Copyright of Wedding Album

Discussion in 'Photography' started by annamalai, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. annamalai

    Chris H Guest

    Because it isn't true. They aren't breaching copyright by copying
    something at my request.[/QUOTE]

    Only if you hold the copyright
    In many places they do. It depends where on the planet you are

    This discussion has come up several times and apparently in the USA it
    is up to the place doing the copying to take reasonable steps not to
    breach copyright.

    Turning up with a print to be copied I understand many ask for some
    evidence of ownership. Also with some digital images.

    Some professional paper has a watermark in it that will show up if it is
    copied.
    Apparently not. This has been argued in the photography NG's before.
    Having the negatives usually works.

    No idea what happens if it is a CD in the US.

    In the UK the kiosks are automatic and it will print any image you give
    it. There are copyright warnings but that is all.
    Can you back up your claims? Others have backed up the counter claim
    previously
    NO. Movies etc. include copying.
    The distribution and selling (also broadcasting ) are something else
    Apparently people have.
    Yes. The printer is not in a position to know and it is the publisher
    who is at fault. This is a different scenario
    You appear to have a very muddled view of the law.
     
    Chris H, Jun 29, 2008
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. annamalai

    Chris H Guest

    In boots there is a notice about copyright etc but most of their digital
    machines are self service and no one asks.

    If you want a manual intervention I think the technicians do sometime
    look for copyright data but.... I wouldn't bet on it judging by last
    time I did 30 off copies of a digital print

    Having the negatives assumes you have the rights.

    I have not had to get prints copied but I think they do ask for that.
     
    Chris H, Jun 29, 2008
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. annamalai

    dadiOH Guest

    Oh, now I understand...you are an idiot.

    --

    dadiOH
    ____________________________

    dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
    ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
    LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
    Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
     
    dadiOH, Jun 29, 2008
    #83
  4. I would be no more likely to use Walmart or similar for any form of film
    or digital processing than I would to go to an astrologer for investment
    advice.

    I only use professionals and have never been queried as to my right to
    have something copied, not once in more than twenty-five years.
    How? If there is no indication of another copyright, how can they
    possibly know?
    Which is what I said. Unless the was an indication of a copyright that
    didn't belong to you, they wouldn't be able to tell.
    Already covered. If there are watermarks, logos, with some sort of "Do
    Not Duplicate" warning, or the Logo of a known local Wedding
    Photographer, yes, I agree. The discussion is about refusing to make
    copies of work that was "obviously" done by a professional. There is
    nothing obvious about being professional.

    If I pick up any form of media, CD/DVD, Flash Drive, USB Portable drive
    etc., with all types of files, many of which are copyright and do not
    belong to me, take them to a bureau, I have never had a problem having
    prints made. I use a number of well known professional services in
    several cities and none has ever queried my right to request those
    copies. On many occasions the prints are stock photos and labeled as
    such. Still no problem. I do this dozens of times per year and have yet
    to have anyone do more than ask me questions about output format, color
    accuracy, urgency etc., and wish me a good day. If they were to ask me
    about copyright I would tell them that it is none of their business, as
    it isn't any of their business. They are not copyright police.

    Cal
     
    Cal I Fornicate, Jun 29, 2008
    #84
  5. Yes, a service. They are not selling an illegal copy. Will a taxi driver
    who takes a bank robber to an airport be arrested for providing a
    service that aided in his escape?
    It is. I work in this area, have for well over twenty-five years. It is
    rubbish.
    One would assume that if the person was having nefarious copies made,
    they would not present with identifiable media, but even so if the
    bureau made a copy, the person requesting it is potentially breaking the
    law, not the bureau.
    Maybe you should have a real lawyer look at that nonsense. A lot of
    "shoulds" etc., and note that the "suggestions" are described as
    guidelines, not law. This is an association, not a legal body.

    From your link:

    "These guidelines only deal with activities by industry members and are
    not intended to excuse or mitigate customer infringement liability under
    current copyright law."

    OK? This is NOT law.
    I am not arguing against copyright infringement, just against the
    ludicrous concept that image processors are de facto copyright police
    and that a professional photograph can be "obvious". If someone has
    copies made and the copyright owner can prove that, then yes, they will
    be able to have redress under law.
    Not true. They aren't breaking a law, just ignoring a guideline.
    Already covered, I have never been in a Walmart store, never expect to
    be in one.

    I could however take them to any of the professional bureaus I use and
    have as many copies as I am prepared to pay for.
    What, you live in a rubbish free zone. Lucky you.

    I spend my time between NY, Boston and London, I work in print media
    where copyright breaches are a constant and ongoing problem. It would be
    really nice if it was as simple as you suppose and every business with
    the capability of duplicating copyright media all acted as enforcers.
    They don't. Some, like Walmart may introduce a policy to appease some
    areas of industry, but it is a long way from law or even rigid enforcement.

    Cal
     
    Cal I Fornicate, Jun 29, 2008
    #85
  6. annamalai

    Mr. Strat Guest

    This would have to be the dumbest thing I've read this week.[/QUOTE]

    If you take a photograph which was obviously created by a professional
    (most people can tell the difference) to, say Wal-Mart, and ask to have
    a copy made, they won't do it unless you have a signed release from the
    studio.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jun 29, 2008
    #86
  7. annamalai

    Mr. Strat Guest

    I had this problem a few years ago. I had closed the studio, but for
    some reason needed a copy from a print I couldn't find the negative
    for. I had trouble explaining to the twit behind the counter that I was
    the (former) professional who had created the image.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jun 29, 2008
    #87
  8. annamalai

    Mr. Strat Guest

    Looks like you're the tard.
    I've seen very few.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jun 29, 2008
    #88
  9. annamalai

    Mr. Strat Guest

    Wal-Mart was just an example. Substitute "any amateur photofinisher."
    Professional posing and lighting is beyond the realm of understanding
    of most amateurs.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jun 29, 2008
    #89
  10. annamalai

    tony cooper Guest

    Damn! It's almost embarrassing to see you make yourself look so
    foolish. Yes, the taxi driver would be arrested if he knowingly aided
    the felon to escape. Aiding and abetting. Just as the camera store
    clerk could be fined for knowingly copying copyrighted images.

    Selling is selling whether you sell a product or a service or both.
    The professional photographer sells both.
    Not according to the law. Both are. It's like stealing something and
    selling it to someone who has reasonable cause to know it is stolen.
    One is charged with theft, and one is charged with receiving stolen
    property. A crime on both ends.
    You really work at being thick, don't you?

    The entire article contains both guidelines and a reference to the
    applicable law: the Federal Copyright Act which gives "copyright"
    protection to "authors" for their "original works," such as
    photographs.
    They are breaking the law that is mentioned in the guidelines.
    What has this to do with it? It's the concept, not the specific
    store.
    Try it. The bureaus are not professional if they do make copies.
     
    tony cooper, Jun 29, 2008
    #90
  11. annamalai

    tony cooper Guest

    What do you think the watermark, embedded copyright info, or stamped
    logo is? Is that not an obvious indication? If the person taking the
    image in removes those obvious points, he may fool the clerk but he
    has still violated the law. Even with the points removed, the work of
    a studio photographer is often obvious.
     
    tony cooper, Jun 29, 2008
    #91
  12. annamalai

    tony cooper Guest

    The FBI has jurisdiction over the copying of copyrighted videos and
    DVDs. You can legally make a copy for your own use, but you can't
    sell the copy or use the copy for profit (charge admission). The
    copying and selling go hand-in-hand when it's done illegally.
    That assumes the printer is not in-house. If the printing is done
    in-house, the printer and the publisher are one and the same.
     
    tony cooper, Jun 29, 2008
    #92
  13. annamalai

    Peter Guest



    Are you suggesting we use outhouse printers? <g>
     
    Peter, Jun 29, 2008
    #93
  14. Follow it through and apply the same standard. The taxi driver should
    ascertain that the prospective client is not breaking any law before
    providing a service if you apply the same criterion as to a photographic
    bureau. What you are saying may be practiced in some instances, for any
    number of reasons, but IT IS NOT LAW!
    No it isn't. If it was the problem would be easily controlled. The
    problem is that the onus for determining whether someone has a legal
    right to make copies cannot be placed on the business providing the
    service. The fact that a professional organisation has guidelines that
    it requires its members to abide by has no bearing in law. If it was
    possible to prove that the entity doing the copying was not acting in
    good faith yes, it could be enforced, but that is near impossible to
    prove. The response has always been that they cannot be forced to police
    the law, if they make a token gesture, often no more than placing a sign
    regarding copyright in a prominent place, they can claim to have made an
    attempt to abide by law. It comes back to individual approaches to
    control and it is more likely that a large, low cost chain will make a
    more evident approach than an individual entity.

    I stand by what I have said - I have never been queried on copyright
    issues in several decades and I put a large volume of annual business
    through a number of high quality bureaus.
    What law? Quote any LAW, not guideline or organisational rule, that
    requires private entities to enforce law. Private entities have to abide
    by law, they don't have to enforce it. If they do not expend a lot of
    energy in checking authenticity that does not constitute an illegal act.
    They just have to say that they had a reasonable expectation that the
    client was honest.
    This is a non sequitur. Like is not law. Law is precise.
    Show where there is anything other than a guideline with regard to
    ENFORCING law. I am not arguing about the law, but about the
    impossibility of having law enforced by private entities. We have never
    taken any organisation to court for involvement in copyright breaches,
    only the person who initiated and profited by the breach - and that is
    hard enough to resolve in many cases. All legal advice for more than
    twenty years says that to sue the company making the copies would be
    pointless as they have a simple defence in that they believed that the
    person making the request had a legal right to do so. We can't say they
    didn't try hard enough to verify that because there is no specific LAW
    requiring them to do so in any specific way. There is no standard of
    thoroughness in verification of authority. You are talking through your
    hat, I am talking from long, bitter experience.
    This is getting tiresome. They may be breaking the law, but it is
    impossible to prove if they deny it.
    They are nothing but high end professional. We use many bureaus at busy
    times of the month when our in-house processing can't handle the work
    load. We use only very competent bureaus who are capable of accurate
    color matching and continuity, those well experienced in pre-press work.
    Calling then unprofessional because they don't want to play copyright
    cop is pointless.

    Cal
     
    Cal I Fornicate, Jun 30, 2008
    #94
  15. "...is often obvious"? You are becoming as dull minded and unthinking as
    the drones on here.

    Who mentioned studio until now, and even if so, it is not obvious if it
    is good work. Are you saying that you can't provide samples of images
    that equal a professional's work? Almost all hobbyists with more than a
    year or two experience should be able to do so, particularly now with
    low cost near professional equipment so readily available.

    The presumption that the work of a professional is "obvious" is what
    started this, at least from me. That claim is ludicrous.

    Loopy Lucy AKA Rita is a one man D3 promotion machine. With cameras like
    that and a couple of basic photography texts almost anyone can produce
    work of a professional quality. The days of studio magic have passed.
    Getting away from situations where high ISOs are required, many lesser
    P&S cameras can produce a near professional result.

    You are living in an imaginary world, I live and work in one where the
    reality of copyright infringement is a daily issue. It really isn't as
    simple as you would like it to be. The law is precise, the enforcing of
    of it where third parties are involved is a nightmare. We have lost more
    court cases that we have won and will continue to do so, the
    infringement rate is increasing and the successful prosecution rate is
    declining.

    We have expended massive amounts of time and money to win an
    infringement case only to have a token fine awarded to the guilty party.
    We have had our work reproduced without permission or acknowledgment in
    other publications and still not won because of "intent" issues. A
    criminal act requires intent. The old saw, "ignorance of the law is no
    excuse" is, unfortunately, not law. It is often a successful defence, or
    at least a mitigation in punitive damage levels.


    Cal - eagerly awaiting the next load of impractical nonsense.
     
    Cal I Fornicate, Jun 30, 2008
    #95

  16. That may be the issue. Two issues in fact. The fact that is a "high end" or
    expensive business would probably mean that they would be unlikely to be
    approached by people wanting illicit copies of copyright material, such
    people would be more likely to approach a low cost high volume company. The
    other issue is that if you are part of a large media organisation then the
    various companies you are dealing with would have to be aware of that and
    simply might presume that as such whatever you are doing is legal. The next
    time you have cause to visit one, why not ask them what approach they would
    take if someone unknown to them made the same request. You might be surprised.

    Regardless, I also have never been questioned about copyright issues when
    getting prints made. I usually burn images I want printed to a DVD after I
    have finished processing in Photoshop along with a printed listed of the
    image names and print sizes. It is less expensive than using my own
    printer. I tend use the services of large photographic retail stores and
    they have never questioned me. I have even made poster sized enlargements
    of old sixties Rock Band posters for my parent's interior decorating use.
    No one has ever made any comment other that about the process itself.

    I am in Canberra, Australia at the moment and most places have those "do it
    yourself" processing machines. There is a warning about copyright
    infringement posted on each machine, but that is as far as any copyright
    compliance seems to go. I will be back in Paris is a couple of weeks, I'll
    check with the processing agency I use there. They also have never queried me.

    Maybe this is all a US-centric issue, although a couple of years ago I had
    a stack of prints made when I was in Dallas and last year had some done in
    Washington and was not asked to provide any proof of copyright. It could be
    the same thing, they have known me on and off for a few years, perhaps I
    have a "regular customer" status. Also, when in the US I am working, not
    vacationing and am often wearing a diplomatic ID, perhaps that has
    something to do with it.

    Secret Squirrel
     
    clandestin_écureuil, Jun 30, 2008
    #96
  17. annamalai

    tony cooper Guest

    You keep saying this, and you are wrong. Copyright law is complicated
    and various aspects of it are covered in different areas of law.
    Basically, for U.S. purposes, copyright law is established in Title 17
    of the United States Code. That's federal code so it applies to all
    states. You can plow through it at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
    What it basically states is that the author of work is the owner of
    that work and that others may not replicate that work without the
    permission of the author. The term "author" means the person who
    creates the work, and a photographer is an author in this definition.

    There are international laws that mesh with Title 17. For examples,
    signers of the Berne Convention and the International Copyright
    Convention operate under similar rules laid out in Title 17.

    I can't argue with you on this one. That selling a service and
    selling a product are the same thing is so patently clear that anyone
    who says "No it isn't" is beyond argument and in with the flat earth,
    the moon landing was a staged event in Hollywood, and kissing a frog
    gives you warts crowd.
    It can be, and it is.
    Your personal experience has FA to do with it. I have never been
    struck by lightning in seven decades on this earth. That does not
    prove that no one has been struck by lightning or that lightning
    doesn't strike.
    Yes, and not agreeing to make a copy of a copyrighted item is abiding
    by the law. That's what is expected of a business: don't do what is
    not legal.
    Like a bar checks IDs? The bar checks for authenticity of age in
    order to abide by the law, and the bar's employees are subject to
    fines and imprisonment if they don't check and do serve a minor.
    "Reasonable expectation" is not a defense.

    No, "non sequitur" means "it does not follow". There is nothing in my
    statement that does not follow. Copying a copyrighted work without
    permission is stealing from the owner of the work.

    What do you mean by "enforced"? If a business refuses to make a copy
    of a copyrighted work, they are acting in compliance with the law.
    That is de facto enforcement.
    Well, at least you now admit that they are breaking a law.
    But true.
     
    tony cooper, Jun 30, 2008
    #97
  18. annamalai

    tony cooper Guest

    From his ability to process information, my guess is that "Cal" is an
    employee of some firm, and maybe nothing more than a delivery boy.
    His firm probably has an established relationship with the "bureau",
    and the "bureau" knows what kind of images are involved.
     
    tony cooper, Jun 30, 2008
    #98
  19. annamalai

    Vance Guest

    Here in San Francisco, there are many amateurs who are very talented
    and the equal, if not better, than many day-to-day professionals.
    However, if you took all amateur photographers and their images, on
    the whole, you wouldn't see the general level of technical skill, or
    imaginative quality, that you would see in a similar grouping of
    professional photographers work. The availability of high quality
    digital equipment, while it has lessened many of the technical demands
    of producing a decently exposed image, hasn't changed the fact that an
    image is the final product of a guiding, imaginative and experienced
    intelligence. That is the quality that sets the images from dedicated
    amateurs and working pros apart from the billions of photos taken
    every year.

    In the past, with film, a business could be fairly confident that the
    images they were printing were produced by whoever brought them in to
    be printed. People brought in their negatives, or transparencies for
    printing. Pros didn't usually let go of the original source material
    and had prints made for the customer, so it would be a good bet that
    somebody bringing in negatives, or transparencies, had a right to have
    them printed. With digital, that isn't the case anymore. As a
    result, you have large, wholesale printing operations concerned about
    their potential role in copyright infringement when someone comes in
    for printing and they look like they are way better than the typical
    consumer photos.

    It's unfortunate, but people are ripping off copyrighted material on a
    wholesale basis everyday courtesy of the internet and digital
    technology. I don't know how many times I have been asked if I can
    remove watermarks from an image someone found on the internet because
    they wanted it for some reason, like having a poster made. A concern
    about whether or not a person has the right to have prints made is no
    longer ridiculus in a digital age.

    Vance
     
    Vance, Jul 1, 2008
    #99
  20. annamalai

    krishnananda Guest

    Not to cast a shadow on opinions of pros, but way back when I put in my
    time behind the counter for a photo finisher the photos most people came
    in with to get copy negs were almost always studio portraits from Olan
    Mills, Sears, K-Mart, and the like.

    The reason it was so easy to spot one of these "pro" shots (other than
    the logo on the front or the "do not duplicate" stamp on the back) was
    precisely that they were so horribly trite, unimaginative, and had the
    identical mottled blue background favored by such studios.

    Remember, the only difference between an amateur and a professional is
    that the pro gets paid. Everything else is background noise.
     
    krishnananda, Jul 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.