As soon as you click the shutter, your image is copyrighted - even if you do not register it. However, registering it will help you if you decide to pursue copyright infringement. (It can be registered after the fact.)

I know of another pro photographer who had an image accepted into the PPA Loan Collection. He found another photographer, in another state, used that image on his own web site to advertise his "skills". That takes some nerve (and stupidity) since a 3rd photographer noticed it right away (memorable photograph) and told the true owner of the image. Very easily proven who owned the image. Google Image search can help anybody find their images on the web. PPA has been fighting for, and lobbying for this copyright legislation for years. If you don't feel it helps you - fine. There are many who will benefit from this bill, if it does get passed with the amended bill.

Don't knock it! We've had it up here in Canada for years and IT WORKS! Don't worry about the language, that's for the lawyers to worry about. The good news is that in most jurisdictions you don't need a lawyer, and the accompanying legal fees, to bring a case to a small claims court. The judge sees to it that both sides are heard fairly and if you are in the right and have all your ducks in order, the court will find you if your copyright has been infringed upon.

If you work by contract or are paid for your work, make cerin the stipulation about copyright ownership is clearly stated in the contract. If you show your work online make sure it is watermarked or, at least, a notice of copyright is attached. Either sigh, watermark or, at least, place a notice of copyright on the back of the prints or the frame or permanent mount.

According to these new laws, you automatically retain the copyright unless otherwise agreed upon but it is still a good idea to mark your work so if you ever have to go to court, there's no ambiguity.

The new laws make it easier and less costly to enforce your rights and help keep the court calendars fewer connects for cases that involve high amounts of money. Fols who habitually like to use images without authorization are less likely to keep it up when they realize it is easier for photographers to protect their rights.

If you do photography for a living, deal with ad agencies, publishers, or directly with advertisers, it pays to research the new laws carefully and consult with your lawyer if there are any aspects of the legislation that you do not understand and if it cover the amounts of money you charge for you work. Tat ono-time legal fee may save you lots of money and aggravation going forward.

All you need to do: (C)your name and the date!

I understand that their customer service is poor at this time but I have had very good response in the past. Hopefully it is temporary only because of the volume of calls after a major release. Having worked supporting a major tech support company for 25 years, I know it is always difficult after updates and new releases. (Please note that I am NOT making excuses for Skylum, just hoping that they can get caught up soon.)
On a positive note: Luminar AI is working properly for me. It's not all magic, but it gives one a good starting place and some cool ideas.

I’ve had some third party ones in the past, and the resolution/sharpness was so poor I hardly ever used them. But I have a Canon 70-200mm L lens, and Canon makes a 1.4 converter for it that I have. I find it hard to believe the sharpness and resolution I get, even if I choose to crop in post processing. So I guess the answer for you is, it depends. I have read a lot on this forum and others think that a teleconverter (or extender) that is made by the lens manufacturer to mate with their own lens, is the way to go. Good luck! JimR