A note on photos that are "public domain"

[DavidVGoliath]

You may well be very good at photography, but it's also quite clear that you're equally competent with settlement demands and negotiations.

Believe me, I'd really rather that the latter wasn't the case... but with each passing year, the sheer volume of infringements of my work has grown to the point that the unauthorised uses of my photographs exponentially outstrip the legitimate ones - and that is regrettably an issue which I feel I have to confront head on.

Philosophically, I abhor the idea that "Everything boils down to money. Period." From my little spot on this planet, it's this entrenched attitude about the almighty dollar that makes the world a shittier place.

I actually agree with you - again, it's not how I'd like things to be but, living in Europe in a capitalist democracy, it's one of the realities that is inescapable.

For what it's worth, earning my living as a professional writer on the web the past fifteen years, I've raised a family, met my financial obligations, and have had a good life without having to conclude that "Everything boils down to money. Period." And I've managed to do these things without ever once sending a settlement demand email or registered letter to somebody who put one of my articles, commentaries, novels, white papers, or stories on their website or on a file sharing system without permission.

If that's the case then I congratulate you - though might I ask exactly how much your work has been appropriated in the last fifteen years? Just as a point of curiosity.

In closing, I appreciate your responses to my questions and now feel I have a clear understanding of your position. Thank you.

You're welcome. As I said in a separate thread: because I'm a photographer whom diligently protects my works, I honestly don't expect everyone to agree with my viewpoints and opinions - and I'm here as a contributor to these forums both to share my experiences and learn from those of others.

It's the only way that a middle ground will ever be found when navigating the legal and moral complexities of copyrights in the digital age.

[DavidVGoliath]

We all saw how well the bulk registrations worked out in the Advernet case...yeah Getty "won" by default, but were awarded ZERO because of bulk registrations that were deemed invalid..

Robert, if you register your images within the guidelines as set out by the Copyright Office and upload your bulk images properly within the constraints, then there will not be any issues.

My (coarse) understanding of the case you reference is that Getty did not follow the protocols for bulk registrations.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

We all saw how well the bulk registrations worked out in the Advernet case...yeah Getty "won" by default, but were awarded ZERO because of bulk registrations that were deemed invalid..

Robert, if you register your images within the guidelines as set out by the Copyright Office and upload your bulk images properly within the constraints, then there will not be any issues.

My (coarse) understanding of the case you reference is that Getty did not follow the protocols for bulk registrations.

you are correct Getty did not follow the protocols, Getty followed the advice of PACA, who was working with the copyright office, whom suggested the bulk registrations be done in a "certain manner"...turns out the they were ALL wrong... even the US Copyright Office didn't get it correct..so just what protocols are you using?? I'm curious if you're registrations would stand up in a court of law...

[DavidVGoliath]

[quote author=Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) link=topic=3707.msg15640#msg15640
so just what protocols are you using?? I'm curious if you're registrations would stand up in a court of law...[/quote]

http://www.copyright.gov/eco/help/#eCO_1.5 with reference to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

I create .zip files of low-resolution copies of my originals, not exceeding 500px on one side. As I have a 5mbps upload pipe, this allows me to utilize the full 170mb file limit per .zip file.

The eCo upload process allows to to have multiple .zip file attachments per registration, so I simply upload as many .zip files as are necessary to comprise the body of work that I'm registering

Given the sheer volume of work that I create, I don't file quarterly registrations but instead register each body of work that pertains to a specific event e.g. the body of work might be "Photographs from Edinburgh International Film Festival 2013, June 19 - 30"

This makes the number of images I file per registration smaller, and also makes it far easier for me to keep track of my registration certificates.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Good Deal, I think where Getty went wrong, is they gave no way of identifying any of the images in the collection, and I think the same applies to their "stone collection" which is a huge collection, but no way to tell what is what..

I hope you don't think I was being an asshat, I certainly can be at times..but I want you to know it's refreshing to get an artist on board that is not wearing blinders, and is open to discussion, as opposed to simply calling us thieves. Getty is their own worst enemy, but they are to dumb to even see it...because of the blinders and the money signs at the end of the tunnel..

[DavidVGoliath]

I hope you don't think I was being an asshat, I certainly can be at times..but I want you to know it's refreshing to get an artist on board that is not wearing blinders, and is open to discussion, as opposed to simply calling us thieves. Getty is their own worst enemy, but they are to dumb to even see it...because of the blinders and the money signs at the end of the tunnel..

No offence taken and no, I didn't think you were an asshat; I know that we'll have slightly different perspectives on some issues but, honestly, I'm here because I'd like to put forth the viewpoint of an "average" photographer whom is trying to find a middle ground... so all discourse - even those with a bit of friction - are welcomed as opposed to being confrontationally entrenched with immutable beliefs.

We need copyrights, we need laws to protect copyrights, but we also really need some means to address how the internet has impacted creatives without us resorting to the 'nuclear option' of lawsuits laden with multiple zeroes ahead of the decimal point.

[Lettered]

. . . We need copyrights, we need laws to protect copyrights, but we also really need some means to address how the internet has impacted creatives without us resorting to the 'nuclear option' of lawsuits laden with multiple zeroes ahead of the decimal point.

I agree with that. 

It's not right that some people are blatantly ripping images off (that someone put a lot of time and resources into) and using them, sometimes making money from it.

It's also not right, in my opinion, to bulk upload to the copyright office a picture of every single animal, vegetable, and inanimate object you can think of, then send a crawler out to find the inevitable group of unknowing innocent infringers, and threaten them with a $30,000 per infringement lawsuit if they don't mail a check for $1500 or so. Not to mention that the group of innocent infringers can be multiplied exponentially by doing something to make sure overseas website designers (who don't give two sh__s about copyright law or who theyre getting into trouble) have access to the images to use in their work.

We need a fair copyright law that makes sense.

[DavidVGoliath]

It's also not right, in my opinion, to bulk upload to the copyright office a picture of every single animal, vegetable, and inanimate object you can think of, then send a crawler out to find the inevitable group of unknowing innocent infringers, and threaten them with a $30,000 per infringement lawsuit if they don't mail a check for $1500 or so.

I'd really hope that there aren't any creatives out there exploiting the system by knowingly seeding their works just so they can issue legal demands or court proceedings from infringements; that's fraud on the same level as people whom fake accidents, injuries or illness so they can instruct an ambulance-chasing attorney to collect for them.

It would be a severe abuse of the system and - in my opinion - would need to be treated as a criminal matter.

Not to mention that the group of innocent infringers can be multiplied exponentially by doing something to make sure overseas website designers (who don't give two sh__s about copyright law or who they're getting into trouble) have access to the images to use in their work.

I agree that copyrights abuses outside the US/Canada and EU are an absolute nightmare to deal with - especially "wallpaper" or "free image download" sites, which are major sources of unwitting infringements by those whom are unaware of copyrights.

The solution would be that Berne Convention signatories would at least be required to have legislation similar to the DMCA on their books - but, given how slowly domestic laws are enacted, can you imagine the issues in getting a global agreement proposed, let alone ratified?

We need a fair copyright law that makes sense.

Absolutely; there needs to be a "small claims" process which would allow recovery of "lost" license fees without the need for attorneys to be involved but - more importantly - there needs to be a concerted effort to educate people on copyrights and why they're important to creators.

Robust, consistent education on copyrights would mean fewer infringers, less lawsuits/demands and possibly more licensing of works... and that's got to be better than the situation we're in right now. I'd go so far as to say that copyrights need to be taught as early as the 1st grade.

[Lettered]

It's also not right, in my opinion, to bulk upload to the copyright office a picture of every single animal, vegetable, and inanimate object you can think of, then send a crawler out to find the inevitable group of unknowing innocent infringers, and threaten them with a $30,000 per infringement lawsuit if they don't mail a check for $1500 or so.

I'd really hope that there aren't any creatives out there exploiting the system by knowingly seeding their works just so they can issue legal demands or court proceedings from infringements; that's fraud on the same level as people whom fake accidents, injuries or illness so they can instruct an ambulance-chasing attorney to collect for them.  . . .

With some of the stuff I've seen, I'm not convinced that this isn't going on.  What is just as bad, IMO, is essentially turning a blind eye to it because it is helping increase infringement revenue.  Honestly, if this weren't the case, wouldn't they be doing at least simple things to slow down the proliferation of their images on these "free" sights?  Things like watermarking their images.

At the very least, shouldn't an innocent infringer (overseas website designer victim) with an invoice be given a second chance?

Should a simple picture of an everyday object (a baseball for example) be copyrightable?  I don't believe it should.

Shouldn't demands/awards for actual damages be substantiated by a sales history of the actual image and/or similar image sales? and NOT on some inflated dreamed up retail "list price" that no reasonable person would pay?

If it is unique/creative/important enough to copyright, doesn't it deserve it's own single copyright registration?  Is "bulk uploading" of hundreds or thousands of unremarkable images for copyright not just another cog in the infringement demand machine/scheme?

[DavidVGoliath]

With some of the stuff I've seen, I'm not convinced that this isn't going on.  What is just as bad, IMO, is essentially turning a blind eye to it because it is helping increase infringement revenue.  Honestly, if this weren't the case, wouldn't they be doing at least simple things to slow down the proliferation of their images on these "free" sights?  Things like watermarking their images.

Here's the problem: when a client licenses and downloads an image legitimately, that photograph won't have a visible watermark on it. It might have a unique filename and embedded IPTC and EXIF metadata with information about whom the rightsholder is and further still, it might also use a digital watermark such as DigiMarc to allow uses of that photograph to be tracked and traced.

The file can be renamed, the IPTC and EXIF data can be stripped out - which just leaves the digital watermark (if it is present).. and all that serves as is an electronic 'fingerprint' which allows the uses of the photograph to be found and then checked to see if they are legitimate.

Another issue is that login details for image libraries are routinely traded online so that the blatant, don't-give-a-shit infringers can access high-resolution images for their own sites; they buy or trade these passwords and the second that one becomes deactivated, you can bet that a half dozen more spring up.

A good many of these people live in countries whom don't have strong IP laws on their books and, worse still, they use tech such as VPNs or IP masking to make it nigh-on impossible to track them down, let alone shut them down.

At the very least, shouldn't an innocent infringer (overseas website designer victim) with an invoice be given a second chance?

I'm not sure I follow you here - please elaborate so I can get an understanding of your point.

Should a simple picture of an everyday object (a baseball for example) be copyrightable?  I don't believe it should.

We're going to disagree here because there are an infinite number of ways in which you could photograph that baseball to make it look unique or different. There's the background, lighting, framing, depth of field and a myriad of other elements to the creative composition of a photograph that means your shot of a baseball could stand head and shoulders above all the other shots out there -

As a fixed expression of an idea, any photograph can be copyrighted. The question of how unique such a photograph is might determine its value in the mind of the end user... but that still does not give anyone the right to just appropriate it.

Think on it this way: you want a burger. You can get a $0.99 one at McDonalds, or a $19.99 gourmet burger at an upscale restaurant. Essentially, both products are the same - so you have to make a value judgement on your needs versus your ability to pay. Is the gourmet burger worth $20? Is it worth twenty times the McDonald's burger? Probably not... but you can choose what to eat, the same way you can choose to not eat either of them.

Shouldn't demands/awards for actual damages be substantiated by a sales history of the actual image and/or similar image sales? and NOT on some inflated dreamed up retail "list price" that no reasonable person would pay?

No to the first part, though I somewhat agree to the second part - because providing such information during legal process can back up a claim quite a bit. Here's a very recent example of how that worked in court

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2013/26.html

If it is unique/creative/important enough to copyright, doesn't it deserve it's own single copyright registration?  Is "bulk uploading" of hundreds or thousands of unremarkable images for copyright not just another cog in the infringement demand machine/scheme?

Again, I'm going to disagree here. On a work week, I shoot thousands of images and sometimes hundreds get sent out to clients during that week. I bulk register because a) it's permitted and b) it's the right balance of cost vs. effectiveness for both artists and the copyright office.

If it were mandated that every single work be registered individually, then only major content creators could afford to register their copyright works - and this would leave small businesses and the self-employed ripe for exploitation.

[Lettered]

With some of the stuff I've seen, I'm not convinced that this isn't going on.  What is just as bad, IMO, is essentially turning a blind eye to it because it is helping increase infringement revenue.  Honestly, if this weren't the case, wouldn't they be doing at least simple things to slow down the proliferation of their images on these "free" sights?  Things like watermarking their images.

Here's the problem: when a client licenses and downloads an image legitimately, that photograph won't have a visible watermark on it. It might have a unique filename and embedded IPTC and EXIF metadata with information about whom the rightsholder is and further still, it might also use a digital watermark such as DigiMarc to allow uses of that photograph to be tracked and traced.

The file can be renamed, the IPTC and EXIF data can be stripped out - which just leaves the digital watermark (if it is present).. and all that serves as is an electronic 'fingerprint' which allows the uses of the photograph to be found and then checked to see if they are legitimate.

Another issue is that login details for image libraries are routinely traded online so that the blatant, don't-give-a-shit infringers can access high-resolution images for their own sites; they buy or trade these passwords and the second that one becomes deactivated, you can bet that a half dozen more spring up.

A good many of these people live in countries whom don't have strong IP laws on their books and, worse still, they use tech such as VPNs or IP masking to make it nigh-on impossible to track them down, let alone shut them down.

At the very least, shouldn't an innocent infringer (overseas website designer victim) with an invoice be given a second chance?

I'm not sure I follow you here - please elaborate so I can get an understanding of your point.

Should a simple picture of an everyday object (a baseball for example) be copyrightable?  I don't believe it should.

We're going to disagree here because there are an infinite number of ways in which you could photograph that baseball to make it look unique or different. There's the background, lighting, framing, depth of field and a myriad of other elements to the creative composition of a photograph that means your shot of a baseball could stand head and shoulders above all the other shots out there -

As a fixed expression of an idea, any photograph can be copyrighted. The question of how unique such a photograph is might determine its value in the mind of the end user... but that still does not give anyone the right to just appropriate it.

Think on it this way: you want a burger. You can get a $0.99 one at McDonalds, or a $19.99 gourmet burger at an upscale restaurant. Essentially, both products are the same - so you have to make a value judgement on your needs versus your ability to pay. Is the gourmet burger worth $20? Is it worth twenty times the McDonald's burger? Probably not... but you can choose what to eat, the same way you can choose to not eat either of them.

Shouldn't demands/awards for actual damages be substantiated by a sales history of the actual image and/or similar image sales? and NOT on some inflated dreamed up retail "list price" that no reasonable person would pay?

No to the first part, though I somewhat agree to the second part - because providing such information during legal process can back up a claim quite a bit. Here's a very recent example of how that worked in court

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2013/26.html

If it is unique/creative/important enough to copyright, doesn't it deserve it's own single copyright registration?  Is "bulk uploading" of hundreds or thousands of unremarkable images for copyright not just another cog in the infringement demand machine/scheme?

Again, I'm going to disagree here. On a work week, I shoot thousands of images and sometimes hundreds get sent out to clients during that week. I bulk register because a) it's permitted and b) it's the right balance of cost vs. effectiveness for both artists and the copyright office.

If it were mandated that every single work be registered individually, then only major content creators could afford to register their copyright works - and this would leave small businesses and the self-employed ripe for exploitation.

On the first point: 
Its not my fault that photographers live in a bad neighborhood (the internet).  An analogy: If I buy a used part and it turns out to be stolen (unbeknownst to me), I return it.  I'm not fined and harassed for "statutory" or "actual" damages as far as I understand it.  I'm not a criminal.  My "punishment" and "lesson learned" is that I lost the part I bought.  I'm more careful and knowledgeable next time.

On the second point:
An example: I hire an overseas firm to design a website for me.  He uses infringing images, but tells me they're his own, or he has the rights to them, or whatever.  Maybe he doesn't even say anything if I'm not knowledgeable enough to ask.  I get a demand letter from true copyright holder. I explain the situation and take down the image.  The copyright holder asks for proof and I show him the invoice from the overseas firm.  I get warned (not fined) and we part ... maybe even with me as a new customer.  I know that isn't the current copyright law, but that's how I think it should work.

Third point:
I'm talking about unremarkable shots. I know you still disagree, but I'm not entirely convinced that a court would disagree with my position in many cases.
On your burger example: should I be fined $30,000 because the hamburger I bought from a street vendor in India looks too much like a big mac?

Fourth Point:
Statutory damages for registered image infringements are the current law.  I understand that, I just don't agree with it in the case of innocent infringement.  Thankfully, at least the court is allowed to lower statutory damages to $200 per innocent infringement, but I still disagree with it.
For unregistered images, it's my understanding that my opinion is in line with the courts to award "actual damages" which is fair market value.

Fifth Point:
I really want photographers to be successful by providing a product that people want to buy.  I really do. I'm really happy for them when that happens.  I just don't like to see some poor unknowing chap harassed for tens of thousands of dollars because he unknowingly used an unremarkable picture of a bowling ball in some silly blog post that 10 people read (a made-up example).

[DavidVGoliath]

Its not my fault that photographers live in a bad neighborhood (the internet).  An analogy: If I buy a used part and it turns out to be stolen (unbeknownst to me), I return it.  I'm not fined and harassed for "statutory" or "actual" damages as far as I understand it.  I'm not a criminal.  My "punishment" and "lesson learned" is that I lost the part I bought.  I'm more careful and knowledgeable next time.

Except that it's not just photographer's that inhabit the internet neighbourhood - we all do; just like a real-life community, there are laws in place to govern and limit what actions we can take so that the overall best interests of everyone are served.

As a sidenote on the analogy you used: much would hinge on the price you paid for the used part, and whether you had any proof of payment, to avoid the potential of facing criminal charges for being in receipt of stolen property. For some states, the burden of proving criminal intent for such charges is quite low or even non-existent.

An example: I hire an overseas firm to design a website for me.  He uses infringing images, but tells me they're his own, or he has the rights to them, or whatever.  Maybe he doesn't even say anything if I'm not knowledgeable enough to ask.  I get a demand letter from true copyright holder. I explain the situation and take down the image.  The copyright holder asks for proof and I show him the invoice from the overseas firm.  I get warned (not fined) and we part ... maybe even with me as a new customer.  I know that isn't the current copyright law, but that's how I think it should work.

It can work that way and, legally, if you have all your ducks in a row and can unequivocally prove what is termed innocent infringement, then a rightsholder should know that pursuit of a claim against you is really in no-one's best interests.

If a rightsholder still pursues you after you've produced evidence that you absolutely, genuinely had no idea that you would be committing an infringement based on accepting the work of a third party... well, I personally don't agree with their stance, even though the letter of the law might permit them to do so.

Besides, the rightsholder has to know that under US law, their claim might get struck down to as little as $200 even if they prevail. Far better to educate the infringer and work with them than roll the dice through the courts.

I'm talking about unremarkable shots. I know you still disagree, but I'm not entirely convinced that a court would disagree with my position in many cases.

Even an 'unremarkable' shot has value - whether or not it might be unique. If Getty has a shot of a baseball against a white backdrop for $49, then 123RF has a similar image for $4.99, and Fotolia has a similar image again for $0.99... then why would anyone appropriate the Getty shot?

The answer would be that the infringer either didn't know about copyrights, didn't care about copyrights or (worse case scenario) did know but simply did not want to pay even $0.99 for a picture to use on their website.

I'm not sure how the courts would view all of the above but, in general, matters of appropriation of property seem to lean towards the "you have the choice to not do it" when it comes to the crunch.

On your burger example: should I be fined $30,000 because the hamburger I bought from a street vendor in India looks too much like a big mac?

I get what you're saying here, but this is an apples-to-oranges comparison when it comes to IP laws. Or maybe it's a Whopper to Big Mac comparison.

Statutory damages for registered image infringements are the current law. I understand that, I just don't agree with it in the case of innocent infringement.

I really have a problem with the term innocent infringement, as there can be varying degrees of actual innocence. The truly innocent are usually ignorant of copyright law and are thus unwitting in their actions.

Thankfully, at least the court is allowed to lower statutory damages to $200 per innocent infringement, but I still disagree with it.

I can sympathise with you finding it disagreeable, I really do.

For unregistered images, it's my understanding that my opinion is in line with the courts to award "actual damages" which is fair market value.

Almost correct: you'd need to remove fair, because the value is largely determined by what the photographer might have otherwise licensed the image for. Consider that Annie Leibovitz could command a far higher rate for her works than an emerging commercial photographer might - and this would be factored for in almost any suit for a work that wasn't timely registered (you still need to file a registration before you can initiate a lawsuit)

I really want photographers to be successful by providing a product that people want to buy.  I really do. I'm really happy for them when that happens.  I just don't like to see some poor unknowing chap harassed for tens of thousands of dollars because he unknowingly used an unremarkable picture of a bowling ball in some silly blog post that 10 people read (a made-up example).

Photographers also want the same thing and would be a very happy bunch if infringements didn't occur. We're not really a litigious bunch (honestly!) and would far prefer to create and share our work without the risk of it being appropriated, exploited or otherwise abused.

On this point: I've had to deal with more infringements by large businesses, corporations and media outlets than I have private individuals (hence my screen name here). Copyright protects me against their predations... which is perhaps the original intent behind the levels of statutory damages.

This is why I support both a small claims process and widespread education so that Joe Average doesn't fall foul of these laws.

[Lettered]

. . .

An example: I hire an overseas firm to design a website for me.  He uses infringing images, but tells me they're his own, or he has the rights to them, or whatever.  Maybe he doesn't even say anything if I'm not knowledgeable enough to ask.  I get a demand letter from true copyright holder. I explain the situation and take down the image.  The copyright holder asks for proof and I show him the invoice from the overseas firm.  I get warned (not fined) and we part ... maybe even with me as a new customer.  I know that isn't the current copyright law, but that's how I think it should work.

It can work that way and, legally, if you have all your ducks in a row and can unequivocally prove what is termed innocent infringement, then a rightsholder should know that pursuit of a claim against you is really in no-one's best interests.

If a rightsholder still pursues you after you've produced evidence that you absolutely, genuinely had no idea that you would be committing an infringement based on accepting the work of a third party... well, I personally don't agree with their stance, even though the letter of the law might permit them to do so.

Besides, the rightsholder has to know that under US law, their claim might get struck down to as little as $200 even if they prevail. Far better to educate the infringer and work with them than roll the dice through the courts.
. . .

And here we have our common ground.  If companies like Getty and Masterfile shared this view, I really don't think this website would exist.  I wouldn't be posting here almost for certain, as I never would have had a reason to research the issue.
Instead, I'm taking my own photos and will likely never use nor buy a stock image again.

[Lettered]

. . .
We're going to disagree here because there are an infinite number of ways in which you could photograph that baseball to make it look unique or different. There's the background, lighting, framing, depth of field and a myriad of other elements to the creative composition of a photograph that means your shot of a baseball could stand head and shoulders above all the other shots out there -
. . .

I can politely disagree with you here.  I think the current law agrees with your point of view in most cases and I wouldn't break the law.  That doesn't mean I agree with the law.  Most of our laws make common sense and are easy to not "accidentally" violate.  Not so with copyright law.  The idea that a simple unremarkable picture of a common item like a baseball is important enough to protect with life crushing fines of tens of thousands of dollars is just absurd.
But to each his own.  Its really not hard at all to avoid running afoul of the copyright law now that I know that intent and having a paid receipt obtained in good faith is meaningless regarding guilt.  If I need a picture of a baseball, I'll snap it myself.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

I too also very glad you are here and find it very refreshing and enjoy reading and participating in the discussions with you.  I hope you will continue to stick around for him, participate and share your viewpoints.

I also believe there needs to be changes to update the copyright law for the modern Internet age making it fair for the artists but protecting innocent and unknowing infringers from shakedown scams like Getty images. This is not to say I do not feel that an innocent infringer should not have to pay for the infringement but I truly feel what Getty, MasterFail and others like them are doing are wrong. I liken it to if you are speeding without realizing it then yes you should receive a ticket but Getty images would be the old southern town speed trap where you get pulled over and a $70 ticket (just making a number up and not complying and innocently infringed image is only worth $70 ) cost you $700 or they threatened to lock you up until you pay them.

No offence taken and no, I didn't think you were an asshat; I know that we'll have slightly different perspectives on some issues but, honestly, I'm here because I'd like to put forth the viewpoint of an "average" photographer whom is trying to find a middle ground... so all discourse - even those with a bit of friction - are welcomed as opposed to being confrontationally entrenched with immutable beliefs.

We need copyrights, we need laws to protect copyrights, but we also really need some means to address how the internet has impacted creatives without us resorting to the 'nuclear option' of lawsuits laden with multiple zeroes ahead of the decimal point.