#2. Has this happened to you?

[Corry]

As casual, serious amateur or semi-pro photographers, we may not know why there is a need for copyright protection or why we aren't allowed to print our own pictures at a retailer. But any and all true professional photographers as a whole know and appreciate the rules

That's really condescending.

I don't see it as condescending at all. Tuna is merely pointing out that pros know because they are the ones that make money at it, therefore they are the ones that stand to LOSE the most money. If you don't rely on your photography as your main source of income, chances are, you aren't going to be making yourself as aware of the copyright laws and the policies that photofinishers have on copyrighting.

 

[Jeff Canes]

It always makes me grin (LOinS) when I see signs that say “No printing of copyrighted photos”

Under US law all photos are copyrighted to person who took them. So for a lab to uniformly uphold copyright law they would need a release for every print. :LOL:

 

[Canon Fan]

Well the letterhead sounds like my next project. Oh well, I am happy at least that this has motivated me to design my cards FINALLY! Here is what I think I am going to go with . . .

Uhh, did you write your own dictionary definition, or is that copyrighted material you're using there, Mister?

I may have to give my friends Merriam and Oxford a call.

Hmmm, well you managed to sight one source I plagerized, yes. Gold star for you. I took it down happy?

If you want a free copy of photoshop, suprnova.org is offering it at the usual rock bottom price of $0. You need a bittorrent client like azureus to download it though:

http://azureus.sourceforge.net/

I'm sure Adobe would applaud to see what you did here as well. You might not be the one offering it from your server or anything but exactly how is it that you know so much about finding pirate software anyway?

Disregard this post if you were joking. I'm in a fowl mood right now, sorry.

 

[mrsid99]

I believe at least two major retailers (including WalMart, I believe) have been sued (and lost multi-million dollar verdicts) by various photographic studios for not having aggressive copyright protection policies in effect at their stores.

Is that statement correct or just hearsay?
Do you know of or can cite details because I'm interested?
Thanks.

 

[Digital Matt]

I heard a story from a person who took their 35mm prints to Walmart to get developed, and when they came to pick up the prints, there was a display ad and one of their personal family photos was displayed on the ad.

While they are diligent about copyright infringement from other people, they do not appear to worry about their own employees doing it.

 

[Corry]

I heard a story from a person who took their 35mm prints to Walmart to get developed, and when they came to pick up the prints, there was a display ad and one of their personal family photos was displayed on the ad.

While they are diligent about copyright infringement from other people, they do not appear to worry about their own employees doing it.

Oooh, that's not good! Even with permission, we can't display any pictures except for those taken BY EMPLOYEES! And the subjects can only be employees or employees families. I'm surprised Walmart allowed that! :shock:

 

[Tuna]

I believe at least two major retailers (including WalMart, I believe) have been sued (and lost multi-million dollar verdicts) by various photographic studios for not having aggressive copyright protection policies in effect at their stores.

Is that statement correct or just hearsay?
Do you know of or can cite details because I'm interested?
Thanks.

I do NOT know this to be a fact. I have heard this rumor for the past 3-5 years. Chances are it was a threatened lawsuit - not carried out. Don't know. The rumor has also been that certain photographic societies have been the ones to be involved (rather than actual studios), but it could all have been rumors.

However, whatever the reason, all retailers in the business of running labs have varying degrees of policies in effect that deal with copyright infringement.

Tuna

 

[Tuna]

I believe at least two major retailers (including WalMart, I believe) have been sued (and lost multi-million dollar verdicts) by various photographic studios for not having aggressive copyright protection policies in effect at their stores.

Is that statement correct or just hearsay?
Do you know of or can cite details because I'm interested?
Thanks.

After my previous response, I Googled and found this - http://www.ppmag.com/Media_Room/Press_Releases/PPA_Accuses_KMart/body_ppa_accuses_kmart.html

And similar articles regarding copyright infringement concerns at Kinko's and WalMart here - http://www.ppa.com/files/public/archive01.htm

Here's another one re: K-Mart - http://www.brainerddispatch.com/stories/120499/new_1204990094.shtml

Tuna

 

[Tuna]

As casual, serious amateur or semi-pro photographers, we may not know why there is a need for copyright protection or why we aren't allowed to print our own pictures at a retailer. But any and all true professional photographers as a whole know and appreciate the rules

That's really condescending.

Condescending? Please call my people and have them arrange a time when you can come and see me so that we can discuss that comment.

Tuna

 

[matthew robertson]

Tuna is merely pointing out that pros know because they are the ones that make money at it, therefore they are the ones that stand to LOSE the most money.

Could you please remind Tuna that the example he used was of giant retail photo studios as being the ones who have the privilege of this protection-by-lawsuit. Could you also please tell Tuna that the individual photographers do not own the copyright, and their income won't be affected. Those who don't have the ability to sue massive corporations, though, aren't any more protected because of the precedent.

Do you really think that my income is threatened by someone who already owns a copy of my work making further copies? All that is accomplished is giving people at the mini-mart the ability to decide what speech is Proper and Allowed. I know your Constitution only protects you from the Government taking away your freedoms, but I would have expected at least moderate irritation out of principle. What I see is Mickey Mouse meets Stockholm Syndrome.

As casual, serious amateur or semi-pro photographers, we may not know why there is a need for copyright protection or why we aren't allowed to print our own pictures at a retailer. But any and all true professional photographers as a whole know and appreciate the rules

That's really condescending.

I don't see it as condescending at all.

As a casual reader, you may not understand why it's condescending, but any and all truly understanding people as a whole that know it is.

 

[Corry]

Boy, you really have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?

 

[Jeff Canes]

I think it a little condescending.

I am not a pro or lawyer, but I know that I understand copyright law.

All photos are copyrighted it has noting to with be a Pro. That is every photo taken for a field to a phone camera.



Matt - This is true with all laws

Those who don't have the ability to sue massive corporations, though, aren't any more protected because of the precedent.

 

[Corry]

Not to change the subject, but all this talk of 'condescending' has gotten that Geico/caveman commercial running through my head! :LOL:

 

[mrsid99]

I believe at least two major retailers (including WalMart, I believe) have been sued (and lost multi-million dollar verdicts) by various photographic studios for not having aggressive copyright protection policies in effect at their stores.

Is that statement correct or just hearsay?
Do you know of or can cite details because I'm interested?
Thanks.

After my previous response, I Googled and found this - http://www.ppmag.com/Media_Room/Press_Releases/PPA_Accuses_KMart/body_ppa_accuses_kmart.html

And similar articles regarding copyright infringement concerns at Kinko's and WalMart here - http://www.ppa.com/files/public/archive01.htm

Here's another one re: K-Mart - http://www.brainerddispatch.com/stories/120499/new_1204990094.shtml

Tuna

Interesting stuff.....thank you!
It would be nice to know the exact details of what was being copied but the potential liability issue is obviously real.
I still believe that a simple release form would cover the stores liability but who knows?

 

[matthew robertson]

http://www.herald-mail.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=100930&format=html