My basic understanding is that you don't *have* to put your (c) copyright notice on your artwork. It often clutters a design, and you have the copyright regardless of whether or not you put the notice on there. Though with the new Orphan laws on the table, that *may* change a bit.

And if you DO copyright, what's better? To use your site name or your own name? If someone likes it, sees the copyright and googles it, they might not find YOUR name on google, but might find your site name?

Oh the quandry!


So... what do you think?

Question:
Should you put a copyright notice as part of your Cafepress artwork?

Choices:
I always copyright with my own name.
I always copyright with my site name.
I don't copyright; it clutters the design.
I don't copyright; it takes too much time!
What's a copyright? :)

 

quote:

OAnd if you DO copyright, what's better? To use your site name or your own name?

If the purpose is to provide legal copyright notice there isn't any question - you must use the name of the copyright holder and the website isn't it.

agreed. i wonder if some people use their website/company name for future sales though? major companies put their names on them, but i sure haven't officially formed an LLC or anything! and i'm guessing most people here haven't. i don't know. i'm pretty torn. right now, all my designs have my name (c)on them, but i recently found out that you don't *HAVE* to do that, and i wonder if the designs would look better without. Then again, does a (c) deter people from copying your idea? eh, probably not.

Well I've had a copyright notice on every page of my web site for over ten years - people still steal regularly. Last night I was squashing "Gee I don't know where this came from but I'm posting it" and then one woman who took part of my page and part of two other people's pages and put her byline on it.

Back to the question - I have used © my website instead of © my name. People are willing to forgive a copyright notice if it is unobtrusive. I do it so people can find the source of the design, not to protect it from theft. So I'm not really concerned if it doesn't meet legal requirements.

There is a legal risk. If I should lose control of that site whoever gets it might try to claim the rights - after all it says so .... I've had the site since 1996 - I suspect that if I lose control of it I'll have bigger things on my plate to worry about.

I just put I don't put copyrights because it take too much time, although I think it's a good Idea to (c) I don't do it anymore

Diane, what's "squashing?"

what did you do about the person who stole your page? OMG i'd be freaking out right now. did you send her a cease and desist?

Oh! and you (c) your website too? i didn't even think of that! i've just been doing the designs... with my name! i really think i might start doing the shop name tho... but if i have more than one shop eventually, how do i split them up? it just becomes a logistical nightmare!

quote:

Diane, what's "squashing?"
what did you do about the person who stole your page? OMG i'd be freaking out right now. did you send her a cease and desist?

I start with contacting the infringer. If I can't find them or that doesn't work then I file a DMCA notice.

DMCA is Digital Millennium Copyright Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

DMCA provides a process to notify ISPs and similar (like CP) about a copyright violation. It has specific notice and demand process for removal of claimed infringing material. It is important for those making the demand to understand copyright themselves as there is liability for making a wrongful demand. It does not protect the actual infringer from copyright infringement liability.

There are two great resources on copyright violation. The first takes the perspective of the person infringed upon. http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/ The second is primarily focused on cyber bullies who claim rights that are overbroad, overbearing, or just plain obnoxious. In other words they explain how (and whether) a person receiving such a complaint can properly reject it.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/

Items of interest from The American Society of Picture Professionals...
The Orphan Works legislation as written requires the use of a “reasonable search” using “best practices” to locate an “orphan work”, but hitherto these have not been defined. The ASPP board has created a document entitled “Best Practices for Locating Copyright Owners of Photographic and Visual Art ” and we will offer this up to our sister organizations and other interested parties, hopefully to be embraced as a useful tool as this debate continues. The document will be sent to you all directly in the near future but is currently also posted on our website at http://www.aspp.com/pages/257/189/0/.
It is intended to be a “living” document and updated regularly as new registries and technologies emerge.

PACA (Picture Archive Council of America) has now launched a low tech solution to assist buyers in finding the creator of an image lacking copyright information. When a buyer has an image without copyright information, they simply email a copy of the work to orphansearch@pacaoffice.org. The email is validated by the moderator (a PACA staff member) and automatically sent out to all PACA members and affiliated associations. ASPP will participate in this scheme and send on these requests to our own members.

quote:

Originally posted by BrittReid:
Items of interest from The American Society of Picture Professionals...

I know the topic has drifted a bit, but this isn't the right thread for me to get into possible law.

With the pending passage of the Orphan Works copyright change, it would be very wise for every design creator/artist to place a copyright on every image.

If Orphan works becomes law, it will be a legal feeding frenzy and the designers work will be the food.