| Author |
 Topic  |
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
 Posted - 04/01/2004 : 21:51:02
|
If I may beg to differ. There is an international copyright law known as the “Berne Agreement”, to which the United States of America is signatory.
This law allows one to copyright a body of work in specified formats, (CD-Rom being one), with the copyright office in Washington, D.C.
The filing fee used to be $20.00 US. Your work is then protected under the agreement.
There are very hefty fines for copyright infringement, for instance the use of a single photograph, carriers a mandatory fine of $150,000.00.
One adjuster, who shall remain anonymous, employed this exact methodology and collected many thousands of dollars from a carrier for work completed, and not paid.
When the carrier was informed of the copyright, the money was paid immediately
Possibly, conditions have changed, and new agreements or laws have been placed in effect since this happened, if that is the case, I shall stand corrected.
One way to protect yourself is to © all of your work, as intellectual property, including all of the photographs.
The employee, using an employer’s camera, who took the picture of the fireman carrying the little girl away from the Oklahoma City disaster, won his case also.
This action is only used when you are not paid for the work that you have done. The copyright laws require you to file in a specified time frame and in accordance with the rules and regulations.
If you are paid for the work that you do, there can be no argument.
That does not pre-empt you from filing a copyright, if you leave a storm and have not been paid.
|
Edited by - katadj on 04/01/2004 21:57:24 |
 |
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2004 : 22:16:10
|
| Very interesting R.D. |
Larry Wright |
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2004 : 12:08:28
|
Classic case of a ‘little’ information in the wrong hands being dangerous!
R.D.
The United States did become a signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989 and amended the current US code to meet the Berne strictures however, those amendments were stated in such a way as to ensure that ONLY US copyright law would govern copyright litigation in the US and NOT the provisions of the Berne Convention itself. Put in another way, the Berne Convention doesn’t mean squat in this situation so don’t go throwing out international conventions as legal precedence.
Your un-named examples do not stand up under close legal examination without a lot of additional facts. In the photograph example, it is probable that the photo was taken OUTSIDE of the legal course of his “work for hire” and therefore was copyrightable under applicable law. That was one of the 8 listed categories I referenced in my discourse.
The situation with the vendor who immediately paid all of the past due amounts was, in all likelihood, a business decision they made to avoid legal action. They would have probably won under the copyright issue and lost under breach of contract so they chose to forego the cost of the legal fight and paid the guy.
I stand behind my statements as listed previously.
Kevin Hromas
J.D. – University of Houston Law ‘92
|
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2004 : 13:19:47
|
Kevin,
As stated in my post, the information provided was derived from other sources, and may not be accurate, so I shall stand corrected.
My intentions were not to do anything but offer an opinion, which you as a lawyer have offered a differing one.
Obviously, you are the lawyer, and admittedly, I am not, nor wish to be. I hire them when needed.
Whether or not the "business decision" by the carrier, was in fact as you stated, nonetheless, the adjuster got paid.
It also is my understanding that this © infringement has been tested in other courts, but the outcome has not been forthcoming.
That’s why we have courts, lawyers, opinions, appeals etc. One day it will all come out.
Thank you for your critique.
|
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
|
|
TomWeems
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 08:48:16
|
Copyright law does give you some protection from those who would take your work and use it without paying you. If your work is properly copyrighted within 90 days of it's creation, you do not have to fight with anyone over what your damages are. They are set by law at $150,000.00. Go up to the copyright office and copyright your work on form VA (visual arts) as photographs and text. The instructions are relatively straightforward
If you creat intellectual property for a living, you should do this every 90 days as a matter of course. I would suggest that this would be a last resort, as Federal Court is a long process, but the law on the subject is fairly clear. If you take someone's work, and don't pay for it, you have violated the copyright. The work is actually copyrighted the moment it's produced, however you cannot take action in Court until it's registered. But remember, this. If you go into a situation where you feel it's necessary to do this, why are you working for that company anyway? KNOW BEFORE YOU GO. Work only for those who pay their adjusters in a timely manner, and things like this never come up. If you work for a company that has to wait to get paid before they can pay you, they don't have the money to pay you after a court fight anyway. Save the headache and just don't go.
If you have questions about the process or it's effectiveness, contact me privately.
Tom
TomWeems@floodadjuster.com |
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 19:03:25
|
Tom is absolutley right. This is a tried and true provision. All my photos have a copyright label, as do all my estimtes. That makes the vendors and companies think. It very easy to do, just include it in your disclaimer at the bottom of the estimate. If your using Integra Claim and utilize their photo program, it bocames a part of the estimate and is included in the disclaimer. I know of two adjusters that filed copyright and won their cases, plus damages, so it does work.
|
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 19:25:07
|
| What if the work is done on a computer issued by the carrier and printed on a printer issued by them on paper they provide with their ink and the photos are taken using their camera and film? Who then is entitled to the copyright? |
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2004 : 19:27:56
|
Tom Toll,
Please send me the legal cites for the 2 cases you reference above so I can research the specifics if them. (Ex: Smith v. Two Bit Vendor, 613 SW2nd 189,...) I will venture a guess that the ruling was based on breach of contract and had nothing to do with any copyright issue.
|
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
Gale
USA
231 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 00:32:05
|
Tom,
Does not your software vendor make claim that the work product created while leasing their software belongs to software vendor and not the adjuster by locking you away from your work product if you fail to continue to pay them to have access to the work product you created while you had legal use of their adjusting software. If your digital output (work product) is locked so you cannot use or view it outside of the software vendor’s programs is not the software vendor the owner of your files if procession is 9/10’s of ownership. Perhaps you could make a case that you own the paper files should you print them while the software vendor in fact owns the rights to the digital version of your work product. Why bother to copyright something you do not own or control?
|
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 07:28:34
|
| Is it not a shame that we have to have this discussion at all????? |
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 07:53:01
|
| No Kevin, won't waste my time. No Gale, if I print the photos and estimate, they belong to me as it is my work product. I don't believe the estimating program developed the estimate, they just furnished the means for a yearly fee. |
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 16:20:50
|
It is amazing that the very thing that this website is based upon - the free exchange of ideas - can also be it's weakest point. There is NO 'gate-keeper' that insures that the information posted is credible, accurate or semi-intelligent. (See ConMan's numerous posts as reference.)
I am surprised that Tom Toll (who I have met and have a great deal of respect for) would consider it a waste of time to provide legal back-up for a position that many people are using as protection for their work. My whole position here has been to try to help clarify an issue for some and to dispell a false sense of security.
I predict that many vendors will begin sending people home the first time they see a file come back in with 'copyright' on it. They won't want the headaches involved. |
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 17:56:52
|
Kevin, I would have to call the guys, have them get the case number and that would reveal their privacy. Surprised you did not figure that one out. I spent four years in law school too, so if I had wanted it researched, I would have done it myself. I don't think CADO is here to reveal names if they don't want them revealed. After all, if their names are displayed the vendors might black list them, and please don't pretend that does not happen.
|
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2004 : 20:38:08
|
To all members of CADO:
I wish to publicly apologize for putting Tom on the spot to reveal the names of the people who have claimed to successfully use the copyright issue to protect their work. Although if they pursured legal action and won through through the court system, it is a matter of public record but it is up to those people to put forth their identity on this site.
It was my intent to research the case and summarize the legal details for all who might be interested. |
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Estimate Copyright Discussion
Forum Locked
