From: "William Robb"
From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: OT: Down the memory hole ...
>
> I remember a long argument somewhere here or in usenet about what my
> responsibility was at the photolab regarding customers who came in to make
> copies of copyrighted images. Under the DMCA, it's the equipment owner
> who's financially liable for any infringement. The penalties are quite
> draconian.
>
> I suggested anyone who shoots weddings and provides the couple with a CD
> of the images to print their own should include a copyright release.
>
> I was roundly condemned for being a "bad cop", and informed it was not my
> job to "enforce bad laws".
>
Bad law or not, if you don't enforce it, you will, ultimately, take a hit
for it.
Interestingly, and I believe I've mentioned this before, a lot of the
problems you guys have with copyright isn't the DMCA, it's who you grant
ownership to.
It's ludicrous that a photographer can claim ownership of something he was
hired to make, and paid, often very expensively, in full for making. It's
like Joe Airwrench claiming ownership of my truck because he bolted the
driver's side front wheel onto it.
It's a stupid law, bought and paid for by the record companies and movie
studios.
The whole purpose of assigning liability for copyright infringement to
the owner of the equipment was so they could put the factories that
produce bootleg CDs/DVDs out of business. The way it's written, they can
collect 1/2 million dollars for each instance of infringement, where
every individual CD/DVD stamped out was a separate instance.
Except that the factories that stamp out the pirate CDs/DVDs aren't
located in the good ol' U. S. of A. and the DMCA can't be enforced
against them.
The unintended consequence is that the "owner" of the mini-lab that has
a scanner or digital print from CD facility is also liable, where each
individual print is an separate instance of infringement. I say
"unintended" because you know damn well the record companies & movie
studios don't give a damn about the individual photographer's rights.
They'll rip you off in a heartbeat and claim "fair use" exemption if you
attempt to claim compensation from them.
But, because the mini-lab is owned by a corporation, the corporation
have "policies" that direct the operator not to print anything that
looks like it might place the corporation at risk. The corporation
doesn't actually give a damn if you print them or not; the policy is
simply there so they can push the liability off onto you as the lab
operator if any photographer DOES object to having his copyrighted
images printed.
Of course, the flip side is that if you DO follow the CORPORATE POLICY
regarding copyright and the customer makes a fuss, you're subject to
disciplinary action because you're guilty of bad customer service.
But to take your "Joe Airwrench" analogy - as a lab operator, I'm in the
position of crossing with the light, in the crosswalk, i.e. obeying the
law, when the truck in question is about to run over me.
I was told repeatedly that, because "Joe Airwrench's" ownership claim is
bogus, I have no right to dodge the speeding truck.
Obviously, that sticks in my craw.
--
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.
