Copyrighting in Lightroom, possible option?

So I know that many of us are awaiting an update to LR that will allow some better options for watermarking a copyright onto our photos when we create a web gallery. I am not anywhere near a professional and honestly feel a little bit silly about having a © notice on every pic... especially with how large and obnoxious it is in the ONLY format allowed by Lightroom.

I understand the reason for it though and have had a photo of mine used on a rather public website without my consent... so I'd like something but until LR offers an option for a smaller or more subtle look, I'm not a huge fan. But I don't want "nothing" either.

So... would it be sufficient to have the "TITLE" option on the LR web gallery set to "Custom Text" and have that custom text contain the © notice? See the sample pic below... I'd prefer to not have it on the photo and only below the pic.

Is this enough or does it need to be ON the pic? I do flash based galleries to prevent the simple "right click, save as" feature... so there's no real easy way to get the ©-less jpg. I'm also taking steps to ensure that adding /bin won't give a directory listing they can simply browse through.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

It needs to be on, preferably over the umbrella to make it hard to clone out.

You don't need to use the copyright information on the images at all. It used to be required for copyright protection, but the law changed a while back.

One doesn't need to put a sign on your car saying it's 'Not Free. Please don't take." There is a common assumption that if you don't own it yourself, you can't use it without permission. Adding the copyright text is just restating the obvious.

It doesn't hurt to have it since it does alert people that the image is copyrighted, and that may make some people think twice about using it. But for some, it won't make any difference. And for those that remove the copyright information and use it anyway, this helps prove willful intent and thus substantially raises any damages and awards to the copyright holder. So it is nice to have it there!

What you show is perfectly acceptable in either case.

It makes a big difference in the damages you get.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #4232498
It makes a big difference in the damages you get.

sfaust wrote in post #4232317
And for those that remove the copyright information and use it anyway, this helps prove willful intent and thus substantially raises any damages and awards to the copyright holder. So it is nice to have it there!

I think that's what I said

PhotosGuy wrote in post #4232498
It makes a big difference in the damages you get.

Not sure if I'd ever seek damages... and I thought you actually had to have it registered to collect damages anyhow?

Correct! You can't even file a lawsuit without registering the image. While copyright is made at the time of exposure, you need to register to file an action.

Whether or not you might want to seek damages is entirely up to each individual. However, if you register all your images (insignificant cost and time to do so), you will at least have that option. Many lawyers won't even take a case without proper registration.

I'm generally of the 'try to work it out rather than resort to legal action' crowd. But I'd rather register and not have to use it, then need to use it and not have registered.