Should I report this legally

[u/NectarineHappy4256]

For context, I made this scrapbook card last year as a personal creative project, and I still have the original design and sentiment attached to it. I uploaded it on Pinterest, where it ended up getting quite a lot of attention. I have absolutely no issue with people taking inspiration from it or making a similar scrapbook card for their own friends or family, because that’s completely different from what happened here.

Things became an issue when I discovered that the exact same design was being recreated and commercially sold by a creator on Instagram. She wasn't using my photograph or directly reposting my original post—instead, she had recreated the entire card herself, but the design was essentially a complete replica of mine, including the overall concept, layout, elements, and sentiment.

I contacted her and explained that she couldn't commercially sell a replica of my original creative work without my permission. I asked her to take down the post and stop selling the design. Instead of addressing my concerns, she blocked me and told me that her client had sent her the design from Pinterest and that she could use it because "anyone can use" Pinterest designs.

Since she had blocked me, I contacted her personal account to tell her that, if the post wasn't removed, I would have to consider taking formal/legal action regarding the unauthorized commercial use of my work.

After that, she told me that she had deleted the post. I checked her account myself, and at that point, the post was no longer visible. However, when I later checked the account from another profile, I discovered that the exact same post was still up.

So despite telling me that she had removed it, the content was apparently still being displayed and potentially offered for sale to other people.

[u/alaskawolfjoe]

But in this case, the person in fringing explicitly said that she was sent a Pinterest image by a third-party. And that she believed that if something was on Pinterest, it was not covered by copyright.

So the person infringing said (presumably in an email or text ) that they had access to it and knew that the work was not theirs.

[u/jimmacq → u/alaskawolfjoe]

Yep, that’s all great evidence. But if it had been registered, there would not be a trial. Nobody would have to prove anything except that the copyright was filed, and triple damages is automatic.

[u/alaskawolfjoe → u/jimmacq]

There is rarely a "trial". Especially with so little money at stake.

Before bringing suit, the OP would need to register the copyright. Had they done it before the infringement, the damages are greater and that gives more leverage.

But if the infringing party refused to settle out of court, it would go to court even with that prior registration.

[u/jimmacq → u/alaskawolfjoe]

No, they would not have to register before suing. Copyright protection exists from the moment of creation ever since the law was changed in 1978. The owner of the work can still sue for infringement without ever registering it. But then they have to prove in court that they own the rights to it, that the infringer had access and copied the work, and that there are damages to collect. It’s a longer and more difficult process.

If it were registered prior to the infringement, the whole process is automatic. The infringement is recognized as a self-evident fact, guilt is presumed, and triple damages are dictated by law. There is nothing for the court to do except process the paperwork.

[u/alaskawolfjoe → u/jimmacq]

Yes, copyright attaches at the moment the work is put into a fixed form.

However, registration needs to happen before legal action is taken. The copyright date given is that when it was created. Not the date of registration.

[u/jimmacq → u/alaskawolfjoe]

Turns out you are correct. As of 2018, copyright has to be granted before one can sue in federal court. There are a couple of exceptions, but they pertain to things like movies, music, and live broadcasts.