" as far as the LAW goes, fine.

Again, another poor assumption on your part. I love correct information. In fact, I am perhaps sometimes too literal, and other times too vague. Fas©inating that "(C)" does not satisfy the letter of the law. Using (C) instead of © was just pure laziness on my part, though, now, I'll be sure to understand and remember the profound difference. Thanks!

How am I supposed to differentiate your sloppiness in describing the problem versus your overall ignorance of copyright law?

Well, besides your being mixed-up *logically [or is it logically*?] on two separate issues (sloppiness and ignorance) I'd start by re-reading my carefully formed question; perhaps at a slower pace? Then, if you are still in doubt, you might consider using the secret communication code that we humans have developed: I call it the English language! [insert laugh track] Specifically, your differentiation could be accomplished with a question or two.

I am asking about multiple works qualifying for single registration, not the ©. I do appreciate your pointing-out that careless misuse of text (C) instead of the symbol © is unacceptable and can leave the user more vulnerable to awful bad things.

And being a jerk in response to help, isn't likely to get the other board members to jump up and subject themselves to further abuse.

Again, a poor assumption on your part. This also reflects a sort of holier-than-thou and condescending attitude. Perhaps I'm reading this all wrong and you are just joking? Differentiating between being a jerk and acting like a jerk may be important, especially for parents who are tempted to scold their young. "You are a bad boy!" is entirely different animal from "You've done a bad thing!" -ya think? I digress...

(And the reason there are no "friends" in my profile is because I never answer PM's and Friend Requests. This ain't Facebook. I could not care less if people "friend" me.

Definitely my bad. I apologize for using that information as a poor excuse to mimic your childishness, er, non-charitableness? myself. That people do or don't "friend" you is, in fact, entirely irrelevant. Sorry.

For that which was classless and rude? Sorry. (<--my admission of guilt)
For that which can be learned from? Thank you, and you're welcome.

Have a great day!

~drcarl


Fascinating site on > logic < Yet, if we learn all of this we'd have nobody to talk to!