Hi Butch I disagree with you here at least for my home country. What works as "How-to do business" for the Swiss banks according to Swiss Bank Law should well work for a lab too. A lawyer just signs an A form paper stating that he knows the beneficiary of the money he wants to deposit. That's good enough that the banks can administer the money without even knowing the name of the real owner.
If the holder of a photo makes a written statement that he has all the rights on the photo this should be good enough for the lab. Its not the right or duty of the lab to judge about IMHO. I would not even show a passport or driver license to somebody else than the police, I'm in no way obliged to do so. greetings Markus >>From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 3:43 AM >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net >>Subject: Re: Are your photos too good? >> > >> 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 >> >> >> >>
