OT-Copyright infringement / Kinkos

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Brooks Ray, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. Brooks Ray

    Brooks Ray Guest

    Hi-

    I'm new here so hello to all and hope you're all OK.

    One year ago I had a problem with Kinko's reproducing my images which
    are stamped with a copyright front and back. Had a talk with the
    district manager regarding these infringements and asked him to stop.

    A year later I find out through a customer of mine who had actually
    originally gone to Kinko's and placed an order for Christmas cards. The
    cards looked so bad that she refused to pay.... and they then proceeded
    to give them to her anyway.

    She then called on another photolab to have similiar treatment done and
    was informed that it is illegal to reproduce a copyrighted image; the
    photolab referred her to the photographer that took the picture. She did
    contact me for her order and finally got my quality with my name on it.

    I called upon Kinko's to check their awareness of copyright law and
    Kinko's copyright policy. I found that three out of four different
    locations copied my work, no questions asked even with the Copyright
    sign on the front, a big stamp on the back with "Copyright by PetPix"
    and my phone # listed in plain view.

    Just wondering if any of you have had any similar experience with
    Kinko's defacing your art and putting your name on something that
    doesn't represent your quality?

    It seems that Kinko's is making profit on copyrighted professional
    photographs and I'd like to personally put a stop to this illegal
    activity with your help!

    Email me at if you've suffered a similiar
    situation. With all the hoopla regarding copyright laws in this country
    at the moment should not there be a system of checks and balances
    regarding images??

    This is how I earn my living and Kinko's is getting my paycheck. Are
    they getting yours too?


    Best Regards,
    Brooks Ray
    www.petpix.com
     
    Brooks Ray, Feb 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Brooks Ray

    Alberich Guest

    What I'm about to say is my opinion and not to be construed as fact. I
    think alot of people aren't fully trained to recognize what constitutes
    copyright and the limitations on them. Fonts, photos and usage of images
    for personal or even commerical use is fast becoming a serious issue.
    The problem is the nature of today's technology and its implications.

    I work as a free lance graphic designer using Illustrator and Photoshop
    along with PageMaker 7. (I want my multiple undo!! Must purchase a legal
    copy of Adobe InDesign CS somehow!!) I recently upgraded Photoshop 6.01
    to Photoshop 7.01. I'm NOT getting Photoshop CS because of the
    activation technology. I'm a perfectly intelligent individual who
    understands the limits of copyright...but when a powerful company like
    Adobe starts putting the chokehold on people like me...then it's time to
    walk away. A case in point is the revelation that Adobe admitting it
    includes software technology to prevent us from "abusing" our creative
    minds by using techniques that "could" be used illegally like copying
    passport photos, etc. Another thing is this activation business I just
    mentioned. I understand where Adobe is on this...but to treat innocent
    customers as potential criminals is not a good way to build a customer
    base. Sealing a unique serial number onto my computer locking in
    Photoshop CS to my hard drive puts me at the mercy of Adobe. If for no
    reason at all my computer dies and I'm forced to buy a new computer...I
    have to beg Adobe to let me reinstall my legally purchased copy of
    Photoshop CS over the phone to some tech support located in God knows
    where?! I'm sorry but I'm so not going there.

    Now that's the darkside to copyright. I'm beginning to like the movement
    called the "copyleft". They advocate the idea that copyright should be
    renewable every so often and not "locked" in for over 100 years or so.
    Like I'm going to live for more than a 100 years?! That's a nice
    thought..although seeing myself lurch from one scrawny leg to the other
    to get where I'm going at that age is something I'd rather not think
    about (let alone realize to get to that point means my health care
    premiums per month would probably be more than 1500 dollars a month!).
    Oh no...I'll probably die ALOT earlier than this but what of all my
    artwork that's been copyrighted at that point? If I died what's to
    happen to my work? Will I even CARE at that point?! I won't care about
    it after I'm dead...but while I'm alive I can understand this...but I
    believe if my contributions to society is such that my artwork has had
    such an impact on culture then I'm probably going to feel it's best to
    share it. After all, all art is prior art. Even Beethoven copied from
    Mozart to get his music career going.

    So if we go by the pure definition of art...then the concept of
    copyright should be abandoned. Because art is based on inspiration
    coupled with a health respect for prior contributions. Only God can
    claim S/he created Light and own a copyright on that because God came
    first...unless some other deity has a copyright on that too. :)

    Just my two cents.
     
    Alberich, Feb 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Brooks Ray

    RTM Guest

    The reason that copyright continues after the holders death is to help
    provide support for the surviving members of their family.
    For example, you *might* live to be a hundred years old, but you might also
    die in your mid-twenties leaving, say, three young children and a wife
    saddled with a 20 year mortgage and maybe 2 or 3 years payments still on the
    car, plus your funeral expenses etc etc.
    They may be dependant on the money your copyrighted work brings in.
    Why should someone else make a living from your work while your own family
    struggles??
     
    RTM, Feb 6, 2004
    #3
  4. Brooks Ray

    Glenn Guest

    I agree with you in principle, a copyright is an asset. I'm sure the
    previous poster would not agree to have his real property rights revert to
    the state upon his death.
     
    Glenn, Feb 6, 2004
    #4
    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.