[pete_pf]

I want to print out a few photos I really like that are taken by various photographers, and random images I have found online which I like. I will probably just tape them on my wall or have them for reference on my desk. Basically I want to print them for inspiration, not for any profits - do photo labs usually have any issue with this?

[Docrwm]

Yup. I've had them reject photos I took because they "suspected" they were under copyright.

[photolady95]

Most photolabs, I should say honest photo labs, won't print photos if you do not own the copyright. It's called copyright infringement. Solution would be to contact the owner and ask permission or buy them outright. No matter what your intentions, it's still stealing.

[Cregar]

I would think it could be considered "Fair Use"

Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From US Copyright website

"In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a “copy” of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the “work” – is distinct from the “work” itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer’s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a “fair use” under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. However, even if a person determines a use to be a “fair use” under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person’s assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law."

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

Why don't you just print them out on a good desktop inkjet printer?

---

Last edited by Cregar; 06-24-2011 at 06:07 PM.

[K-9]

It should not ne the photo lab's decision whether to print something or not, or to police the anti copyright laws. Unless something has a copyright written on it or "do not duplicate" they should print anything you want. If they do not, just buy a printer and print them yourself. Or, you can always go to self print kiosks. They don't ask any questions.

[photolady95]

Why don't you just print them out on a good desktop inkjet printer?

Edit. I don't understand why people think it's alright to print copyrighted photos. I sell some of mine, there are wedding photographers that make their living doing so, why you all think it's okay to take what isn't yours and print them.

[interested_observer]

Carolyn Wright is an attorney who specializes in photography and copyright issues. She also maintains a fairly extensive blog on the topic. If you are interested in the topic, it is good reading....

• The Fuss About Fair Use | Photo Attorney

[SpecialK]

Edit. I don't understand why people think it's alright to print copyrighted photos. I sell some of mine, there are wedding photographers that make their living doing so, why you all think it's okay to take what isn't yours and print them.

Because they think it is for personal use, not selling or advertising.

[photolady95]

Good article interested observer. Here's what she wrote about fair use of photos and income:

Carolyn Wright...When the unauthorized use directly effects and competes with the copyright owner’s business or potential for income, a court will usually find that the use was not a fair use.

Because they think it is for personal use, not selling or advertising.

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

[K-9]

Edit. I don't understand why people think it's alright to print copyrighted photos. I sell some of mine, there are wedding photographers that make their living doing so, why you all think it's okay to take what isn't yours and print them.

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.

[photolady95]

If the copyrighted stuff never leaves someone's bedroom, it's harmless.

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.

[adr1an]

IANAL - and I agree with K-9, but there is the extension at the same time that in 'fair-use' you don't deprive the copyright holder of income (this would be causing 'harm' against original artist.....) So if they *sell* 6x4's or whatever you particularly want, then reproducing your own would be I think a definite no-no. If they only sell pre-framed large prints etc, then perhaps there is room for interpretation.

Else, we'd be right to freely reproduce whatever we wanted without regard to ever buying it... Just sayin...

But I otherwise agree - if theres no actual sale item of what you desire, an own reproduction for non-commercial purposes perhaps would seem to fit 'fair-use'...

[photolady95]

You all need to read that article. It explains fair use really well.

[adr1an]

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

[Jodokast96]

It should not ne the photo lab's decision whether to print something or not....

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.