Illegally copying from proofs - Poll result

[wildmaven]

The recent "watermark" thread got me wondering how the general public feels about seeing a copyright on a portrait proof site. I'm a member of a general forum, and I posted my question there, including a poll. Below, you'll see my question, and some of the answers. 95% said they would print it out themselves!

Post by wildmaven on Jan 24, 1970, 3:27am
So, you go and get your picture taken for a "sitting fee" and the photographer presents you with a website containing your images so you can decide which ones you want to order. You take a look at the site and notice that the quality is good enough to print them out nicely at a 4"x5" size. There's a watermark in the bottom corner, easy to crop out on any home computer, as it doesn't cover anything major in the photo. Would you print out the images yourself?

Re: So, you go and get your picture taken...

• Yes, I would, I see no harm in that. It's not like It would hurt him if I printed a copy out to put it in an album, would it?
• Well if the photographer did not do a full photo watermark then it is his mistake . I believe watermarks are placed to prevent the photo from being altered or used without the consent of the photographer . But I think for personal use it would not be illegal ( I may be wrong ) but I'm assuming it is like graphics , If it is watermarked or has a registration mark then you can use it as long as you do not alter it in any way .
• My dad used to do the same sort of thing with my school photos years ago, i dont think its that wrong
• One reason was because it was my cousin's senior pictures, and they could only afford the $200.00 package (Wich was not enough copies for immediate family, let alone friends and such!) I figured that we paid the photographer $200.00 + sitting fees to have pictures taken. I found one of their Non Seinor year flyers, and a simular package was only $75.00. So they were taking advantage of the fact that the school was sending everyone to them.
• Here's how I look at it. Places that offer to take your picture should not own your face. It's your face, not theirs. Yes, they took the time and energy to take the picture, but to say that YOUR face is THIERS to copyright... well, I would punch them in THEIR face and say "copyright that, you losers" and then run away.
• Seeing as how I've not gotten my picture taken by a studio in quite a long time, if I were to go in I would print off my picture in any size I could manage. I'd edit out any watermark and go from there. My face, my property, my will to do with as I want.
• That places have the nerve to say that they own a picture of my face is wrong.
• But they do not own your face, they own that exact photo that they took. And you are susposed to go to them whenever you want more copies. (That is how they make money) However with high end digital cameras becomming more and more affordable, this is becoming less and less common. Many people are taking their own pictures. My aunt recently got a Digital Rebel camera. And she took my picture the other day, and it was soo good that it could have been taken at a professional studio.
• yeah I would, I mean WATERMARK IT BETTER NEXT TIME LOL!
• Sure, its ok...as long as they don't find out, right?
• If I had a photographer take a photo of me and for me, he or she would not watermark it. It's mine as I paid for the product and not just snapping the shot.
• My thoughts exactly! So, yeah, i'd print out the images myself though i'd be peeved about the watermark and having to act like a criminal.

 

[Alex_B]

it is sad, but this is what I would have expected.

 

[ilyfel]

GAYYY!! Nice thread tho. I offer to sell them a cd most of the time so they can print as many pics as they want, but make them sign that they won't claim it as their own. If they don't sign then I keep their money and their cd. Sucks for them. May be their face but I took it with MY property and its MY cd.

 

[kundalini]

Three things that bother me if I am reading Marian's original post correctly.

1) The lack of respect people have of others work (not just photography, in general, period)

2) 1970

3) and the worst: 03:27 am

 

[JIP]

Three things that bother me if I am reading Marian's original post correctly.

1) The lack of respect people have of others work (not just photography, in general, period)

2) 1970

3) and the worst: 03:27 am

That part is kind of funnybut the rest is disturbing. As a former Ritz employee I know the amount of people in th general public either don't know or just don't care about photographers copywrights. I can't even count the number of people who would come in and want to scan their professional portrits and just not understand why I would not copy them.

 

[ilyfel]

That part is kind of funnybut the rest is disturbing. As a former Ritz employee I know the amount of people in th general public either don't know or just don't care about photographers copywrights. I can't even count the number of people who would come in and want to scan their professional portrits and just not understand why I would not copy them.

Good for you! and I'm serious. I've had to deal w/ those type of ppl. It just pisses me off.



But one time I wanted to blow up a baby pic of me as a kid for a party. And it was a 20 year old pic. The biz is out of biz now and they still wouldn't copy it for me. I think there should be some exceptions to things.

 

[jemmy]

I've been jipped in the past by friends! and now my clients come to me to view and order from their proofs. No proofs leave the premesis - this makes any copying impossible x works well

 

[kundalini]

That part is kind of funnybut the rest is disturbing. As a former Ritz employee I know the amount of people in th general public either don't know or just don't care about photographers copywrights. I can't even count the number of people who would come in and want to scan their professional portrits and just not understand why I would not copy them.

I was having a laugh with 2) & 3), but was dead serious with 1). The lack of respect the general public has for the amount of work and due diligence afforded by artist, craftmen, professionals and all the remaining unnamed trades-people (and laborers) is appalling. We (Americans) have become so accustomed to such a disposible society that it inevidably has leaked into the actual value of effort required by those that use manual practices to produce an item of beauty and craftsmanship. Allbeit, for photographers to use digitial technologies to produce the final result, no one in this forum can argure that a great deal of manual labor is still required to get the customer what they want, and exceed expectations in a vast majority of situations.

And to add#*</@`ugh#@^%:...............sorry, I stepped off my soapbox. Hopefully, point is made.

 

[wildmaven]

OMG, I never noticed that date and time, LOL! I'll report it as a bug on that forum!

I was having a laugh with 2) & 3), but was dead serious with 1). The lack of respect the general public has for the amount of work and due diligence afforded by artist, craftmen, professionals and all the remaining unnamed trades-people (and laborers) is appalling.

I was selling my prints at an art/craft fair and one of the other vendors came up to me with one of my greeting cards in her hand. She mentioned that she was buying it so that she could use the image on some of her crafts. I told her that I'd rather she didn't, as it was copyrighted by me. "Oh..." she said, "did YOU make it?" :er:

 

[JIP]

Good for you! and I'm serious. I've had to deal w/ those type of ppl. It just pisses me off.



But one time I wanted to blow up a baby pic of me as a kid for a party. And it was a 20 year old pic. The biz is out of biz now and they still wouldn't copy it for me. I think there should be some exceptions to things.

Well at the time I was a Ritz employee/wedding photographer so I was one of the few who understood. But.... there are exceptions one being an age limit and the other being that you can prove the studio is out of business. The former (age) would not work for you but the latter should have but you do need proof I would not be too upset at the dilligence of the person who denied you though it might have been your pocket someone was trying to take money from (not saying that was what you were trying to do).

 

[ilyfel]

they told me it was out of business... idk.. I'd love to get more of that pic.. but cant

 

[dvduval]

I think you just have to use a watermark these days. You have to assume people may not play fair (or if even realize it).

 

[phakimata]

I always charge a fee for a session that includes 2 or 3 prints and a CD with all their images, that they can print if they like. I always mention that my prints are superior to the prints they can make at the local store. The reason for the 2/3 included prints is that they can see the difference in quality when they order their own, most customers will return and ask for a few more prints.

 

[ilyfel]

What equip do you need to print them yourself?

 

[craig]

Yeah. Those replies are gnarly. Is the forum amateurswhohavenoclue.com. As photographers we have to educate the client on acceptable use of the images. Communication is the key.

Could you be more specific about a proof site. I mean if it is flckr or whatever the work is basically public domain.

Love & Bass