Say if I used a portrait that was taken by a photographer that was damaged, and digitally repaired that photo and printed out one copy to replace the damaged copy, would this infringe on the copyright? I have did several pictures this way and had no problem printing them out at Wal-mart in Raleigh, but I stop to the Wal-Mart in Tarboro on the way home to print out a fixed image and they said I needed written consent from the photographer. What's the shake on this? Not trying to refute it, just want to get a clearer understanding of this, since the girl gave me a headache trying to explain and I just walked out.

1/18/2009 1:17:52 PM

nope

I'm big business and i approved this message.

1/18/2009 1:18:19 PM

Should I file a complaint? If you can reasonably explain why its not, then I'll do it.

1/18/2009 1:19:14 PM

anyone who gives you trouble about this is just being bitchy

1/18/2009 1:19:35 PM

Yeah, I almost called her a bitch, but I elected to bounce.

1/18/2009 1:20:33 PM

most copyright laws are in place to prevent losing sales from reproducing the item. I'm not a lawyer or anything but if you get into the fine print it probably is infringing on the copyright...but no one really is going to give a shit if you doing it for yourself and just repaired a damaged portrait.
(except crabby walmart girl)



[Edited on January 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM. Reason : b]

1/18/2009 1:23:46 PM

Quote :

"I have did"

1/18/2009 1:25:39 PM

I would think if you are repairing/replacing a damaged photo that it would be OK technically. But, in reality technically you have to order a replacement from the photographer and spend money with them, and not spend money elsewhere to reproduce their work without them getting paid. That's still retarded.

^At least we know grammar check still works.

[Edited on January 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM. Reason : /]

1/18/2009 1:26:33 PM

Quote :

"most copyright laws are in place to prevent losing sales from reproducing the item"

No...it's about ownership. Which does lend itself handily to profits and such, but the core issue is ownership.

Quote :

"Say if I used a portrait that was taken by a photographer that was damaged, and digitally repaired that photo and printed out one copy to replace the damaged copy, would this infringe on the copyright?"

Depends on the copyright held. And a copyright is only as good as the fight put up for it. But that's irrelevant here.


http://www.librarycopyright.net/digitalslider/
I take it that you got a portrait, for yourself, that was damaged when you got it from the photographer. You decided to repair it, and get that printed out for yourself to use/see, instead of the damaged one.

If you paid for these, you shouldn't need to be fixing them up yourself. The photographer should be providing you prints that don't need any work.
If you didn't pay for these...just take it to another store or get permission. It's not up to the stores to enforce copyright law, but damn if they don't like to pretend it is. What size were you printing out? What was the subject matter? Did they just assume you weren't the photographer?

For future reference, this would be an excellent question for the digital SLR thread.

Quote :

" Should I file a complaint"

No. It'll be a waste of time.

Quote :

"I'm not a lawyer or anything but if you get into the fine print it probably is infringing on the copyright"

Unless
- he bought the photos, and rights to print/reproduce
- he already had permission...just not with him. Email is a form of written permission

Quote :

"I would think if you are repairing/replacing a damaged photo that it would be OK technically."

Technically, no. It's considered a derivative work. If you did indeed pay for portraits, instead of requesting written permission, request prints that aren't damaged.

1/18/2009 3:48:41 PM

Photographers are crooks. Scan it yourself and remove the watermark.

1/18/2009 3:57:23 PM

^fuck you

1/18/2009 3:59:07 PM

Quote :

"I take it that you got a portrait, for yourself, that was damaged when you got it from the photographer. You decided to repair it, and get that printed out for yourself to use/see, instead of the damaged one."

No dumbass, the picture frame it was in was broke during a move and it messed up the picture. If the picture came damaged from the source a 5 year would obviously know what to do, and that get a replacement from the photographer.

1/19/2009 3:47:29 PM

they refused mostly to cover their own ass, somehow a company that aids in someone reproducing copyrighted material is also liable for the damage

1/19/2009 4:51:03 PM

Yeah, I understand that. But I accepted the agreement before I printed out the picture, so if I break the law that's my business. I know they are not going to look at it like this, however.

1/19/2009 4:52:40 PM

Quote :

"I have did several pictures this way"

Wal-Mart is just protecting themselves from a serious lawsuit, as it stands if you didn't take the picture you don't own the rights to it and could potentially get into some big time trouble, so could Wal-Mart.

At my last place of work we had a form they could fill out releasing us from liability on questionable photos, otherwise they needed a release.

Careful that shit is money$$

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 4:55 PM. Reason : lala]

1/19/2009 4:54:27 PM

^x7

Quote :

"oh, you're a lawyer."

1/19/2009 4:55:15 PM

I could understand signing something, and yeah I'll do that. But then companies that makes scanners should be held liable too, I would assume, or no?

1/19/2009 4:55:29 PM

Scanner resolution is pretty poor for reproduction of professional prints

1/19/2009 5:08:04 PM

You should have just told them you were the photographer. If the picture exists on your own memory card, I don't see how they'd know.

1/19/2009 5:12:28 PM

But it's easy to put pictures on a memory card.

1/19/2009 5:19:12 PM

Quote :

"Scanner resolution is pretty poor for reproduction of professional prints"

You do realize they make professional grade photo/film scanners... At school, we can get a 100mb tiff from a 35mm. Even then, there are techniques in post processing to fix a poorly scanned photo. But yeah, as others say, most printers (including the pro labs) require photo release from the photographer and/or model for reprints. The regular labs usually only ask if the print looks professional or in studio.

1/19/2009 5:40:39 PM

Quote :

"I have did several pictures"

1/19/2009 5:42:17 PM

I have pictures of my parents that are over 40 years old, and if I decide to fix them and reproduce them, how on earth would I gain permission to do so?

Quote :

"Scanner resolution is pretty poor for reproduction of professional prints"

No not really. Poor is on relative. It depends more on the quality of ink, the paper, and the printer.

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 5:58 PM. Reason : /]

1/19/2009 5:53:55 PM

who gives a shit, go to another walmart

1/19/2009 5:56:48 PM

it's a little bit on the grey area from what I've heard from pro photog's. There's a big business practice in scanning in old film/photo's into digital media and fixing them. Not sure of the details in copyright.

1/19/2009 5:57:24 PM

Oh JBAZ on my nuts again YES OF COURSE I realize but do you realize how expensive they are and how rare it is for a regular consumer to have one? And that most people who want a scanner don't know a lot in fixing the resolution?

BUT YEAH TRY TO PROVE ME WRONG SOME MORE

1/19/2009 6:00:04 PM

I think Fair Use should be amended to encompass reproducing fixed photos.

1/19/2009 6:00:39 PM

according to the law, a professional photograph is copyrighted the instant it is created. I used to work in the copy center at staples and we were never allowed to reproduce professional photographs without the written consent of the photographer. We were always threatened with massive fines or termination for violating company laws.

1/19/2009 6:05:36 PM

Quote :

"I HAVE DID"

1/19/2009 6:06:28 PM

Everything is copyrighted the instance it is created whether its professional or not. That's why it's bullshit.

Dje, man you are grown man, why you following these kids pointing out a stupid writing error which we are all capable of making? As you can see I did not bother to fix it...

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 6:09 PM. Reason : /]

1/19/2009 6:08:11 PM

Quote :

"Scanner resolution is pretty poor for reproduction of professional prints"

The way you stated this phrase is leading on the reader that all scanners on the market have poor resolution and are not for professional use. You could have said "common" or "most" or any other adjective.

Isn't English fun?

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 6:11 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2009 6:08:52 PM

No it's not, I didn't say ALL I just said Scanners as in the kind most people think of when you say the word, ie the ones bought at stores with shitty resolution at a "decent" price.

Otherwise I'm sure it would have been noted that they were referring to the top of the line scanners.

BUT OK

1/19/2009 6:12:20 PM

wait, are you a kid?

and i was not the first to point it out. the beatup face proves that was obviously just trying to be cute. learn your internet protocol son

1/19/2009 6:12:34 PM

Did you really find that worthy enough to repost about it?

1/19/2009 6:14:10 PM

i did

but mainly because i feel bad about myself

1/19/2009 6:15:29 PM

Just let me know what you think about the copyright of images. That's all I need to know. I am not trying to refute the right to the pictures, but if companies themselves can be held accountable, then hardware vendors can be held accountable as well.

1/19/2009 6:18:04 PM

Quote :

"No it's not, I didn't say ALL I just said Scanners as in the kind most people think of when you say the word, ie the ones bought at stores with shitty resolution at a "decent" price."

You didn't say Scanners, you said Scanner resolution, which completely changes the subject and inference.

Personally, I'd say if you scan in prints and make reprints for yourself and not making 100+ reprints, I think you are ok. Plus if you are personally scanning the photo's yourself, you'd most likely be limited to 11x14 as a max print to scan for consumer models since anything larger tends to be expensive.

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 6:26 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2009 6:22:32 PM

Quote :

"according to the law, a professional photograph is copyrighted the instant it is created."

Yeah, that's what I've always heard.

But it's always been my opinion that fuck them, the picture's of me, I paid them to take it, it's mine. Go to another photo store where the people don't pay much attention.

1/19/2009 6:26:19 PM

Ha. I feel sorta the same way. But, I do believe in a photographer's gig, and they should make their money, but if I pay for an image I should be also buying into part of the rights the image.

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 6:29 PM. Reason : /]

1/19/2009 6:28:00 PM

as long as you are not using the images to slam that company or for your own personal game, then I say it is all good. but then again, i am not a lawyer

1/19/2009 6:29:19 PM

That also the way I feel. I could see if I was printing out a set with wallets and 5x7s like I was going to sell it or something, but one picture. Gimmie a break.

1/19/2009 6:30:42 PM

from personal experience, I have used logos from other companies in my presentations. in my opinion, it is free advertising more than anything else

1/19/2009 6:32:06 PM

That's Fair Use there, so you were good.

1/19/2009 6:33:05 PM

although it is quite funny that an employee at the photo center at fucking Wal Mart gave you flack about anything

1/19/2009 6:35:10 PM

Yeah, I felt like I had was magnetized by her stupidity that was resonating (think about the Italian spiderman gif) so I couldn't do anything but retreat because I was on unfamiliar territory.

1/19/2009 6:37:39 PM

seriously, if you are making anything 8x10 or smaller, just buy a simple & cheap photo printer. Most of them are pretty good now days.

1/19/2009 6:38:39 PM

Yeah, That what I am going to do. I'd rather spend the money than be magnetized again.

1/19/2009 6:39:27 PM

Wal-mart is fucking retarded when it comes to this stuff. Just go back in after the shift change and the new person behind the counter will most likely not give a fuck.

1/19/2009 6:44:22 PM

plus, walmart can't do color correction worth a damn.

1/19/2009 6:45:28 PM

set em up

1/19/2009 9:18:28 PM