Logo, Watermark or Both

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

kaa and I are having a little debate so I figured I would put it to a WBF vote
What is the kaa at the bottom of the photo? Is it a watermark to copyright it. Or is it a logo to just make the photo look extra pretty. Or is it both a watermark & a logo ?

[Kaa]

Is it a watermark to copyright it. Or is it a logo to just make the photo look extra pretty.

Copyright is not the purpose of a watermark and making something look "extra pretty" is not the purpose of a logo.

Nice try, though kinda transparent :-D

Kaa

[Mrleft8]

No.
Kaa is more correcter than you... er....er.....

[Kaa]

Here's what a watermark looks like:



Kaa

[Ted Hoppe]

Or is it both a watermark & a logo ?

Why worry... the picture is being posted multiple times on faceblook and leaky boat forum. Some choose to crop it; others used photoshop blended it right out.

Remember once anything is posted... ones releases it to the world for others to claim it for fair use - right or wrong.

[S.V. Airlie]

A watermark is impregnated as a shadow in the threads of expensive paper and visible held to the light.To me, Kaa's is just a classy a stick signature on photos and the like and really has nothing to do with copywrites. I think it's unique.

[Rum_Pirate]

The poll has no option for

'Neither'

or

'Signature'.

[John Bell]

Where's the choice for "who gives a flying flip?" Put me down for that one please.

(Which thread started this particular Sh!#fight anyway?)

[Bruce Hooke]

To me the clear element that distinguishes a watermark from a logo is that a watermark is either:

1. Behind something that you can see through (such as text) such that you can read the text as it goes over the watermark, or
2. Semi-transparent, so you can see what is behind the watermark but also see the watermark.

So, this example would clearly fall under definition #2. What I can't tell from this image is whether the "Kaa" mark is semi-transparent. I don't think it is but I am not positive. It would be easier to tell with an image with more contrast in the area of the "Kaa." Whether it is a logo depends on how Kaa uses it in other contexts. A logo is a graphic used to identify a business or organization. Does Kaa use the same thing on business cards, letterhead, etc? If so, then it is probably a logo. Note that a logo can be used as watermark! Neither really has anything to do with copyrighting something in a direct way, but either can be used to communicate "this image was created by _____," which, of course, helps to protect it as intellectual property, at least at a practical level. Legally it probably means almost nothing as anyone could grab an image from anywhere and slap their mark on it, and someone with decent Photoshop skills can also pretty effectively erase all but the most "aggressive" of marks, but probably not in a way that would escape detection by a skilled observer.

[Ted Hoppe]

Does this violate my right for fair use once posted on a public forum?
(will remove if requested by original content owners)

A formal process is needed to certify a copyright. Placing a watermark or a logo is a speed bump in a digital universe.

[Norman Bernstein]

Does this violate my right for fair use once posted on a public forum?

*LOL* Nicely done, Ted

[Bruce Hooke]

Does this violate my right for fair use once posted on a public forum?
(will remove if requested by original content owners)

Where something is posted does not typically affect copyright (if by "posting on a public forum" you mean the posting of Kaa's original image on the forum). Posting something in a public location does not void the copyright. So, the question becomes did you meet one of the requirements of fair use? I don't think you did (except that so far this is non-commercial use, where I think pretty much anything goes). I don't think what you did rises to the level of parody and I don't think you changed it anywhere near enough for it to be something new.

A formal process is needed to certify a copyright. Placing a watermark or a logo is a speed bump in a digital universe.

Creative works are copyrighted automatically at the moment of creation. Defending such a copyright in court is tough, but strictly speaking registering the item is not necessary for a creative work to be considered copyrighted. On the other hand, I agree that a watermark or logo is at best a speed bump, but it is a speed bump that will slow down some people. Many marks put on photographs will also point you back to the creator or owner's website, which clearly has other advantages to the creator/owner of the image.

[Kaa]

Does this violate my right for fair use once posted on a public forum?
(will remove if requested by original content owners)

No, it does not. But now it needs to have a shark photoshopped in :-)

A formal process is needed to certify a copyright.

No, it does not. In the US you get copyright just by the act of creation. You can register your copyright which gives you certain (large) advantages in copyright-infringement suits, but just to have a copyright you don't need to do anything special.

Kaa

[Ted Hoppe]

Where something is posted does not typically affect copyright (if by "posting on a public forum" you mean the posting of Kaa's original image on the forum). Posting something in a public location does not void the copyright. So, the question becomes did you meet one of the requirements of fair use? I don't think you did (except that so far this is non-commercial use, where I think pretty much anything goes). I don't think what you did rises to the level of parody and I don't think you changed it anywhere near enough for it to be something new.



Creative works are copyrighted automatically at the moment of creation. Defending such a copyright in court is tough, but strictly speaking registering the item is not necessary for a creative work to be considered copyrighted. On the other hand, I agree that a watermark or logo is at best a speed bump, but it is a speed bump that will slow down some people. Many marks put on photographs will also point you back to the creator or owner's website, which clearly has other advantages to the creator/owner of the image.

On the contrary, it could be my belief that i created something new as both photos sources were unintended to be combined into satire and adds to this public discourse.

The greatest challenges to innovation and the arts are being waged right now. When form factors and feel are being patented and copyrighted to stop progress both through innovation and keep business competition from entering the space. We must begin to ask questions of personal benefit verses public good. The apple vs. samsung litigation is center stage to this very questions.

Back to the thread... Could it be that what we see in the original posting was a KAA pictograph on top of a picture of undetermined origin capturing a public space. Though it is very doubtful it could another photographers efforts could be so nicely done.
]

[wardd]

a logo and watermark can be the same

[Yeadon]

I have a birthmark that looks a lot like a logo. Is that helpful?

[Lew Barrett]

I have a birthmark that looks a lot like a logo. Is that helpful?

We'll need a picture to decide.

[Joe Dupere]

I have a birthmark that looks a lot like a logo. Is that helpful?

We'll need a picture to decide.

With circles and arrows and a paragraph on back explaining what it is.

[Shang]

A logo is design or monogram used to designate a organization or a person.

A watermark is a design or monogram formed in a piece of paper, which can be seen when the paper is held up to light. Or, in digital media a watermark may be a transparent design or monogram that appears superimposed over graphics such as photographs.

Neither of the above relates to copyright, nor has any actual value in protecting an intellectual or artistic property.

In order to copyright a work it is necessary to post the following, visibly on the work:
Name of a person or organization (c) and the date.
It is then necessary to submit a copy of the work displaying the copyright mark to the U.S. Copyright Office, along with a filing fee. They will file the copy work and will mail you a document stating that you hold that copyright. This can also be done on line.

Note that all the copyright process does is certify that you claimed authorship of the work on a particular date, and that evidence of this exists.
The cavalry is not going to ride to your aid if someone uses your work without permission. You will need a lawyer for that.

If someone uses your work without permission, say a pimple-faced snot in The Grand Duchy of East Obershoe decides to use a photograph that you posted on the WBF, as the decoration on a line of surf boards he is selling door to door. You decide to pursue the matter, so you hire an attorney.

Your attorney writes a letter to Pimpleface informing him that you hold the copyright on the image, and that posting the work on line does not abrogate nor release the work to public domain. The letter also tells Pimpleface that he is to cease and desist using the image, and that he owes you a bazillion dollars in damages.

But note again: The only protection afforded by copyright is to serve notice that you care enough about the work in question to pursue unauthorized use of it.

Several weeks later you receive a letter from Pimpleface's lawyer (his brother-in-law). He tells you that his client doesn't owe you a fucquing dime since you cannot prove that you have suffered any actual loss from Pimpleface's use of the photograph, which he doubts is really yours.

You begin to see what a mess this can turn into...

[Kaa]

In order to copyright a work it is necessary to post the following, visibly on the work:
Name of a person or organization (c) and the date.

That used to be the case long long time ago.

That is no longer true.

Kaa

[Nanoose]

You used to be able to mail yourself a copy of the document/picture which you left unopened. The date stamp on the sealed envelope then gave an approximate date of 'creation' should the need arise.

No longer true, Kaa?

Speaking of Kaa's 'marks' on his/her photos - I always wished they would connect me to a site to see his/her other work, but alas and alack, no such luck.

[Kaa]

You used to be able to mail yourself a copy of the document/picture which you left unopened. The date stamp on the sealed envelope then gave an approximate date of 'creation' should the need arise.

<shrug> You can still do that if you want to. I am not sure it's a particularly useful thing to do -- for copyrights (as opposed to patents) the date rarely matters and it's up to the court to decide whether your sealed envelope proves anything.

No longer true, Kaa?

As I've mentioned, in the US you automatically get the copyright just by creating the work.

Speaking of Kaa's 'marks' on his/her photos - I always wished they would connect me to a site to see his/her other work, but alas and alack, no such luck.

I have plans for setting up a photo website but these plans so far are not yet implemented :-)

Kaa

[Shang]

That used to be the case long long time ago.

That is no longer true.

Kaa

You are right, use of the copyright mark is now optional.

[Bruce Hooke]

On the contrary, it could be my belief that i created something new as both photos sources were unintended to be combined into satire and adds to this public discourse.

You can believe that but I don't think a court would agree with you.

The greatest challenges to innovation and the arts are being waged right now. When form factors and feel are being patented and copyrighted to stop progress both through innovation and keep business competition from entering the space. We must begin to ask questions of personal benefit verses public good. The apple vs. samsung litigation is center stage to this very questions.

I agree. I think we have gone too far, especially with patents. There should also be a better system for tracking down the creator/owner of a copyrighted work to inquire about possible use. Given the length of copyright protection there are many works that are covered by copyright or possibly covered by copyright, where it would be very difficult or impossible to track down who owns the copyright in order to get permission to use the work. So a lot of good writing and art is less known than it might be, left in dusty, rarely read books rather than quoted in new books, and left in dusty portfolios and picture frames in someone's attic.

[Bruce Hooke]

You are right, use of the copyright mark is now optional.

And registering your work is no longer necessary either, but as Kaa said, registration will help you a lot if you ever have to try to defend your copyright in court. I quite agree with Kaa: according to current US law a creative work is automatically copyrighted from the moment of creation. Indicating in or on the work that it is copyrighted, or registering the work, will help you in court but neither is necessary for the work to be copyrighted.

[John B]

What do you guys want it to be?

[Old Dryfoot]

I'd call it a logo.

[S/V Laura Ellen]

If you want to take a copyright case to court, the images will need to be registered with the copyright office.

[S/V Laura Ellen]

The concept of putting a logo/trademark on the photo is to indicate that you own the rights to the image.
It allows someone that comes across your image from claiming that they tried but failed to contacted the photographer. A person could (under some circumstances) use a photo without securing the rights to publish if the photo is deemed to be an orphaned work.

Note: I'm not a lawyer and therefore cannot provide legal advise. Please consult a lawyer who specialized in copyright law.