Is anyone familiar with copyrighting photos or the pros and cons of doing so? I've been considering copyrighting some of my favorite shots, but I'm not sure how much of a hassle it would be, if it's really only $55 for 750 images, or if it's something that the urbex community frowns on.

I figured I'd ask for advice and try and learn some more before I went ahead and started the process or did anything I may later regret.

Any photo you take automatically becomes your property and the copyright belongs to you. Further than that I'm not sure in what context you refer to 'copyrighting' your photos.

Maybe you talk about applying a watermark??

Posted by ClementRSedona Maybe you talk about applying a watermark??

That's what I was thinking, in which case there are a great many options for doing that for free with downloadable software and an image editor to create the watermark. For my racing photos (not UE ones) I use Fast Stone which resizes and watermarks all of them at once.

Posted by mookster Any photo you take automatically becomes your property and the copyright belongs to you. Further than that I'm not sure in what context you refer to 'copyrighting' your photos.

Correct. But if someone steals your photo and it is registered... well, $$$.

In the US, copyright starts when the work is created and ends 70 years after the creator dies.

Works created anonymously or for hire, copyright lasts 95 years after first publication or 120 years after its creation.

https://www.copyri.../faq-duration.html

HOWEVER...

This varies by country. For instance:

In the US, Kermit the Frog is copyrighted by Disney and is no longer seen on Sesame Street in the US.

In Russia, Kermit the Frog is public domain and is still on Sesame Street (Улица Сезам in Russian)because in Russia, the copyright of Kermit ended when Jim Henson died in 1997.

Posted by yokes Correct. But if someone steals your photo and it is registered... well, $$$.

Good luck with that.

Posted by yokes Correct. But if someone steals your photo and it is registered... well, $$$.

I'm not sure how it works over there but in the UK if, say, a media company lifts your photos off a forum or your Flickr without your permission, they are in breach of your copyright and using your work without your express permission so they can be invoiced for an amount of money (usually around £100 a photo is the going rate) - it happens quite often as they think nobody will notice.

Have had photos taken off the web and published in an overseas magazine.
I managed to get hold of a copy, also found a photo posted on a forum and when questioned he found it on the web.
What got me as he didn't say it wasn't his work and just posting the said photo implying it was his own.

Posted by yokes Correct. But if someone steals your photo and it is registered... well, $$$.

That's what I've been worried about...

When I was a moderator I caught a couple of shit birds here in Texas posting images they swiped from the web in some DB locations. The Superconducting Super Collider among others.

I knew the locations and knew they didn't take the shots. They even posted their user name when they uploaded the photos.

Problem is UER does not require you to post your own images in the DB or even visit the location in person. See Antarctica if you don't believe me. Stock photos posted by a "non exploring member".

The way I justified taken'em down was asking the creator to provide a statement the stolen photos were used with permission.

I don't know if the original photographer even cared but it worked and they folded, I deleted their locations.

There's enough garbage in the DB already we don't need to add fake garbage to it.

Photos uploaded to the DB becomes the property of UER me thinks that be written somewheres...