From: "David J Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lovely smile and eyes. Would they be concerned that the files were
being ripped off maybe,.?? Dave
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
From a recent set of portraits I took of my daughter, my wife
wanted
some small, cheap prints done. This is a job for Walmart. So I
went in and put the digital order in. When my wife went to pick
them up, they wouldn't release them because they looked 'too
professional'. In a way, it was pleasing to hear that the
operators there thought the shot was good.
Nah. They don't care if the photographer gets ripped off, only whether
they might get sued for it. It's the D.M.C. thing.
The way the law was written, if someone uses a photo-lab using "digital"
reproduction (i.e. any mini-lab using equipment made in the last decade)
to print "copyrighted" photos, *THE LAB*, as equipment owner, is liable
for the copyright violation, not the customer printing the photos.
It was intended to allow the record companies to go after whoever owned
the factory where bootleg/pirate CDs were manufactured ... but it
doesn't specifically EXCLUDE digital-hybrid mini-labs, so it ends up
being applied to photo reproduction at Walmart (and others).
A successful law suit by a photographer could result in $500,000.00
liability PER INCIDENT, where each individual print (or individual
pirate CD) is considered one incident. The chances of that kind of
lawsuit are infinitesimally small, but the corporate lawyers get paid
big bucks to find these little things to worry over.
So, most corporate mini-lab owners, including my own employer, have a
written "policy" prohibiting reproduction of copyrighted material
without the copyright holder's permission.
Enforcement of said company policies are hit and miss ... mostly miss,
because as I said, the corporation doesn't really care if the
photographer gets ripped off, they just don't want it to cost them money.
IF a lab employee does tell a customer the lab can't print something
because it's copyrighted; and the customer gets upset and complains, the
lab employee is going to get reprimanded (B.T.D.T.,G.T.T.S.), possibly
even fired for "upsetting the customer" ...
... not to mention expecting you to just stand there and take an ass
chewing in front of the customer (which I didn't just stand there and
take; which is why they threatened to fire me).
BUT if the lab employee does NOT tell the customer the lab can't print
the copyrighted material; and the photographer sues, the corporation
will fire the employee for failing to follow the "written policy", and
use that to shift the burden of defending the lawsuit onto the FORMER
lab employee.
From Bruce's point of view - i.e. he wants his wife to be able to pick
up the photos with no hassle - the easiest way to handle it is put the
copyright notice in the image "C 2008 Dayton Photo" and have a
letterhead for "Dayton Photo". Write a copyright release on the
letterhead for your wife to take with her to Walmart when she picks up
the photos.
That's the key. Anyone may reproduce copyrighted works WITH THE
COPYRIGHT HOLDER'S PERMISSION.
The biggest recurring hassle for me from all this, is where the wedding
photographer gives the Bride & Groom a CD so they can print their own
wedding photos, but fails to give them a copyright release.
You could even include it as an image on the CD.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
