Comments interspersed. If this has been covered already, sorry, I'm behind
on the digest.
On 18 Jun 2005 at 11:43, William Robb wrote:
The law, in this instance is not about intent, it's about actions.
And yes, we are a really easy target to take potshots at, so we are
exceptionally careful.
We use customers photos from time to time, with written permission.
Verbal agreements don't stand up well if the customer changes their mind
after the fact.
Rob S replied;
I don't understand this at all. Why should the copy/print station owners be
the
discretionary party, they can't possibly have a clue of the ownership of a
digital image devoid of ownership details.
We, as "professionals", are expected to have enough knowledge to at least
suspect that something was taken professionally and/or was incapable of
being produced by the presenter.
Why not force customers to sign a
document which certifies that they are the copyright holder or that they
have
the express permission of the copyright holder to make a print.
That was an old trick used by less scrupulous lab operators. Knowing very
well the presenter did not, and was not capable, of taking the photo, you
would have them sign a release. Most customers thought possession of a photo
gave them the right to copy it, or they just didn't care, so they would sign
anything if it would get them the copy. The courts shot that idea down (see
first insert)
Surely this
would later allow the copyright owners sue the deceitful customers?
Go back to the deep pocket theory. Who would you rather sue? Joe six-pack
net worth $50G or Wally-World, net worth $50B. Plus my guess is that suing
the customer would get the photographer little more then legal costs "But
you Honor, I just wanted to use the family portrait for my X-mas cards"
You would not believe some of the BS people would pull to get you to copy
something. My all time favorite was the lady who came in with a studio
proof, mounted so as not to be able to check the back for copyright notice.
White seamless background dual octagonal catchlights in the eyes, hair light
and background light. She kept insisting that she took it at home with an
slr, on camera flash, with her standing in front of the refrigerator. I
finally had to call the store manager over, who luckily backed me. This was
just after Qualex (large wholesale photolab owned by Kodak) got fined
$150G's for copyright violations, so everyone was a little paranoid at that
time. Another thing I don't miss about the photofinishing biz.
Butch
