US Copyright Reform for Photographers and Artists – Add Your Voice

Posted Jul. 3rd, 2015 by Daniel J. Cox

US Copyright reform for photographers and artists is on the table and the American Society of Media Professionals is leading the charge. I recently added my voice to this debate and you can do the same. It doesn’t matter whether you are a some-time photographer, full-time photographer, or artist of any kind. You can make a difference by adding your voice.

Photo: Courtesy of Marco Scozzaro/Frieze

Photo: Courtesy of Marco Scozzaro/Frieze. $90,000 per image of photos that were created by someone else.

And why should you? Well, take for example the thief who calls himself an artist in the following article by Money magazine, Richard Prince, who grabbed a bunch of Instagram photos, printed large copies of them and put them up for sale at the Frieze Art Fair in New York — as if they were his own. Not only did he steal the images of dozens of Instagram users, but he sold the images for $90,000  per image and all but one of them sold. I can’t find information on how many were offered, but the image above shows five images and I’ve heard there were as many as 30 images.

You can have a say on this sort of blatant rip off. The following is text from ASMP, a great organization I’ve belonged to since the early 80’s.

Call to Action: U.S. Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry

On April 24, 2015 the U.S. Copyright Office issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to review “how certain visual works, particularly photographs, graphic artworks, and illustrations are monetized, enforced and registered under the Copyright Act.” ASMP seeks relevant comments, experiences and stories to consider as we work with coalition members to draft a compr ehensive response. Please review our update on the NOI, then send your thoughts to ASMP Copyright Reform no later than Sunday, July 5, 2015.

The following is an email I sent ASMP to voice my concerns.

Dear ASMP Copyright Reform,

The number one change we desperately need as photographers is a change in the copyright registration process requiring an artists or photographer to list all works as either “Published” or “Unpublished”.

I’ve lost more than one substantial court case where large publishers used my photographs, that were “Registered” but  mistakenly registered as “Unpublished”. They were registered as “Unpublished” due to the vague and confusing language the US Copyright office has had since I began registering my work in the mid 90’s.

Quite frankly, I don’t understand why there is ANY distinction between “Published” and “Unpublished” in the first place. If I own the image and I make the effort to Register that image, I should have all powers of the US copyright law on my side to protect my work. As it stands, multinational, textbook and editorial publishers have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars in publishing fees from me due to a technicality in the US copyright law regarding whether an image is “Published” or “Unpublished”.

Please remove all language from the registration process that requires the distinction between “Published” and “Unpublished” materials. Thank you.

Respectfully, Daniel J. Cox

Please! Take a stand for all artists and voice your concerns with ASMP today. My email above describes the most pressing issue with copyright law as it currently stands. Feel free to take my language verbatim. Just make sure you do something and if you need my text, it’s yours to use. Do all the cutting and pasting you want. There is serious chance for major copyright reform, but it will pass us by if we don’t speak out. You can rest assured there are many, like the publishers I mention in my email to ASMP, that will have their high-powered, high-cost lawyers on the job to make sure nothing changes.

Add Your Voice!
There are 54 comments on this post…
  1. Colin AngusOn Jul. 13th, 2015

    I live in the UK where the law says that anything one can produce themselves is there copyright. I try to always fill in the Exif data and watermark my work when it’s going online and never put big images up. But here in the UK I have still had images taken.

    • Ron PlattOn Aug. 25th, 2015

      I, too, live in the UK and have not yet published any of my images. If I were to publish any, the images I would publish would be the images that I prefer to delete. I think that camera manufacturers should take the initiative and include in their camera’s software that, by default, requires the registered (via warranty) owner’s name to be embedded on each image, with the copyright statement. There is watermarking software around that claims to have built-in tracking. Digimarc comes to mind:

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Aug. 25th, 2015

      Interesting idea Ron. Thanks for adding your voice and the link to digimarc.

  2. Nadine KOn Jul. 11th, 2015

    There shouldn’t be any confusion about this …….the one who has created it should own it whether it is published or unpublished. No questions, no confusion. Otherwise, it is outright theft!

  3. Brian OevermannOn Jul. 10th, 2015

    I, too, agree that the designation of “Published” or “Unpublished” should make no difference in US Copyright law. I created the work, so I alone should determine who gets to use it and how it is used. This Instagram thief is claiming his art is a derivative work because he made a comment about the photo, then took a screen shot of the photo with his comment visible. That this constitutes a “new work” is a stretch by most imaginations. At the very least, a person intending to use an existing work in ANY way should, by law, get the copyright holder’s permission–regardless of formal registration status. The critics of this idea will say that it is too difficult to find the original artist if they have not registered the art, but in this day and age of the internet it is easier to locate the artist than ever before. And websites, as a rule, should not be stripping the metadata from images that are posted! I believe Facebook does this–or at one time that was the case.

    Then we have the issue of education. Internet users–particularly those that have grown up with the internet and know of no other time without it–have come to believe that anything on the internet is free and in the public domain. As students they are allowed to use just about anything without penalty (educational materials “exemption” in the Copyright law) but do not seem to be taught that all other uses have restrictions on use.

    Daniel, I’d like to know more about the technicality between “published” and “unpublished” in your case. I register ALL of my images, even those that will likely never be seen by anyone but myself, before I ever put something up on my website. Except for a brief period before I got wise about registration (those photos are registered separately as “published”), all of my photos are registered as “unpublished” because my understanding is that once registered, all derivative works are covered. So, all of my registered unpublished works are typically before I do any post-processing beyond initial culling and keywording. Your mention of a technicality in the definition of published and unpublished has my skin crawling!

  4. Bruce FinocchioOn Jul. 8th, 2015

    Hi all,

    I agree with most everything that has been stated in this comment string. If you created something, a picture, a painting, or photograph you own the copyright for that creation. And as creator, you and only you should be able to give any rights away. I believe that the US system of copyright laws, should mirror France ‘s system as stated by an earlier commenter.

    This so called photographer printing and selling other people’s Instagram photos, should be arrested and put in jail.

    I have google searched my name and there are at least five instances where someone is using on of my images without my permission that I know of. I found them because I have used metadata and I watermark all my images that I posted on social media.

    The law should be clear, and I agree this published and unpublished copyright registration distinction should be removed from the current law. The burden of proof should be with the user of images; they need to clearly be able to demonstrate that they have obtained the rights from the creator. If not they they are breaking the law, and are liable for damages including punitive damages.

    Please ASMP get the law changed! Creators and artist will be in your debt.

  5. Paul ConradOn Jul. 8th, 2015

    Having images stolen multiple time, I think it’s time our Congress should begin to protect those that create the art. Be it photos, designs, painting, sculptures, or whatever, having our work stolen makes artists angry and left with a sense of despair. There is no recourse other than time consuming DCMA notices and hiring attorneys which become more expensive than what you would have been paid had the thieves been honest.

    Taking photos from a website is akin to me “borrowing” my neighbor’s weed-eater from his shed, using it to beautify my yard, then storing it in my garage, only to return it when he challenges me on it and wants to charge me a usage fee. I scoff at him on the usage fee although I used it to make my yard better.

    Copyright Law needs to be updated to ensure there are big penalties for image theft and any legal action is paid for by the thieves.

  6. Allen MartinOn Jul. 7th, 2015

    The laws SERIOUSLY need revamped and most of all, they need to be made easier to enforce without having to go get a lawyer in smaller cases. When someone such as myself posts an image to social media to gain exposure and then 20 people “lift” that image and post it directly all over the web with no direct links or any association with the source they stole it from, it forces us to compete for views against our own work, leaving countless potential clients unable to find the real creator to purchase a print from. Often many assume it’s free under creative commons licensing simply because it’s all over the web, and from there it only gets worse! We need a way to demand (and GET) going rate compensation from everyone who wrongfully uses our intellectual property in small claims court even if they themselves do not profit, because they are preventing US from profiting! More so, those who use our work FOR PROFIT, such as this idiot selling images he had nothing to do with the creation of, or even those using our work for potential profit through advertising without compensating us for use of our work in doing so, such as local bands, those who violate model agreements and display altered versions of our work that makes us look bad, etc. There are just a million ways people can burn artists and photographers these days, and it requires way too much investment to go after them! When only the “rich and successful” artists and photographers can afford to protect their work, the protections supposedly offered by copyright law is meaningless to the rest of us.

  7. Jorge RamirezOn Jul. 6th, 2015

    This needs to move forward!
    I just learned the hard way!!

  8. Marc ThomasOn Jul. 5th, 2015

    Change the corywright proceedure

  9. Bibhash ChaudhuriOn Jul. 5th, 2015

    Yes the laws do have to change. I have been fighting copyright infrigement of my photos stolen from Instagram, Flickr, and even Facebook. It’s a uphill battle, but I sure hope with the laws changing, some might take notice of what photographers/artist deal with trying to maintain their intellectual/creative property!

    Thank you for taking up this fight!

  10. Rebecca PoirierOn Jul. 5th, 2015

    I am an amateur photographer. I was astonished at the gall of the man that got away with stealing..stealing images from people via Instagram and that fellow that window shopped , peeping tom, people’s privacy and published those photos and got away with it. I would like to see photographers work protected..and also people who have had their privacy and the feeling of safety of their homes taken from them. it is definetly time to revise the laws.

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 5th, 2015

      Rebecca, thanks for adding you voice. By the way, are you from Duluth, Mn. Saw your email. I grew up in Duluth.

  11. Douglas GrahamOn Jul. 5th, 2015

    It is simply copyright violation. I suspect that thieves get by with it because it is difficult to enforce. So is plagerism but those people get caught.

  12. Jess AlfordOn Jul. 5th, 2015

    Let’s deal with this important problem.

  13. Mel EppsOn Jul. 5th, 2015

    I feel that the digital explodsion has hurt the working photographers and something should be done to help stop the copyright infringements. I hope that we can collectively voice our opinion and be heard.

  14. Jeffrey JacobsOn Jul. 5th, 2015

    I agree there needs to be changes to the registration process and eliminating the distinction between Published and Unpublished will certainly help. However, the fact that so many people do Not understand (or pretend not to) that the copyright laws apply to EVERYONE, is an issue that simply changing the law will not help. I hope that along with the new copyright laws there will be a public awareness campaign to inform the public that copyright theft is a crime.

  15. Elizabeth SiegfriedOn Jul. 5th, 2015

    I am a US and Canadian citizen living in Canada so theoretically my images are all copyrighted by the simple fact that I took them. I believe that this is good practice and removes any vague or confusing aspects from the copyright law. Nevertheless, I spend a great deal of time in the US and am concerned about the US copyright law, particularly in view of the latest debacle of Richard Prince. It’s horrifying that he was able to do what he did and profit from it. The copyright law needs to be changed.
    I sent my thoughts to ASMP. I hope it will help the cause.

  16. Janice DevosOn Jul. 5th, 2015

    I’m amateur photographer. A few years back I was asked to take sports photos of a High School football game, which I did. Long story short most of my frames where lifted. I have since found I prefer to take wildlife and landscape pictures and have been told they are very nice and I should consider selling them. I would love too, but I think back on how my work was stolen from me.

    This is my work; I own them whether they are published or unpublished. I took the time, I spend the initial money for the equipment, and I’m the one who should have final say. Not a thief who has no regards for another’s efforts.

    Remove the language of “published and unpublished” the only person who should have the final say is the artist.

    Thank you
    Janice Devos

  17. Barry WhyteOn Jul. 5th, 2015

    copyright protection is absolutely essential and it has to be set in law

  18. Philippe RicordelOn Jul. 4th, 2015


    I am quite far from the US law as a French guy with an enforcement of copyright law which very different from the US one or even the Canadian one at it is mentioned here above.
    Copyright law in europe, not only France, is very clear and can be summarized by “you create it , you own it”, above that you have a specific protection in France which the “droit d’auteur”, this a special chater for all the artistic creation, is going from the music, to the photos passing by the sculpture, painting and so on. This means that above you right on the image, you have still a right on the usage of the image even if you have sold it. This means, you can oppose to the usage of your image in situation your against, lets say image used for advertising something you are against, but you will need to prove in this later case you did sell the image which such restrictions of usage.
    Anyway, the copyright law protect you against any usage of your work, the people using it have to prove they have your agreement or they have bought from an agency which has the right to sell such image. This is not the author to prove this is the user and that change everything. But there is still some holes into the current law anyway, for example if someone is taking one of my photo on FB, print it and keep it at home, fisrt it is hard to know about it, second like the law will consider I put the image in a public place “place publique” in French (meaning anyone can have access to it), the people can then use the image for their private usage, like printing and put at home, the same for the music and others I did mentioned. But in any cases the same person can distribute, nor sell or use publicly such image, music and so on.
    I do not know if that could help, but as Lafayette did come some time ago, and the replica of the Hermione did yesterday the parade for the 4th of July in New York, I think the copyright law from Europe / France can may be inspiring here.
    Thank you for bringing our attention on this important matter.

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 4th, 2015

      Philippe, what great information! So kind of you to explain your copyright law in France. It really does seem the rest of the world is much more in favor of protecting the rights of creators. So inspiring to have so many great comments from others outside the US. This will be great information for ASMP to use to help bolster the laws here in the states. Thanks so much for taking the time to write such a great comment.

  19. Diane GrenierOn Jul. 4th, 2015

    I am Canadian and we have the right “now” here in Canada to retain our own copyright, if we took the image, automatic copyright…it is automatically protected by law…you cannot use-it. If we painted that picture/work wrote that song/took that photo, its yours. Perhaps this is something you, as US citizens & artists, would look into putting into law.

    Diane Grenier

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 4th, 2015

      Diane, you are the second Canadian that’s responded and mentioned your Canadian copyright law. Congratulations! My wife is from Canada and she and I often talk about how many positive things there are about the Canadian system. Leave it up to the United States to brag about how entrepreneurial we all are then leave those creative thinkers and entrepanerus out in the cold where their works can been stolen without compensation. I’ve been registering my work with the US Copyright office since 1996. Yet, even with Registrations that I made mistakes on regarding the Published or Unpublished destination, I’ve been robbed time and time again. Just another loope hole for huge publishing houses to take advantage of.

  20. Joanne DuijnsOn Jul. 4th, 2015

    I also have learned my lesson in the past, seeing many a slice of my work, or photo’s used by webdevelopers who copy and past perhaps with some small ajustments, … cutting out the designer. And that hurts.
    I now make a balance as in, … I’ve used the photo often, … I do alot of flowers on the social medias-less interesting and don’t profile my better work, …like the pretty picture thing, or put a ‘off’ bit and to much noise in a ‘pretty picture’ compilage, and last but not least put my dog in the picture 🙂
    I may be nobody special, but seeing your own work being used without a reference or a pay is frustrating.
    Thanks, good conversation.

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 4th, 2015

      Joanne, nobody is a “Nobody”. No matter what stage you are in as an artist of any kind, you deserve to protect your work. If it’s used you deserve fair and reasonable compensation. That’s what the copyright laws are supposed to do. Don’t ever look down on yourself or your work. If it’s important to you it’s important enough to protect. Thanks for adding your voice.

  21. DougOn Jul. 4th, 2015

    I am Canadian and we have the right “now” too retain our own copyright, if we took the image, automatic copyright
    you cannot use-it.If we painted that picture/work wrote that song, its yours, yes, we are lucky in many ways in Canada.
    Happy 4th of July to our neighbors from the SOUTH-Canada Day is July 1st here.

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 4th, 2015

      Doug, we have the same but there is no teeth in the law unless we register the image. Do you Canadians have to Register your images to go after profits or punitive damages and attorneys fees? By the way, I’m in Canada a lot and I married one of your country ladies. Tanya is from Churchill, Manitoba.

  22. Laurie BurnsOn Jul. 4th, 2015

    Although I’m just amateur photographer, nowadays I have no choice but to register my photos. That being said, I consider the U.S. Copyright requirement regarding whether my works are “published” or “unpublished” to be the equivalent of fuzzy math – makes no sense, it’s completely irrelevant!

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 5th, 2015

      Good for you for Registering your pictures Laurie. I agree completely with your fuzzy math logic. Thanks for adding your voice.

  23. Lin TeichmanOn Jul. 4th, 2015

    How could the copyright laws have become so convoluted? If an artist creates an image, the copyright should be automatic and belong to the creator. Any use of an image without permission or compensation is an infringement of the artist’s rights.

    Dear ASMP,
    Please change the copyright laws to reflect common sense of ownership of rights to an image created by an artist. Language such as “published” and “unpublished” have no place in this law. Keep it simple, clear and fair, please.

    Lin Teichman

  24. Chris CraffordOn Jul. 4th, 2015

    There should not be any language regarding “published” or “unpublished” in copyright registration. I created it, I own it-published or not!

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 4th, 2015

      Thanks Chris. I appreciate you adding your insight and the fact you uploaded a bio photo. Love to see those that stop by to join the conversation.

  25. Paul J. HughesOn Jul. 4th, 2015

    Just as the above “Prince” article states:

    “You forfeit certain rights by using a social media network. And once your photos are out in public, they’re out of your hands forever.”

    I am a wedding-event photographer by trade, and if you think those images can’t be abused in the digital domain, listen to this: Just days ago I was on a client’s web site and found a link to a large event that I shot last year. That link went to a purchase gallery. There they were, all of my images that were shot over four days. The CD’s I released to the client had strict copyright notices on them. The client is attempting to make their money back by selling images to the individuals in the shots even though the client knows I have the web mechanism to do the same thing.

    I have had friends tell me I should be much more Social Media savvy. I have even had fellow photographers say that by adding images to Instagram and Facebook I’ll get more business; that those images are too small to have any significant theft and that I’ll be left behind as an artist unless I follow the crowd. Has anyone ever heard of software called BLOWUP and others that enlarge small dpi images? As the above article quote says, once it’s out there….you have released it into the free usage world. By the way, I copied and pasted the quote from the original story (ahem!!). How easily we forget while in the rote mindset of digital creation.

    A friend told me she really loved a shot of a waterfall on my (previous) web site so “I copied it and printed it for my office wall.” My comment was that she could have asked me and I would have given her a print.

    The public will eat free food when it is placed in front of them. The same problem has plagued the music industry for years. I have musician friends who have been through a similar struggle. Music has been stolen from multiple web sites until the courts slapped rigorous fines on individuals. However, we as photographers have a continuing battle on our hands.

    I guess the answer is a watermark. If the shot is worthy of being stolen, we should be using image and metadata watermarks. My only defense is the ownership and retention of the original RAW image & metadata as proof that it came from one of the serial numbers of the body it was shot from. Published/Unpublished? No, I own the original and that’s all that should matter.


    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 4th, 2015

      Paul, I too refuse to do the Instagram or Facebook thing. I do use Facebook but post only people photos and I watermark all my work that’s posted to my web site. Individuals stealing your work is one thing but we need a change for even the big guys. As I mention in my letter, myself and a colleague both lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in publishing fees from several large New York based publishers, all of them household names, that used our images over and over again without payment. We lost the court case due to confusion over the terms Published or Unpublished in the registration process yet we had registered every single image. In the end it didn’t help because of the immense confusion over Published and Unpublished and how even the copyright office interprets them. We need to change the language and remove any reference to Published or Unpublished. If the photo is mine I’ve REGISTERED it. I should be protected. Period.

  26. David GaronOn Jul. 4th, 2015

    As a commercial artist, photographer and composer, of over 40 years, I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve seen my works blatantly stolen, completely unmodified. It seems there are an incredible number of unscrupulous “artists” who seem to subscribe to Picasso’s saying, “Good artists copy; great artists steal”. Such arrogance. Surely everyone is influenced by those who preceded us, but influence and theft are worlds apart. Just as some cannot connect to Picasso’ work, I doubt any true artist would connect with his quote!

    In my life, I have worked too long and too hard to pursue any copyright infringements. I’ve never believed the other meme that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”.

    In the last 20+ years all my work has been done digitally, so I have all the original captures of images, and all of the iterations of my art and music that lead to the final product. It’s my understanding that makes my work automatically copyrighted. Nevertheless, we need a well-defined means of pursuing those who infringe on our work – one that doesn’t involve mediation or going to court. When the theft is so obvious, there should be a simple form of arbitration that settles the issue.

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 4th, 2015

      David, thanks for the great input and for stopping by to add your voice. Greatly appreciated.

  27. lee putnamOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

    I Think if I took the photograph it belongs to me. I’m the one and only one that captured that moment in time in my Camera. NO one else has any right to sell it or do anything with it.

  28. Richy NormanOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

    For someone to print other people’s images and sell them off as their own is disgusting.They are a thief and it’s as simple as that. The people that purchased those works should be reimbursed .If you take the shot it’s yours even if it is shared publicly.I hope there are strict laws made so that credit can be given to the correct artist and lowlifes that flog other peoples work can be held accountable.

  29. Craig FrankOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

    Dear ASMP Copyright Reform,

    The number one change we desperately need as photographers is a change in the copyright registration process requiring an artists or photographer to list all works as either “Published” or “Unpublished”.

    Quite frankly, I don’t understand why there is ANY distinction between “Published” and “Unpublished” in the first place. If I own the image and I make the effort to Register that image, I should have all powers of the US copyright law on my side to protect my work. As it stands, multinational, textbook and editorial publishers recently stole hundreds of thousands of dollars in publishing fees from me and my colleague due to a technicality in the US copyright law regarding whether an image is Published or Unpublished.

    Please remove all language from the registration process that requires the distinction between “Published” and “Unpublished “materials. Thank you.

  30. Teresa kolarOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

    There should not be any language regarding “published” or “unpublished” in copyright registration. I created it, I own it-published or not!

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

      Exactly T. Thanks for adding your voice.

  31. Timothy BarksdaleOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

    One of the great quiet issues is the storage of images on the so called “Creative Cloud”. Who owns those drives? Does that give them any rights at all to access any of those images? Not in my book.

    There are real nightmares ahead of us. I -so far- refuse to use any Cloud based products- but we are being forced to do so against our will and better intentions. They should know that freelancers will resist month fees, but accountants run companies not creative folk.

    I never publish to the web, any image over 900 pixels and never at a quality better than jpg at 72 dpi. That at least will limit the damages done, should anything be stolen.

    The protection of our images must be strictly enforced and should be a local jurisdiction in every situation. That way we could go to the local courthouse and file suits over violations which would have the far reaching effect we need. That way violators would immediately be set back as opposed to us have to “lawyer up” in a distant state, which gets very expensive very rapidly. That favors the thief.

  32. I agree with all that is said regarding the Removal of Language, “Published” & “Unpublished”; what does it matter! Whoever shoots a Photo is in the entirety of Ownership!!!

    Do not De-Value our Profession, let alone Insult us!!!

    ~~~Rick Barber~~~

  33. Charles SleicherOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

    As retired teacher trying to make ends meet by selling rights to my photographs, I strongly support eliminating any distinction between “published” and “unpublished” photographs in all matters related copyright protection.

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

      Charles, it’s been ages. So great to hear from you and thanks for adding your voice. The more people we can get to post here the better. I received a very nice letter from the President of ASMP Tom Kennedy and he’s monitoring this Blog post for feedback on Copyright Reform. Thanks for adding your voice.

  34. Wendy CaroOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

    There is no need to categorize photos as unpublished. All photos are owned by the photographer, regardless whether or not they are published or sold.

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

      Wendy, my point exactly in my letter to ASMP regarding Copyright Reform. Please send this exact response to ASMP so we have more voices.

  35. Theresa PadenOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

    My paintings have been copied and sold as prints more times than I can count. I put a lot of hard work into the drawing and painting, and then thieves steal the images and make money off of them. Some of my paintings haven’t even sold yet are being sold as prints. Artists study and train for years to get good at drawing and painting. We work long, hard hours to make our art and we need copyright protection.
    Thank you,
    Theresa Paden

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

      Theresa, please send your thoughts to ASMP. We need all the voices we can get.

  36. Robert CrumOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

    Paramount is a change in the copyright registration process that requires an artist or photographer to list all created works as either “Published” or “Unpublished”.

    As a photographer, I should have all the powers of U.S. Copyright law on my side to protect all of the images I originate without any qualifications regarding published or unpublished.

    Therefore, please remove all language from the registration process that requires the distinction between “Published” and “Unpublished “materials.

    Thank you.

    • Portrait of Daniel J. Cox

      Daniel J. CoxOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

      Exactly Robert. There should be no need for separating published and unpublished works.

  37. Tom ReiterOn Jul. 3rd, 2015

    Please better protect the images made and owned by photographers.

Add your voice to this conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In an effort to combat spam, your comment may be held for a brief moderation period.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.