----- Original Message -----
From: "Cotty"
Subject: Re: Are your photos too good?
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was rubbishing the paranoid
attitude of the printers - how many pieces of paper must one sign to make
prints of one's own work?? Besides, do you honestly think that any forger
worth his or her salt would appropriate the use of Wal Mart et al as a
mechanism for illegal activity? The real crooks have their own setups.
We do it because we like to have our customers pissed off and swearing at
us. I think in a small minded way, we enjoy knowing that we have just fucked
up some customer's day. Thats why we get that rubbery smile thing happenning
when the customers are abusing us. Trying to contain one's glee in this type
of situation is paramount, but often difficult.
No, really, we don't copy pro pictures because we believe that it is the
wrong thing to do, and the law happens to agree with us.
All the customer has to do is prove ownership.
We are paranoid because we know that most violations are nickle and dime
shit, but a photographer is still potentially hurt when we screw up.
If caught and held accountable, the least it will cost us is some lawyer
time and a cash payout of enough money to let the photographer spend his
winter in Florida.
The most it will cost us is a several thousand dollar fine (the law allows
for 25 grand, I believe, in Canada) plus whatever cash payout to the
photographer is deemed appropriate.
Bigger targets pay bigger fines, and get more bad publicity as well.
We are paranoid because we don't want to accidentally break the law and then
get busted.
We want to be erring on the side of caution.
I think what is going to need to happen is for the law regarding burden of
responsibility be switched from the lab to the customer, and the customer
being held accountable.
A change of the law in this way would be bad for professional photographers
though.
Big companies are easier targets for extortive damage claims than individual
people.
Individual people don't like to be held accountable either, and they elect
like minded politicians.
My lab, in Christmas season, will probably turn away fifty requests for
copyright violation, and I am sure that some slip through.
While that is the busiest time, it never really lets up completely
Thats a lot of trade to send away on the off chance that someone notices,
and I am just one lab.
Why is a little bit wrong OK?
What % of my yearly gross am I allowed to make via breach of copyright?
Anyway, the problem is that often now, we have no way of knowing if the
customer owns rights. When it was just film, if you brought the negative, we
printed it.
We were willing to believe that possession of the negative meant that you
owned it.
On a smaller scale, we had to watch out for amateur copy negs, but mostly
they were easy to spot.
I think most labs tend to watch out for the photographers best interest.
That there are problems at the moment is only because we live in a time when
law and technology are not in step with each other.
Apparently, its OK to use cracked software without the copyrights owner's
permission too.
William Robb
