Logo with (c) mywebsite.com instead of photographer name or company?

[kevin_flossner]

<p>If photos have a logo with <strong>© mywebsite.com</strong> instead of the company's legal name, is that alright as long as I'm the owner of the domain? (Of course, <em>mywebsite.com</em> is just an example, not the real domain). I'm thinking this make it easier for viewers to know the web site to visit for more.</p>

<p>Thanks for any feedback.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>You can put anything you like there, because it makes no legal difference. You own the copyright to your photos the moment you take them.</p>

<p>Copyright marks or watermarks are just for identification purposes and to mildly deter image thieves.</p>

<p>I mark my photos © Charles L Webster 2010 All Rights Reserved. But that's just me.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

[craigd]

<p>I put both:</p>

<p>© 2010 Craig Dickson<br /><a href="http://craigd.smugmug.com">craigd.smugmug.com</a></p>

<p>While Charles is correct that you own copyright to your images automatically, I think a copyright notice is required if you want to be able to seek punitive damages rather than just force someone to stop using your image. A proper copyright notice is supposed to include the © symbol or a legally-defined substitute (such as the word "Copyright"), the year of first publication, and a legally-valid name for the copyright owner. This name can be your own name or a legally-recognized business name such as a DBA or corporation. I think it's a mistake to try to put your website URL in this place unless you have actually registered the URL as a business name. So I include both my name and my URL separately in my watermark.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I think a copyright notice is required if you want to be able to seek punitive damages rather than just force someone to stop using your image</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's not that hard to find the actual value of the notice, and this isn't it. If you go to the US Copyright Office (assuming this is a US question), you find a section (401d) in the Copyright Law, which says:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>(d) Evidentiary Weight of Notice. — If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in the last sentence of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504">section 504©(2).</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the value, that someone can't claim they didn't know.</p>

 

[craigd]

<p>So, Jeff, are you arguing that there is no relationship between an innocent infringement defense and the likelihood of getting punitive damages?</p>

[denniswms]

<p>Your logo can be whatever you want it to be and is a matter of personal choice, just as bannering your photos is. Whether or not the logo plays for your intended customer base is something else again. </p>

<p><em>I don't have a logo (never have) and don't banner my photos and it has worked out just fine.</em></p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>So, Jeff, are you arguing that there is no relationship between an innocent infringement defense and the likelihood of getting punitive damages?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I recommend reading what you wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think a copyright notice is <em>required</em> if you want to be able to seek punitive damages rather than just force someone to stop using your image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now show me a law that says this is a <em>requirement</em> for punitive damages. I look forward to the citation.</p>

 

[craigd]

<p>I'll grant you that I phrased it carelessly. A copyright notice is not required to <em>seek</em> punitive damages -- obviously you can request damages in a civil lawsuit if you want to -- but a proper copyright notice makes it much more likely that you'll actually get damages. The underlying mechanism, as you noted, is that by supplying a visible copyright notice you short-circuit any attempt by the defendant to claim they didn't know the image was under copyright. The end result, which as a copyright owner is my main interest, is that I am much more likely to get punitive damages.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>The logo eliminates claims by a person infringing to not have known of the copyright (though there is always the defense that was being done wasn't considered an infringement) - but before you can file an infringement suit in court you need to have your copyright registered - this document list the benefits of doing so: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Kevin, I mark borders of my images as shown in this <a href="../photo/8618764&size=lg"><strong>Boston skyline photo</strong></a>.<br /> The important thing is to make potential usage rights buyers see your contact info, so they can contact you about buying rights to your images. Read about the way <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=215599"><strong>I market stock photos</strong></a> and how many of the images sold are found on photo.net via image search engines.</p>

[kevin_flossner]

<p>Thanks for the answers. Indeed, as Charles mention, the copyright does belong automatically to the photographer; I was concerned whether a copyright notice with a URL would invalidate it.</p>

<p>J. Harrington's idea to put the notice in the border is interesting; I'll try that. Even if I put inside, if someone wants to steal an image they'll just crop it out. </p>

 

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>you short-circuit any attempt by the defendant to claim they didn't know the image was under copyright.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In the highly <strong>unlikely</strong> event you file in federal court for copyright infringement, you only need prove (2) elements.</p>

<p>1) The infringer had access to the image in question.<br>

2) Prove "substantial similarity".</p>

<p>Obviously if the image was "copied", #2 is rather easy to prove.</p>

<p>Proving one or both are not as easy as one might believe; hence the high cost of legal representation in such cases.</p>

<p>Jeff is correct in that "punitive" damages do not play into relief in the federal copyright law.</p>

<p>Statutory damages and compensatory damages are more often seen; with statutory the route most big guns seek as the award is generally far more.</p>

<p>The display of © on your images may help prove "willful" infringement if you can show the symbol was removed by the infringing party prior to publishing.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>to claim they didn't know the image was under copyright.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Only if the infringer did the evil deed of removing the copyright symbol.<br>

Had they found and copied the image "after" someone else removed the symbol, willful infringement may be more difficult to prove. That is one of the reasons I am not in agreement with CC as a viable licensing model when it comes to copyright protection.</p>

[funcrunch]

<p>I watermark my photos with both my name and web site ("© Julie Bernstein, www.funcrunchphoto.com"), <em>and</em> I submit all photos to the U.S. copyright office. Funcrunch Photo is also the legally registered "Does Business As" on my business license.</p>

[paulie_smith1]

<p>Go ut and buy Photographers Survival Manual: A Legal Guide for Artists in the Digital Age , by Greenburg and Reznicki.<br>

It will help answer some of your questions and set straight some of the myths already put up on this post. Well worth the price.</p>