Is Copyright House legit?

I need to buy a copyright license for my artwork, but is a legitimate company? I don't want to spend money and find out my work isn't actually protected.


So if they already exist, what's the point of having legal offices where you can register your work under a copyright license?

8 Answers

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favourite answer

    You do not need to license your work for it to be copyrighted. Under the Berne Convention Treaty, which the UK is part of, its automatically copyrighted and exclusive.

    Exclusive right of reproduction under Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1967. Article 9 of the Berne Convention states that:

    Right of Reproduction: 1. Generally; 2. Possible exceptions; 3. Sound and visual recordings -

    (1) Authors of literary and artistic works protected by this Convention shall have the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of these works, in any manner or form.

    (2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

    (3) Any sound or visual recording shall be considered as a reproduction for the purposes of this Convention.


    The point of offices where you can register your work is to have a record. Documentation and law are two different things. If you want an historical record go and register it. If you just want protection then do nothing; its automatically copyrighted once its created.

  • 6 years ago

    I use copyright house and for good reason. even though a copyright is theoretically protected under the Berne convention, if your work is stolen and used by an individual or organisation you will need to prove the date that you authored it and also have registered physical proof of the work. There are other ways of doing this ie; registering it with a solicitor, US copyright office, registered post to yourself, but I prefer to utilize copyright house because it is not expensive like the US copyright which will set you back about $40 per copyright. If you are a prolific writer like I am and need to copyright on a few times a week basis it is the cheapest way of doing it. The vast majority of writers often struggle financially and cant afford the US system of copyright. My advice is that copyright house is by far the best solution unless you are caked with money.

  • Sarky
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    "So if they already exist, what's the point of having legal offices where you can register your work under a copyright license?"

    That is simple, so these places can make money from people who do not realise copyright automatically exists in works of art and literature and in the UK there is absolutely no need or requirement to register your work.

  • 9 years ago

    Copyright exists when you create the work (

    Copyright House is a private ltd company What they do is offer to keep records of your work for a fee so that if you are challenged about the work you can show when you created/registered it. They are not any sort of official legal service

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 5 years ago

    Of course copyright already exists. The whole point of using Copyright House is so that if somebody else says it s theirs then you ve got some solid proof to show that it s yours. Of all the copyright companies in England these guys are your best bet.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    If you want to use the photos for your own gain, then yes you have to purchase the copyright. But, they shouldn't be charging you to use them in your portfolio, especially if you are working for them -- they should be representing you, as the model, to any potential clients for which both you and they would get paid. It does sound a little fishy to me, to be honest. There is a difference between legit model agencies, and those who make money for portfolio development. A model should never pay a legit agency to work for clients -- the client pays the agency, the agency pays the model. Seems to me that if the agency wants to charge you for the copyrights, they have no intention of representing you to clients -- you should bail. Let them keep the images, and get another photographer from MM perhaps, to shoot for your portfolio.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    These companies offer a variation of "poor man's copyright" which offers about the same level of protection--none.

    Don't waste your money

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    For the official view go to the Government's own Intellectual Property Office and it will tell you all you need to know rather than using these cowboys who will charge you for what you can often do yourself for free. -

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.