I feel your pain, but I'm not getting canned.

[TonyF]

One of the things I have to do when working back in the photo lab is to prohibit printing of any copyrighted works. I can tell if a picture is copyrighted by:

1. Obvious watermarks
2. Professional Backdrops
3. The Photo company name on the back of the paper

If a customer wants to scan in a professional print, I need a letter from the company saying that they are allowed to duplicate the photo and they need to sign our release form which clears our company of any liability from this. Our company policy states that even if it isn't professional (which we can't tell) but it looks professional, we have to assume that it is.

Had some woman over the weekend who didn't quite understand that...

She came in yesterday and requested to make a few copies of their family photo. So, I take the photo from her and notice the completely obvious watermark, the professional backdrop, the company name on the back of the paper, and even the family pose was professional! It was dated, too, two weeks ago.

I politely explain that I cannot duplicate this photo. Her response?

Her: "Why not!?"
Me: "Because that is a professional photograph, I need a written consent form from the company that took that photo that allows us to reprint this."
Her: "It's not professional! I paid for it!"
Me: "Ma'am, that means you paid for your copy of the photo, you don't have the rights."
Her: "Who owns the rights then?"
Me: "Whatever company or photographer that took this photo."
Her: "Fuck...great. What do I have to do?"
Me: "I need a written form by <The Photographer company> or the photographer himself saying it's ok to reprint this photo."
Her: "But it's Sunday, I don't even think they're open."
Me: "I'm sorry, ma'am."
Her: "This is BS. Let me talk to your manager."

Ok, he's just going to say the same thing. So, I go into the office and grab him, briefing him on the way out about what's going on.

Manager who is a helluva lot more blunt than I am: "Hi."
Her: "Yeah, all I want to do is reprint this photo. Your clerk is saying that he can't."

The manager looks at the photo.

Manager: "Yeah, we can't. It's copyrighted."
Her: "But I paid for it already!"
Manager: "Sorry, we can't print it. We need a release form."
Her: "Come on, I need it tonight, I won't tell anyone."
Manager: "Ma'am, I cannot make copies of this photo."
Her: (Loud Sigh) "Damnit, fine, I'll go to <Our competition>!"

Again, you're just going to get the same spiel.

[ottid]

*I do not condone breaking copyright* But as many people these days own the "all-in-one" printer/scanner/copiers If she absolutely had to have a copy of that photo for that night she couldhave just bought photo quality paper and copied it at home...though she may not have got the same quality

Seeing as the print was only two weeks old, surely she could have given the print to whoever for the evening and gone a bought a new one the following day, as the original photographer probably still had their photos on file.

[dbblsanta]

I can understand why places like this do not want to infringe on copyright, but I do hate it when people at Walmart (where I go to get prints done) like to play copyright police when they have no idea what copyright law is. I realize that this isn't really their fault, as I imagine they do not get briefed at all on copyright law (when they should!)

I have requested prints of various artworks that were clearly created before 1923, such as Renoir paintings and old daguerreotypes. I've gotten the "these are professional and are therefore copyright" spiels before and when I point out that these works were produced before 1923 this doesn't seem to phase them in the least. (First rule of U.S. copyright law: any work created before 1923 is automatically in the public domain. ALWAYS). Also there are many professional works created after 1923 that for, some reason or another, are in the public domain.

Although Walmart has since allowed me to sign a liability waiver which they have on file and I can generally get whatever I want printed. :-)

[ottid]

One reason copyright falls and things come into the public domain - the copyright holder does not enforce their copyright when it is broken. Must make it difficult for photographers etc, who say that you can not copy their images, but people do, generally it is cheaper than buying multiple prints off them.

[SongsOfDragons]

A couple of years ago we needed another few copies of some lovely photos of a six-month-old family member. The pictures we had that had a home in wallets were a little raggy. The 'rents took the photos in to get them copied, and yes while they were professional, they copied them anyway...why? There were three individual photos from this shoot, and the baby was ME, twenty-two years ago!! They apparently could find no record of the existence of the place/man who took them, and the 'rents only wanted new wallet photos, so they said that was okay.

Sooo...hmm. May not be out of copyright yet, but age sure does complicate things. At least mum can coo over my chubby baby cheeks again!! XP

[TonyF]

I found out last week that there was a small group of photographers who chose random public photo labs in my area and went to see if they would uphold the copyright law.

No word if anyone was caught, but it does make me more paranoid to things like that. While a lot of copyright holders do not enforce their copyright, I don't want to be that one person who gets caught and responsible for my company being sued and having my face smeared all over my company.

Seeing as the print was only two weeks old, surely she could have given the print to whoever for the evening and gone a bought a new one the following day, as the original photographer probably still had their photos on file.

I didn't even think about that at the time.

However, this photography company is very expensive and this lady probably knew it would be cheaper this way.

May not be out of copyright yet, but age sure does complicate things.

Good point. And, this is the only gray area I have with copyrighted photos.

If said professional print is very old to where the paper is falling into pieces, I'll go ahead and let it slide. I mean, if it's that old then the photographer either died of old age, no longer cares, or no one even knows about the image anymore. At least, that's my thinking on the subject and most of my photo lab colleagues view it the same. I think I need to stop though. All it takes is one hiccup and I'm out a job.

In this situation though, the print was two weeks old, and met none of my criteria above.

[Magpie]

Ok, I have an interesting situation here. We had a very young wedding photographer, and she sold us the reproduction rights to our photos. (Basically since she's giving us the DVD anyhow she might as well sell the rights). If we wanted to get proper prints done, what sort of documentation would we need to show, as the contract wasn't entirely explicit. (It mentioned that, if we wished, we could get the rights for $xxx more.) Or is this a case of sorry, but we're screwed because we didn't get enough paperwork?

[Jetfire]

IANAL, nor am I a photographer nor do I work in any of the applicable businesses. But if you can still get ahold of that photographer, you may want to get a signed (by you and the photographer) note saying she is releasing the reproduction rights of the photos to you. Do it now while the events are still on your mind.

Otherwise you may run into hassle down the road that could have been prevented.

[Enjis]

When I got married, we specifically chose a photo company that would sell us the rights to ALL the photographs the photographer took that day.
We got our album from them, but have all the pics on disk form. We can send them to Walgreen's or whereever and they print them up no questions. I don't think we have any paperwork to this effect tho.
The question never came up, but if it does, at least our photographic studio is still in business!

[MrsEclipse]

May I live to be a 1,000, and never understand U.S. copyright laws. And the ones I do understand I hate. For me, they usually end up meaning, "You can't have anything you want because we don't want to sell it to you, but we'll arrest you if you get your hands on a copy. Mua ha ha ha ha!" Although maybe they don't actually say mua ha ha.
In all seriousness, I know there are perfectly good reasons to not make something available, but to still defend your copyright. I'm a business major. But still.

I once wanted a promotional slide turned into an 8x10 photograph, so I took it into the photo place and asked if it would be allowed, for you to do that. He said as long as I owned the slide, I could have it altered like that. I dropped it off and left.

One hour later I came back and they were asking to see the release form from the creator. Head, counter. That's why I asked if it was allowed. I signed a release, but to this day I wonder if MGM/UA is going to knock down my door and take my photo away.

[VComps]

Ok, I have an interesting situation here. We had a very young wedding photographer, and she sold us the reproduction rights to our photos. (Basically since she's giving us the DVD anyhow she might as well sell the rights). If we wanted to get proper prints done, what sort of documentation would we need to show, as the contract wasn't entirely explicit. (It mentioned that, if we wished, we could get the rights for $xxx more.) Or is this a case of sorry, but we're screwed because we didn't get enough paperwork?

I used to work at the photo counter of our store, and our general rule was thus: If the photographer provided a DVD/CD/whatever with files of a sufficient resolution for printing & enlargement purposes, that this was essentially the digital equivalent of a photographer providing the client with the negatives; ie, implicitly giving the customer permission to create additional prints.

[Andara Bledin]

For me, they usually end up meaning, "You can't have anything you want because we don't want to sell it to you, but we'll arrest you if you get your hands on a copy. Mua ha ha ha ha!" Although maybe they don't actually say mua ha ha.

I'm pretty sure some of them do include the "mua hahahaha!" as part of them.

My ex and I had professional photos done at a studio for our wedding. The only part I don't like about them is that the watermark is so ugly and obtrusive. >.<

^-.-^

[joe hx]

Her: "It's not professional! I paid for it!"

Isn't that the definition of "professional"?

[Shalom]

If the photographer provided a DVD/CD/whatever with files of a sufficient resolution for printing & enlargement purposes, that this was essentially the digital equivalent of a photographer providing the client with the negatives; ie, implicitly giving the customer permission to create additional prints.

The deal our wedding photographer made with us was that he'd provide us the DVD with the original photos 3 years after our wedding. Of course my wife and I took so long to figure out which of the photos we wanted in our album, it was over three years by the time we got it anyway, so we wound up getting the disk together with the album...

(Meanwhile he'd also given us printed proofs of all the shots first, and my father spent a few nights feeding them into his desktop scanner, one by one, so we wound up with a disk anyways, but not at the original resolution. I can't imagine what a chore that must have been for him.)

[Midorikawa]

While I am a photographer, I'm one of those weird "everything I do is public domain" types.

All of the source code I write is on my site, all my photos are available at higher - or even the raw straight off the camera - resolution if you'd like, and I don't charge a dime so long as you tell me what you're using my work for, and show me the final result.

I'm thankful there's copyright law, even creative commons, and GPL for source code, just because even if there's people I've given my code or photos to, there's going to be someone who I haven't and is using my work illegally, albeit from a less restrictive license, and is still enforceable.

Edit: Almost all my code is available. There's a project I'm still working on a primary functional release on that's not available yet. My point being, when it's done, it will be available. :-D