[SpecialK]

But the photos are not for their personal use, they are for mine.

Of course, but they think they are.

[photolady95]

then thats no different to copying a BluRay or DVD etc

Did you know that in the USA that is also illegal?

Of course, but they think they are.

Ok, I see what you're saying. But that still doesn't make it ok, imo.

[adr1an]

Did you know that in the USA that is also illegal?

thats what I said - reread my post. I'm saying reproducing works available for sale as you intend to reproduce them is obviously illegal...

Reproducing them in another form entirely for non-commercial use - or using them as part of some other work that was substantially different etc etc - well thats an entirely different kettle of fish that would be up to the particular judge (as has been shown in case history- in the USA)

(EDIT: to make it a bit more plain: if you want a 6x4, and you sell a 6x4, then I can't just reproduce it without trying to stand on pretty thin/narrow arguments. If you produce a billboard sized print, and I make a 6 x 4 for my bedroom - or produced some weird mashup composite that was substantially different and printed my own 6x4 - then thats entirely different isn't it ? )

[K-9]

Wrong there bucko. By printing and then selling the print without the express consent of the copyright holder, the lab becomes the one in violation of the law, as they have just made a profit off of somebody else's work. At that point it's their butt in the sling, not the guy that brought in the image to be printed, so you'd better believe it's their decision.

Tell it to the labs. None of the photo labs I have gone to in the last 15 years have asked about copyright unless someone brought in a picture that said "do not duplicate". Otherwise, they print it. How on earth can any of them tell if someone brings in a memory card or thumb drive who really took the photos? I've seen some labs make the customer sign something saying it's their photo, but that is the extent of the policing that I have seen.

I did, and whilst it was definetly leaning towards always pursuing your rights as a copyright holder, it does also say in the same paragraph its all ultimately up to the judge it would seem and is very open to interpretation. *shrug*.

I wasn't claiming to have any basis - was just pointing out to k-9 that you can't reproduce something you can otherwise purchase... outside of that... what if I was using your image for my own artistic composite - according to that blog - that'd be ok too depending how you want to interpret it.... it'd then come down to 'substantially different' and the like...

But 'copying' something that is for sale - then thats no different to copying a BluRay or DVD etc... its just not legal (or moral)

Anyway - completely outside my personal knowledge - was just offering my opinion

Cable companies issue DVD-R's specifically for reproducing and copying shows and movies you miss. You later view them for home/personal use. I've never seen a cable company be taken into court for providing this equipment, and you never see lawsuits involving movie execs suing home viewers who have copied their movies. In the days of VCR's was anyone ever sued for copying TV shows or movies? Of course not, but only if they turned around and publicly broadcasted them later or tried to sell them.

[Chex]

Copying a Blu-Ray or DVD is not illegal if you own it and make a copy of it. It's making a backup copy for protection from my little kids destroying my good discs!

[magkelly]

No offense, but that's ridiculous. Not everyone who wants to put a copy of a pic on a bedroom wall wants a real art print. If they did, then yeah, they would likely shell out however much for the real thing but you cannot reasonably expect that anyone who sees something in a magazine that they like, who simply prints a personal copy for their cork board, wall or fridge would be at all interested in buying a real print and assume losses accordingly. 99% of those people wouldn't buy a pro copy, period, so that is in no way lost sales.

That's the same argument that people make about VCR's and DVD burners versus professional DVD's. It is NOT illegal to record your own videos and to save them. People do not have want to have to buy professionally made DVD's all the time. I do that regularly, record all my favorite shows to DVD at home, have done for years.

For the most part I don't even want the professionally made DVD's but sometimes for shows I really like and can see myself watching a lot over the years I do splurge and buy the pro set because the quality of the DVD's is better and I know they will last longer, particularly if I make straight backup copies, watch those, and archive the originals in case of loss.

No I don't believe I should have to just keep on buying more legal copies as they wear out. I have shows and music things that are literally 20, 30 years old that I still listen or watch all the time. At this point for some of my favorite shows, artists, I've literally bought everything from LP to DVD. This is just where it stops. Even if everything was still available that long, which it isn't always, things do go out of print, I feel I should be able to archive my originals so I don't have to buy the same thing again and again and again!

Making backups, recording my shows on my home video set up that is "fair use" and so is putting a magazine pic up on my corkboard or scanning it to use for my computer wallpaper or whatever. Violating fair use would be scanning it or recording whatever and selling them. That's why bootleggers who sell DVD's on the street get busted. It's not for making a fair use copy of something for themselves, it's because they then turn around and sell said copy of whatever and try to turn a profit on it.

But no, not everyone who makes a copy of a photo they like is stealing. Claiming you did someone else's work. That's stealing. Making print copies of said work to sell without permission? That's definitely stealing. Copying a magazine photo or just ripping it out and putting it on a computer screen or a wall or whatever to admire, not even close to stealing.

FYI, I was making collages of things before I even got out of first grade. First it was pics of cats cut from magazines, later it was my favorite teen idols. Now it's my own photos, pieces of things from nature, art papers and such. There is nothing illegal about doing that. Nowadays they actually call that "derivative art" and it is actually legal up and to a point so long as you abide by the % rule.

There's always been a lot of controversy about what's fair use and what's not but lately the fuss over ownership rights has just gotten crazy. If the MPAA and so forth had their way all DVD recorders and backing up your own DVD's would now be illegal. (They hated VCRs when then first came out for the same reason, but digital copies terrify them. Everything is "lost sales" to the MPAA.) You wouldn't be able to walk into a library and use a photo copier for anything. People wouldn't be able to copy anything at all for any reason not even if they already owned a copy, or simply for personal enjoyment. Scanner use would be mostly illegal and so would taking pics of just about anyone sans a photo release, particularly if that person's face was a well known one.

A kid putting a magazine pic of their favorite music star on the wall, that should be illegal? I mean come on, where does it stop this constant haranguing people about abusing copyright? If a person wants to actually own a really good copy of a photo, a video or whatever believe me they will go out and buy one. If they don't? Then that's just not a legitimate potential sale to begin with!

Personally as a photographer I think it's a losing battle trying to sell professional prints for weddings and similar. Art prints, that's one thing. People will always want something really special to put in a frame when it comes to decor. There's always a potential for sales there. But wedding photos, portraits? Most potential sales on those are lost the moment your client walks out the door with a good print in hand. It may not be fair, but realistically you have got to know that in this digital age your clients don't need YOU to make prints for them anymore and yes, they will find a way to do it almost as nicely and probably for cheaper. Why should they pay you $20 a print when they can get 20 for that price that are almost as nice from the copy shop or from their printer at home? Sell them the darned pics on a DVD, charge them a nice tidy sum to make a web album or whatever and then forget about the extra prints already. Most of the time they're not going to buy them anyway!

The day I can't snag a nice photo off the web and legally use it as a decoration for my own PC desktop is the day I quit using the internet in disgust. The day I can't snag a pic of someone I like from a magazine and pop it up on my cork board to admire it for a while, or tape my own TV shows or make copies of my DVD's and stuff that I do buy ditto...

I do believe in copyright but not up to the point of it being totally absurd.

That means the person got my copyrighted photo for free, which means a photo I could have sold, didn't and I got nothing out of having that photo for sale.

[maltfalc]

You can handwrite your favorite book in a personal notebook or on your wall and not be in violation, so why can't you duplicate your favorite photo for personal use? Copyright protects someone else from profiting from your stuff, or from them passing it off as their own. If the copyrighted stuff never leaves someone's bedroom wall, it's harmless. What if they just tear it out of a magazine and put it on their wall, do you think that's unacceptable, too? Same thing, just a different method used to reach a harmless goal.

I think if this was in violation of copyright laws, DVD-R boxes you get from your cable company would be outlawed.

try walking into your local book store and asking if you can photocopy some books "for personal use".

tearing a photo out of a magazine isn't remotely the same thing as printing out a copy. you paid for that photo when you bought the magazine and the photographer got paid for the magazine's use of the photo.

[photolady95]

I do believe in copyright but not up to the point of it being totally absurd.

I'm sure there are many wedding photographers, and portrait photographers that would disagree with your statement. However, this argument is older than the hills and everyone has an opinion.

I'm done, I've said why it matters to me. I could argue the point until I was blue in the face and to some it still wouldn't matter.

[jstevewhite]

No offense, but that's ridiculous. Not everyone who wants to put a copy of a pic on a bedroom wall wants a real art print. If they did, then yeah, they would likely shell out however much for the real thing but you cannot reasonably expect that anyone who sees something in a magazine that they like, who simply prints a personal copy for their cork board, wall or fridge would be at all interested in buying a real print and assume losses accordingly. 99% of those people wouldn't buy a pro copy, period, so that is in no way lost sales.
...snip...
The day I can't snag a nice photo off the web and legally use it as a decoration for my own PC desktop is the day I quit using the internet in disgust. The day I can't snag a pic of someone I like from a magazine and pop it up on my cork board to admire it for a while, or tape my own TV shows or make copies of my DVD's and stuff that I do buy ditto...

I do believe in copyright but not up to the point of it being totally absurd.

Perhaps you should refresh your understanding of copyright laws. Some acts of copyright infringement are now criminal (see DMCA). If you mean what you say, you *should* quit using the internet in disgust, because over the past 75 years Disney and friends have steadily pushed the copyright boundary to ridiculous extremes.

There *have* been many, many litigations in re Tivo and other DVR systems as various players sued each other by turns. Advertisers, for instance, don't want to pay for Tivo'd views, because they know the consumer will fast forward through their commercials. The reason current DVRs don't allow you to offload the content to another media is *because it's illegal to do so*. The manufacturers felt they would be in the "enabling infringement" categories - which the content providers assure them they will be accused of if they make it easy for you to get your DVR'd content onto, say, DVD.

Currently it's *illegal* - criminal, in fact - to record and retain content provided to you with any copy protection whatsoever - it's called circumvention. It's also illegal to transcribe media into a different format.

All this brings to bear interesting philosophical questions, though. Is it legal for me to download an image from Flickr, print it out, and put it on my wall? Almost certainly not without permission of the creator. People get away with it, because how the hell would you know? But many wallpaper websites have gotten shut down for gleaning content from flickr without permission - and they gave the pix away free; so it was illegal for them to provide the image that you could have downloaded from flickr - and have to do so, in order to view. So if it's illegal for me to print the picture, what about if I build an electronic picture frame and display the image there? Huh. Who knows?

The recording industry has made it clear that they interpret the law such that it's illegal for you to rip your own CD to your own iPod. Interestingly enough, the DOJ is now stocked with RIAA lawyers. I wonder who is going to win? The copyright holder, or the users?

[Jodokast96]

Tell it to the labs. None of the photo labs I have gone to in the last 15 years have asked about copyright unless someone brought in a picture that said "do not duplicate". Otherwise, they print it. How on earth can any of them tell if someone brings in a memory card or thumb drive who really took the photos? I've seen some labs make the customer sign something saying it's their photo, but that is the extent of the policing that I have seen.

But they are still on the hook. It was still their decision to determine if there was a copyright issue or not. Having a release form may not absolve them in court, but it doesn't hurt. Most likely, there will be no repercussions anyway, but it's still technically the labs rear end. I deal with this constantly at work. It's tough trying to get everyone doing the right thing all the time, mostly because of the confusion that surrounds it. Some of my people think that if you tell a customer that has a photo that says "Do Not Duplicate" to go home and print a copy that's missing that, we are now allowed to print it with no problem.

[MRRiley]

Pete...

Why not just avoid this question? Contact the photographers who's images you want to print for inspiration and ask them. If they say it's OK, provide their permission to the lab. If not, man up and look for inspiration elsewhere.

Mike

[GeneV]

This isn't my specialty, but I have handled a couple of trademark and copyright cases over 31 years in practice. They were outrageously expensive, unpleasant and unpredictable. I can't see an individual photographer being really likely to pony up the substantial money to go after an individual who makes an extra copy without selling it. However, I can see going after a lab. The lab is in a sense making money off reproducing the photo. String enough of those together, and there may be an economic reason for a suit. If I were running a lab, I would be very careful about reproducing photos.

On the other hand, our copyright laws need some work. Going out and just taking someone's work is one thing, but the average person does not really understand how little he or she is buying when he pays good money for software or the services of a photographer.

[normhead]

This is an issue I've been struggling with for a while. We sell our photographs, everyone of our friends knows that. Last year when over for dinner one of them saw one of our prints and said "oh , I have that one up on our wall." She'd lifted the file from our website.

My investment in photographic equipment (like most people here) is thousands of dollars. Tess and I spend hours on canoe trips carrying gear, and trust me , our trips would be much easier if it weren't for the 30 pounds of gear we carry, and we've carried it as far as 10 miles. Everyone of the pictures is the result of all that effort.

And the fact is, anyone can do what we do. Anyone has the right to go to the places we go (they are either parks or crown land) anyone can buy a point and shoot for $50 and get an 8x10 shot that's just as good as the picture she has on her wall. So why would they even think, that it's all right to take one I shot? I'm not denying anyone good pictures by selling mine. People are still free to take whatever pictures they want.

I guess the thing is, if one of my friends asked, I'd probably say sure, are you a mechanic? when are you going to fix my car for free, with your shop and tools, are you a doctor, when's my free check up? you can see where I'm going with this. To tell you the truth, buy a couple prints from me, and I probably could care less. But.. if you display my work... you need to support me in my expenses. It's as simple as that. Photography costs money... I put my pictures here because others do the same and we learn from each other. That is actually a form of payment. But if I ever see a picture on this site I want on my wall, I'll buy it, I will insist on paying for it...because I understand what it took to create it.. and I value the time and effort it took to produce it, and I want the person to keep doing it, because they might do another one I like even more.

There are lots of pictures I'd like to own that are just beyond my price range, and I'm cool with that. I have a few books which I cherish and no original prints. I paid for those books.

[jstevewhite]

This is an issue I've been struggling with for a while. We sell our photographs, everyone of our friends knows that. Last year when over for dinner one of them saw one of our prints and said "oh , I have that one up on our wall." She'd lifted the file from our website.

..snip..

There are lots of pictures I'd like to own that are just beyond my price range, and I'm cool with that. I have a few books which I cherish and no original prints. I paid for those books.

While I completely agree with your general thought here, I'd say that I think digital - anything - makes the problem a little more difficult to suss out. You provide your pictures (the one that she cadged ) on a website for anyone (including your friend) to view. I'm not certain your friend - or anyone, for that matter - has a compelling argument differentiating the web display from a print on the wall. What if she'd put up one of those fancy electronic displays and pointed it at your flickr photostream? That's ALL of those pix on the wall... You're suggesting it's ok for her to look at it on her computer, but not on her wall? Tough stuff to puzzle out.

edit: I'm not certain the average person understands at all the idea of copyright, and there's a reason for that; it's completely counter-intuitive and legal. We own things, not ideas, or representations, intuitively.

[newarts]

Ahhh philosophical devils are in scalpel-like logical nuances while the legal requirements are blunt force.

Here's a link to an image I created and hold copyright: http://newarts.com/images/BarnstormerPooch.jpg look at it if you want (or maybe not).

Suppose you print that image on your local printer by highlighting the link and pressing Shift-Alt-P; i.e you have not even seen the thing you are printing.

Have you broken the law? When? What if you never-ever look at the photo or the print? What if the printer had no ink?

Doesn't my having posted the link (but not the image) imply some permission for you to view the photo? But while I'm viewing it on an electronic device am I not looking at a copy? What if that electronic device has a persistent display that retains the image after power down??? Do I break the law only after I power down?