Photo copyright is stupid?

Question

Copyright

Suppose there is a garden, it has a beautiful flowering tree. Someone took a photo of this tree, posted it on a photo stock, mailed a printout of the photo with a signature in an envelope, saved the photo on the card, certified it with a notary, endorsed everything, don’t spoil it. Then I saw this photo on some website. Decided to sue this company for a large amount. He also has all the proofs.
The owner of the same site took the same photo, a long time after or before it, from the same place, on the same camera, at the same time ... and what?
Who will gore whom and will gore whom at all? Without knowing all the subtleties, but is it really in such a situation that Themis is stupid, blind, sold out without a piece of paper ...

Answer 1

I have been thinking about my attitude to copyright and related issues for a long time. Since there is such a question, how not to share? =)
The concept should always be very simple, fit into one/two sentences. And, in my opinion, the most natural thing is: do what you want and can, but do not interfere with others.
In this context. If I have created something intangible: a photo, a text, a program or another tnx, then I myself decide how to protect it and whether to protect it at all. I can publish and I can, to the best of my ability, protect: encrypt, embed various protections, watermarks... whatever. But anyone, if he can break these protections, let him break them .... he should not have anything for this.
When all sorts of publishers lobby for tougher laws in the field of copyright, some kind of responsibility is introduced - by this they invade my life by imposing what I can do and what not. A lobby is always a bribe and abuse of office.
It is clear that any protection is imperfect, but it takes time to break it, during which you can make a profit. The more funds invested in protection, the longer it takes, logically, to break it (with a professional approach, of course). Accordingly, if something, according to the forecast, can bring good profit, that is, people are ready to buy it, then it is probably worth investing heavily in protecting it.
But already the height of savagery is to take money for a work written 60 years ago. If you are typingbook, respectively, by investing some funds, then take money from those who want to have a hard copy. If it’s convenient for me to read from the screen and I can get the text in a couple of clicks (or a dozen clicks), then why the hell are you “breaking into” my personal space and shaking your finger. In extreme cases, you can organize a repository yourself with the most convenient cataloger and search and sell for a symbolic 50 rubles to those who are too lazy to make a few more clicks.
In the end, everything should come down to the fact that the work should be paid, and not "virtual possession".

Answer 2

Both photos in this case, in principle, cannot be identical, therefore, if photographer No. 2 manages to prove this non-identity (here a leaf swayed, there is a shadow from a bird, etc.), then there should not be a problem. To prove most likely with the help of third-party expertise, but its integrity / quality / impartiality is a separate issue.
In general, the issue of rights to the photo is of course ambiguous (as well as copyright in general). On the one hand, not everyone can take a photo like a pro; the pro probably studied this for a very long time, mastered various techniques and processing technologies, acquired expensive equipment. It is only natural that he wants to protect his work if he does it on a commercial basis. On the other hand, where is the line when a private person (or even an office) can use other people's photos for personal, non-commercial or even commercial purposes? For example, I am making a website; as a demo content I insert pictures of Paris. I sell the site, i.e. anything but demo content. He's basically an ornament. I really wish it was possible.

Answer 3

This is more of a problem for the first photographer, because first you need to prove that the second photo was stolen from him. And, I think, when it comes to landscape and portrait, it will be extremely problematic to get away, because there are such unique elements as lighting, clouds, wind influence, etc. And with a portrait it is even easier - there is always a third person - a model. With subject shooting and macro it is much more difficult. But if the photo is really certified by a notary - who the hell can repeat it, and even more so - to prove that they made a very similar analogue, and did not steal