Is there any point in copyrighting a photo?

Question

Copywriting

I heard that there is no need for copyrights in the photo, because. by default, all site content belongs to the authors of the project and there is no need to draw a logo on the added photos. Who knows about this topic? And in general, where can I find the most up-to-date information on this topic?

Answer 1

At a minimum, it will serve as proof of your authorship.
You can read from Lebedev how to set.
www.artlebedev.ru/kovodstvo/sections/169/
Well, read why you need it.
www.samborsky.com/usability/282/

Answer 2

All inscriptions like "Copyright 2010. All rights reserved" have no power at all. If the site or photo was made by your creative work, then you are the author. Whoever and whatever wrote on your photo or website.
What does the phrase “Copyright 2010. All rights reserved” actually mean? Something like this: “I modestly remind you that all works have a rightful owner and author. The year of creation of this work is 2010. The author reserves the right to be called the author and does not want to make the work public domain.”
Therefore, by the way, All rights reserved is correctly translated as “All rights reserved”, and not “All rights reserved”.

Answer 3

It makes no sense. The point is not to spread equals in open access.

Answer 4

Purely for aesthetic reasons, it's nice to see the name of the author in the photo, you just need to make the watermark hateful. You look through different photographs, note for yourself which authors you have already seen, compare their works, you can also find a complete collection if it is in the public domain.

Answer 5

"Watermarks" are put in place to make it technically difficult to use images, not legally. But then you need to put them on top of the whole picture, as they do in photo stocks.

Answer 6

the issue here is not copyright theft, the court will be on your side
. Most of all, the “toad” presses when someone takes my photos and puts them on their site :)
that’s why they draw watermarks, in my city if there is one senile who takes the entire photo in wartmarks - diagonally duplicates wartmark pieces 30 times

Answer 7

If I see that the photo is signed, I look for the author and ask permission to post his photo somewhere.
If not signed, the idea of ​​looking for the author does not particularly soar, because. the probability of finding it is small, especially if the photo has already bred on a bunch of sites.

Answer 8

Copyright really does not play any legal role. I put a website address on my work. And peer and the ability to contact the author in case of interest.
As for uploading RAW files and full-sized JPEGs, this is also not entirely true. I can post both Rav and Jeep. From this they will not cease to be “mine”. If a trial about authorship suddenly begins, and even if the person who took your photo without asking presents a full-size source, this will not change anything. You can ask, for example, to show other full-size photos from this series (this is how one of my acquaintances, a photographer, and part-time lawyer, proved the authorship). Do not forget about EXIF, which will allow you to determine which camera / lens (serial number) this frame was taken with.
In general, as a rule, the truth will be with the author. There are many possibilities to prove. Another thing is that it is rather problematic to find a lawyer who would understand copyright.

Answer 9

If the photo contains the email address or website of the author, then you can easily contact the author and ask permission to post the photo.

Answer 10

I do not mind that they take my photos if they put a link to the source. And it turns out that they are needed, although sometimes you yourself can get worse photos than those taken by someone and posted on the Internet.

Answer 11

There is definitely a sense, but everything here depends on the methods of execution ...