----- Original Message -----
From: "John Sessoms"
Subject: Re: Wedding photography, starting price?
From: "William Robb"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: Wedding photography, starting price?
> Agreed. It just never occurred to me that I should, and I'm a bit
> surprised that no one has had a problem buying prints.
When I was still at the Wally-Lab I had several long and somewhat testy
conversations with various of my co-drones about this very thing.
The theory was that we couldn't print "professional" work, my take was
that if the photographer had put a disc of full resolution files into his
customer's hands, he wasn't really in a position to enforce copyright,
were he so inclined.
But, the fact that it even came up in conversation sensitized me to the
problem that customers could run into with getting their own property
printed if they ran into a sniveling idiot behind the counter.
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.
Please remember that I live in a different jurisdiction from you, and your
copyright laws are not my copyright laws.
In my jurisdiction, the first owner of copyright is the person who initiated
the photography unless there is a WRITTEN agreement to the contrary.
The DMCA doesn't enter into it in my jurisdiction.
If the copyright notice is in the backprinting that the printer imbeds on
the paper, it is a valid copyright notice, if it is a watermark put there by
the paper manufacturer it is not a valid copyright notice and can be
ignored.
Kodak doesn't have the right to slap copyright onto pictures printed on
their paper, no matter what you've been told.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
