© - what is the easiest way to put this on your images?

[Jay Gould]

I am now using the Adobe Watermark Panel by Russell Brown - I was referred to the link by the Ellen Anon CS5 for Nature Photographers.

As part of the watermark process - it is really so simple using his panel - you need to put
in the ©.


I keep a copy on a word .doc and copy and paste each and every time. Is there an easier way?


Thanks,

[Rob Miner]

++[QUOTE=Jay Gould;671998]I am now using the Adobe Watermark Panel by Russell Brown - I was referred to the link by the Ellen Anon CS5 for Nature Photographers.



The fastest way is to make an ACTION in PS for both the trademark and signature.

Rob............

[Roger Clark]

Jay,

I keep a series of my name, copyright and web site as text layers in a psd document. Each set a different color, and the text within a set linked. So it is a simple matter of selecting the color and dragging and dropping it on the image. I have different font sizes and font type for my name versus web site, so they are each a separate text layer (I can rhen line them up better). I have one set in black, another in white, and some various colors that better match an image without being too obvious.

Roger

[Dan Brown]

Hi Jay. To get the (C) symbol, I use the "CUSTOM SHAPE TOOL" in CS3, go to the top, click on the "SHAPE" pull down menu and the symbol is there. You can pull the symbol to any size you want to fit your text. For my copyright stuff, I open a new doc. type in whatever I want at any size (doesn't matter), add the (C), then draw a rectangle selection around the creation. Next, I click on "EDIT" on the top tool area, select "DEFINE BRUSH PRESET", name the brush. This creates a brush with your name etc on it. With the brush created, you can use it with any of the tools that allow brushes, change the size, color, even use it as a clone tool! And, you can make as many of these brushes as you need, and have them right there in your brush collecting. You don't need to save anything else, just delete the new doc. I usually apply my copyright brush to a blank layer and then I can drag it around for placement adjusting. I haven't done this in CS5 yet but it's probably similar?

[Tom Graham]

Why even put it on your work?
This from - http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
"When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

The "C" is not necessary. Your photo had it when you snapped it. Perhaps the "C" may be a "scarecrow" for the amateur thief. But if you are concerned about it being stolen and used commercially and you take it to court, then your work needs to be registered.
This from same source above.
"Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law."


Tom

[Roger Clark]

Why even put it on your work?
This from - http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
"When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

The "C" is not necessary. Your photo had it when you snapped it. Perhaps the "C" may be a "scarecrow" for the amateur thief. But if you are concerned about it being stolen and used commercially and you take it to court, then your work needs to be registered.
Tom

Hi Tom,
Technically you are correct. But in practice, if there is no identifying copyright on the image, someone can steal it, pass it around and an unsuspecting person use it. You can try and recover damages, but they may be able to claim it was an orphaned work with no way to find the copyright owner.

I've had many images stolen. One of the more amusing ones was a song writer who stole my images for his blog about people stealing his work! And with my copyright on the image too. I didn't do anything, as it was such blatant hypocrisy it was funny.

I've also had people enter my images in photo contests with my copyright still on the image!

If someone steals an image and erases the copyright, it is more blatant and easier to prove infringement. I've had a number of web sites taken down over thefts.

So I put my name and web site on all images. It seems to reduce theft, as there are many images without any copyright so it is much easier to go after those. And if someone steals it and posts it, it is advertising.

Roger

[Tom Graham]

Thanks Roger, most interesting.
Tom

[Andrew Bunney]

Most copyright law has an orphaned work provision that allows use if the owner can not be traced.

There are international differences in orphaned works legislation.

I believe there was a bill in the US around 2008 I don't know how far it got, I stopped working in an UK law school that had a particular interest in international intellectual property protection and management. It wasn't my area of focus I was advising on the design online learning materials but some of it was absorbed!

On a related issue applicable really only to prints and to Europe is that the resale of second hand works of art above a €1000 value require a 4% payment to the original artist.

Of you can always put all this in meta data

[James Prudente]

alt 0169 on your num pad on PC not sure on Mac

[Doug Schurman]

I think this one of Lightroom's strong points. You can setup various watermark templates easily. Then you can use them in any one of you automated or manual processes of publishing images to various services, websites and regular exports.

Lightroom makes file organziation so easy and works well with Photoshop in your workflow too.

I don't know what could be simpler than this.

[George Wilson]

To use the © symbol straight from your keyboard, do the following - hold down the ALT key and then type the number 0169 - the copyright symbol will appear at your cursor.



Contrary to popular belief photographs do not have to be registered under copyright law. Legal precedent (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 111 S.Ct. 1282, 1287-88 (1991)) gives photographers (and others) the following rights:

1. the right to reproduce work in copies (reproductive right);
2. the right to produce derivative works based on the copyrighted works (adaptive right);
3. the right to distribute copies of the work (distribute right);
4. the right to display the copyrighted work publicly (display right);
5. the right to claim authorship of the work and to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work she or she did not create (attribution right); and
6. the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of a distortion of the work and to prevent destruction of the work (integrity right).

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

Chasing after infringed work is another challenge. I list my copyright on the image, embed it into the metadata, list it in the image notes on the camera menu screen. I also have a blocker on my website to prevent image theft. I just try and make it as difficult as possible, but to the determined theif, these can all be bypassed. Having all of these measures in place will only strengthen your case, if you catch someone infringing on your copyright. When giving sample images on disk to a client, my copyright is watermarked across the front of the image over the most important parts. I also present samples in low res jpegs as well. Using these methods has proved successful so far...knock on wood.

With regard to the "Orphan Works Bill" - The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) to which I belong posted this message a few years ago and is still voicing its opposition to the legislation. Please visit www.nppa.org for more information.

NPPA Cannot Support Orphan Works Legislation

DURHAM, NC (May 7, 2008) – Today the National Press Photographers Association sent a letter to Congressman Howard L. Berman (D-CA) , chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, stating NPPA's objections to the "Orphan Works Act of 2008" (H.R. 5889).
"We cannot in good conscience support this bill," NPPA president Tony Overman wrote to Berman.
Overman urges photojournalists who oppose the bill to immediately write to their representatives.
The Illustrators Partnership of America has an online letter generator that can be used to send your Congressional leaders a note of objection about the two current orphan works bills. IPA has customized an individual letter for NPPA members and photojournaists to use, and it is online here.
An "orphan work" is a photograph or illustration that is protected by copyright but whose copyright owner cannot be identified or located.
"We recognize well the difficulties of managing rights for historical images. We believe a carefully and narrowly tailored expansion of the fair use exception to the copyright act would address the legitimate concerns of librarians, historians and educators," a statement from NPPA to the membership said.
"There is no reasonable argument to authorize infringements for commercial use. Unpublished works should also not be exempted – especially since publishing them without their creator’s permission might violate contract, privacy and other legal precepts. If the sharing of historical works is the true goal of orphan works legislation, there is certainly no reason at all to extend infringement exemptions to newly created works."
In Overman's letter to Berman he wrote, "Therefore, on behalf of our board and 10,000 photojournalists, students and editors throughout the country, I urge you to consider the significant economic and artistic harm this draft legislation could cause and amend it so that it: minimizes potential abuse; balances the needs of those who legitimately seek orphan works exemptions; and offers greater protection those who seek to protect their copyrights."
In April 2007 a pair of orphan works bills appeared before Congress. Both are on a “fast track” for approval during this session and a mark-up of the House bill that NPPA objects to took place May 7. The bills would exempt from full protection under U.S. Copyright law millions of pictures – new and old, published and unpublished, even many previously registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Both the Orphan Works Act of 2008, the title of the House bill, and the Senate’s Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 (S. 2913) would effectively allow photographs and other created works to be used without prior permission if the actual copyright holder could not be identified or located.
Under the proposals, the copyright holder could not collect statutory damages or attorney fees from an unauthorized user, so long as that user conducted a “reasonable search” to find the copyright holder and obtain permission.
NPPA believes that the bills could imperil creators of original work, including most NPPA members. The organization's views will be shared in an eMail message to all members.
"While NPPA acknowledges all of the hard work that has gone into blunting some of the most onerous elements of the proposed legislation, there is still far too much opportunity for overreaching and abuse for commercial gain," NPPA's general legal counsel Mickey H. Osterreicher said today from Buffalo, NY.
"That gain would be to the detriment of our members. Unfortunately what began as a measure to allow librarians, historians and educators increased access to older copyrighted works has become a misguided attempt to dilute current copyright law, which is something that we as an organization of photojournalists cannot support."
There are supporters for the House bill. A coalition of librarians, historians, educators, documentary filmmakers and anti-copyright crusaders support orphan works legislation, saying it would protect them when using such works in presentations and publications.
The current House bill includes several improvements over the legislation of two years ago, but NPPA's leaders believe that an orphan works exemption runs counter to the best interests of photojournalists and photojournalism, as well undermining America’s Constitutional and international commitments to copyright.
For several years NPPA has tracked orphan works proposals and partnered with other organizations of photographers and illustrators to fight orphan works exemptions and support copyright in general. Several associations in the Imagery Alliance, of which NPPA is a member, have worked with Berman's staff to discuss the photography industry's collective concerns.
The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) and the Professional Photographers of America (PPA), are also members of the Imagery Alliance and they have staff attorneys and registered lobbyists who have with Congressional staff to discuss the photograph industry's collective concerns.
In NPPA's eMail message to their members, the organization's leaders say, "Orphan works is a complex issue, but it could prove significant to the future of photojournalism as a viable profession. NPPA urges all photojournalists to include identifying metadata in their image files, continue to register their work regularly with the Copyright Office and keep their information up to date in photographers’ registries (such as NPPA’s Find-a-Photographer, PLUS, and photographerregistry.com) to protect their images from being viewed as orphans.”
"We believe the only possibility of defeating these proposals is through a grass-roots effort," NPPA told its members. "Legislators and their staff take notice whenever they are contacted by their constituents. We cannot overstate the importance of members voicing their opinions. A significant response on this issue will carry far more weight with Congress than any professional group or lobby. We urge all members to participate in the process for this critical piece of legislation."
"Many of the concerns of visual artists have been addressed in the current House bill and we are grateful for the efforts that have been made on behalf of photographers, but the bill, as it is written, is still a threat to photographers," former NPPA president Alicia Wagner Calzada said today from San Antonio, TX. She led NPPA's opposition to orphan works legislation when it was proposed in 2006.
"A photographic work can be orphaned almost immediately simply by being illegally downloaded and posted multiple times. I think that photojournalists are particularly at risk for this as their images are stolen relentlessly and have immense value, both as news and as history. For this reason, orphan works legislation has the potential to severely damage photojournalists and their ability to enforce their copyright," Calzada said.
In 2006 that year's orphan works bill died in committee when its sponsor, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, withdrew the bill from consideration at the committee’s final mark-up session for the term. Smith told the committee that he didn't see any reasonable chance that the the Copyright Modernization Act of 2006 (HR 6052) would be signed into law during that year's session



George Wilson
www.wilsonphotographyfl.com

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Lightroom is very good. While exporting you just need to tick the box to enable the copyright.

[Charles Glatzer]

Option G with MAC ©
Alt 0169 with numerical key pad with PC

http://www.usingmac.com/2007/12/12/1...eating-symbols

I made an action that adds my info as a layer, thereafter, the text line can be modified in color, size and/or transformed and moved if necessary.

Chas

[John Chardine]

I wonder if someone can advise- I've heard that the © symbol is unnecessary in relation to copyright protection and the law. I realise that each country has their own copyright laws but I wonder if someone could comment on it's necessity or otherwise. I've never been a big fan of using it.