Copyright vs. Trademark
ShepsMom
Registered Users Posts: 4,319 Major grins
What are the main difference between those two? If i understand it correctly, for your protection, you legaly copyright your "name" or individual work under copyright law?
Trademark: does it automatically protect everything under your trademark name, every individual piece?? I'm confused here. I'm having a debate with my sister who is a graphic designer, and she's telling me that Trademark is a better option vs. copyright. If anyone has any ideas, please clue me in.
Thanks!
Trademark: does it automatically protect everything under your trademark name, every individual piece?? I'm confused here. I'm having a debate with my sister who is a graphic designer, and she's telling me that Trademark is a better option vs. copyright. If anyone has any ideas, please clue me in.
Thanks!
0
Comments
copyright is the protection the creator of any piece of work is entitled to and applicable to each piece individually.
you can copyright a photograph, a novel, a recipe, a poem, music, theatrical scripts, manuscripts, etc etc etc
you trademark a name, logo, symbol, under which you conduct business.
Xerox, Kellogg's, Sunkist, Nikon are all examples of trademarks. (the logos, manuals, designs of any and all products created by those companies may be individually protected by copyright)
make sense?
(ps: you never copyright your name)
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy
While it might be possible to trademark a photograph, no one does because photographs are covered by copyright law and copyrights are free. Trademarks are expensive and time consuming to get, so people typically only get them for things where copyright law doesn't apply.
So if i put "blah blah©2007" on the picture, do i have to legally copyright it with authorities, or it is legal on it's own? I guess that is what confuses me. So in all, if someone takes your shot and use it for *** , do you have to register your copyright for each picture to legaly protect it??
www.intruecolors.com
Nikon D700 x2/D300
Nikon 70-200 2.8/50 1.8/85 1.8/14.24 2.8
That's a no and yet a yes. You don't have file a copy to be legally protected, but practially, if you do file a copy you'll have a better chance of winning if you choose to sue someone for infringement.
Practically a copyright notice does two things: it reminds honest people to be honest and largely prevents your work from being stolen by corporations with deep pockects. It gives you the right to sue but if you can't recover enough money from the infringer to cover the cost of a court case, the right to sue doesn't really have much value. Copyright your work, but also treat it like cash. Don't leave anything you value sitting around where someone might walk off with it. Personally, I don't try to monetize web resolution images (smugmug large and smaller). That lets me display my work online without fretting about losing it.
blah blah nothing.
the script goes: "©2007 - your legal name"
as for the rest, well there are debates and it gets muddy. The third stickie at the top of this MYOB forum will lead you to many resources to clarify these matters further.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Note that "(c)" is specifically excluded & is essentially meaningless. Either use the correct symbol or spell out the word.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/