On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:26 PM, John Sessoms <[email protected]> wrote:
> The real problem with it is the CORPORATION's POLICY and copyright law. > > Somewhere, the CORPORATION has a POLICY that says the photolab will not > reproduce "copyright" works or photos by "professional photographers." > > The CORPORATION I work for has one. > > Ninety-nine and forty-four one hundredths percent of the time it ain't > gonna' be no problem. But it only takes ONE TIME to fuck up the rest of your > life. > > According to the DMCA copyright law, those photos are NOT the property of > the bride and groom, they're the property of the photographer who took the > photos. The DMCA copyright law is written so that the OWNER of the photolab > equipment and the *OPERATOR* of the photolab are liable for the violation > instead of the customer who uses the equipment. > > The DMCA copyright law allows the photographer to SUE THE PHOTOLAB and > collect $500,000 per instance of "copyright infringement"; where each > photograph printed is defined as one instance. > > The CORPORATION POLICY is there just in case a photographer does sue the > photolab to enforce their copyright, the CORPORATION can use that POLICY to > push all of the liability off onto the poor schlub running the equipment. > > Of course, if you're that poor schlub, you're between a rock and a hard > place. If you follow the CORPORATION's POLICY and the customer complains, > MANAGEMENT will shit all over you. > > You'll get at least a reprimand for pissing off the customer, and you might > get fired for "poor customer relations" just for following the CORPORATION's > POLICY. > > And if you don't follow the CORPORATON's POLICY, they can use that any time > they want an excuse to fire you and leave you all alone to face the legal > liabilities for violating the DMCA copyright law. > > Because the DMCA copyright law says the equipment OWNER and/or OPERATOR are > the liable parties. The CORPORATION POLICY shields the company and leaves > all the liability on the operator who didn't follow the CORPORATION POLICY. > > I have to walk a fine line all the time. > > As long as I don't KNOW the customer is violating the DMCA copyright law, I > can ignore what they're doing. They can use that instant printing kiosk all > day long and I won't interfere - as long as I can get away with denying I > knew they were violating the DMCA copyright law, and plausibly claim I would > have enforced the CORPORATION POLICY if only I had known. > > If the customer does something that forces me to acknowledge they're > printing copyrighted images, like asking me to help them do so, I'll call > the store manager, point out the relevant CORPORATION POLICY to the manager > and leave the manager to explain to the customer why the photolab can't > print their photos. > > And if the customer sends it through the one hour printer and it's got Olan > Mills or Life Touch Studios or J.C. Penney's Studio or ANY OTHER copyright > notice on the face of the image, I'll stop the job, and again I'm calling > the manager over and dumping it off on him. > > He can deal with the customer when they come looking for their photos. He > can explain the CORPORATION POLICY regarding copyrighted images. > > I'm fairly flexible. I don't balk at someone trying to copy their > grand-parents portrait from the 20s, 30s or 40s. And I won't get bent out of > shape over old school photos and such, even from the 50s, 60s or 70s. In > fact, I'll use all the magic I can to get them something special. > > But I ain't touchin' anything printed on modern professional paper that has > the copyright notice pre-printed or stamped on the back. > > And if a CD or DVD has the photographer's name on it or if the images have > the photographer's name embedded in the image, they gotta have a release. It > can be the first JPEG on the disc, that's the easiest way to do it from the > lab's point of view, because I can see the release right there on the > selection screen ... but they gotta have a release of some kind. > > I'm covering MY ass! > > Refusing to allow myself to be left holding the bag if a legal shit-storm > descends on that photolab don't make me an idiot, sniveling or otherwise. > > They don't pay me enough for that kind of risk. You've clearly been attending the JCO ONLINE SCHOOL OF INTERNET ETIQUETTE!!! ;-) cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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.
