The photographer for our wedding gave us all the photos she took. We've had probably hundreds of them printed at Walgreens via their online submission system. For whatever reason, my wife went to pick some up today and they said they couldn't give them to her because they were copyrighted.

I suspect there is a flag embedded in the files. Is there an easy way to determine if they are and remove it if so?

6/19/2009 2:26:35 PM

you could order the photos via the photographer and not try to stiff them out of their earnings (if that is what you are trying to do) OR you could ask the photographer to remove the copyright if it is in fact ok for you to print it else where.

Most of the time when they give you a CD its for proofs.

6/19/2009 2:29:48 PM

Quote :

"my wife"

Shenanigans!

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 2:34 PM. Reason : also what a dick move]

6/19/2009 2:33:45 PM

Tell them to fuck off. Tell them that they're the original files and that you have full rights to them. They have no proof that you're not the copyright holder. If you want, I'll say that I'm the photographer and I'll send you a release on letterhead via PDF.

6/19/2009 2:46:26 PM

How did I know the reading challenged morality police would show up to this thread first. I assumed it would be Neon but I guess he actually has stuff to work on during the day unlike some folks.

What part of this

Quote :

"The photographer for our wedding gave us all the photos she took."

Don't you understand?

Quote :

"Tell them to fuck off. Tell them that they're the original files and that you have full rights to them. They have no proof that you're not the copyright holder."

My wife picked them up while I waited in the car, I told her I wish I could have gone in because I'm a much better negotiator about stuff like this than she is. I don't know anything about digimarks, can you make it say "xxx photography, LLC" or is it just some sort of flag? They told her she'd have to get a note from the photographer saying it was ok to print. She looked at all the photos she's uploaded for print recently and even photos we took have "photo owned" marked beside them online.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2009 2:47:31 PM

that could mean for proofs...don't u understand??

6/19/2009 2:50:18 PM

pics or it didn't happen

6/19/2009 2:54:39 PM

Yeah, if I would have meant proofs I would have said proofs. Do you expect me to print out photos with "proof" watermarked across it and actually use it for something? If I would have wanted to "steal" the photos, don't you think I'd probably just do the googling work for this on my own instead of subjecting myself to asshats like you?

6/19/2009 2:54:57 PM

Quote :

"They told her she'd have to get a note from the photographer saying it was ok to print. "

I have a suggestion:

Get a note from the photographer saying it's OK to print them.

6/19/2009 2:55:54 PM

FUCK the photographer...the photographer gets paid to take pictures...the pictures are not OWNED by the photographer unless the OP and/or his wife (or whoever is paying the photographer) signed something to that effect (different than giving him the right to use the photographs as examples)

no one is stiffing anyone...there's no reason whatsoever the OP should HAVE to use the photographer to get the pictures printed (again, unless he signed something to that effect)

i don't know what kind of copyright you're talking about, though...i filled in the text on my D90 with "(c) my name", which is then part of the EXIF data...you can remove this information, though

maybe the pictures on the CD had copyright watermarks that you didn't notice added to them?

6/19/2009 2:56:54 PM

Quote :

"maybe the pictures on the CD had copyright watermarks that you didn't notice added to them"

No, there are no watermarks. These are the originals, we've blown one up to about 2'x3' or something like that, I imagine I would have noticed a watermark on them.

I really don't know if there is something embedded that is flagging or there is something screwy with Walgreens' system, because like I said, it lists photos we took with a shitty pocket digicam as "photo owned" and there is certainly no way we could or did set any sort of a meta item on those photos.

6/19/2009 3:00:50 PM

i THINK this will show special (stuff outside the shutter speed, ISO, etc.) EXIF data...right-click one of the images, go to properties, go to summary tab and click "advanced"...see if anything shows up under there

irfanview will strip EXIF data if you tell it to, IIRC http://www.pallab.net/2007/06/20/ten-more-things-you-can-do-with-irfanview/

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM. Reason : link]

6/19/2009 3:03:46 PM

Aight, I had a look at properties via Picasa and didn't see anything. I was going to try irfan view but my wife was too buys being pissed about the experience and was looking around on Walgreens site and wouldn't give me my machine

6/19/2009 3:06:00 PM

The photographer should have given you a signed copyright release form. You paid for the service, and I guess she provided no prints as part of that service (since its cheaper that way). Its her bad, so I'd have her fax you the release.

I was pretty irked that the photographer for our wedding doesnt want us putting any photos of us online.

6/19/2009 3:42:20 PM

Quote :

"I was pretty irked that the photographer for our wedding doesnt want us putting any photos of us online."

was that part of the contract?

man, when i get married, i'm not having any of that shit...the pictures are OF me and paid for BY me...fuck what the photographer wants

6/19/2009 3:52:29 PM

Quote :

"FUCK the photographer...the photographer gets paid to take pictures...the pictures are not OWNED by the photographer unless the OP and/or his wife (or whoever is paying the photographer) signed something to that effect (different than giving him the right to use the photographs as examples)"

Wrong. It's the exact opposite. Photographs are the property of the photographer unless they grant specific permission otherwise.

Also, you rubes (Fail Boat), you realize there is a difference between a VISUAL watermark and a DIGITAL watermark, right? Just because there is no Visual watermark, does not mean you have permission to print and reproduce the images.

6/19/2009 3:54:44 PM

hahaha, bunch of people in this thread assuming way too much.


If you got a cd of images from the photographer then you can do whatever you want with them, as can the photographer. The photographer (well, business depending on a few things) own the photos as soon as they hit the shutter button. The cd usually grants the holder the right to use the images for personal use in any way they see fit. The photographer/business can still, unless the papers you sign say otherwise, use the photo for whatever it wants from display prints, ads, or even submission to stock photo agencies where they'd make commission.

There is likely not any embedded info but the fact that they look professional is the tipoff for a lot of places. They may have exif data with contact info (we do this) but we don't lock them as copyrighted because we don't want to deal with the hassle if the customer buys a disc of images. Also, the photographer should have printed out and signed a release form along with the cd for cases like this. That is standard practice for any professional photographer or studio that actually gives away or sells the jpg images.

MOST photographers make their living by selling prints. Unless we are charging what amounts to 300+ an hr, after expenses, we can't live off just sitting fees from shoots and weddings. Honestly for weddings I spend around 2 hrs on the computer editing for every hour of shooting the event. Then I have at least that much time again in final album design and assembly that has to be factored into the whole deal. We don't have normal 9-5 40 paid hours a week jobs. We may work 1 hr today, 3 hrs yesterday, but 12 tomorrow on actual paid work, and that'd be a steady to busy few days for an average portrait/wedding photographer.

[Edited on June 19, 2009 at 4:27 PM. Reason : ]

6/19/2009 3:58:56 PM

Quote :

" Also, you rubes (Fail Boat), you realize there is a difference between a VISUAL watermark and a DIGITAL watermark, right? Just because there is no Visual watermark, does not mean you have permission to print and reproduce the images."

No wai man? I'm blown away. I had no idea there was such a thing as a DIGItal waterMARK. I wish I would have thought to look for it earlier in the thread. And you wonder why quagmire gets on you so hard. I'm guessing you read at most 1 or 2 posts per thread, and you probably don't even read the full post before giving your valuable (in Zimbabwe dollars) opinion.

Quote :

"There is likely not any embedded info but the fact that they look professional is the tipoff for a lot of places. They may have exif data with contact info (we do this)"

Yeah, after looking at the exif with irfanview and not finding any info I was puzzled. So I went searching, and finally thought to search for 'walgreens copyright policy' and found this

http://photo1.walgreens.com/storepage/storePageId=Copyright+Policy

So I guess they just went through them and decided the wedding photos looked professional enough.

Quote :

"Also, the photographer should have printed out and signed a release form along with the cd for cases like this."

Well, she is from a smaller town than Cary/Raleigh where I imagine the local photo houses don't give two shits about somethign like this.

Quote :

"MOST photographers make their living by selling prints. Unless we are charging what amounts to 300+ an hr, after expenses, we can't live off just sitting feels from shoots and weddings."

Well, I have no idea how much work went into combing through the images she took to get down to the good ones (of which we have 751) and then touching up. If we assume a week worth of 8 hour days post processing just our wedding + the time at the wedding and engagement + bridal photos, she probably made 90hr.

Quote :

"Honestly for weddings I spend around 2 hrs on the computer editing for every hour of shooting the event."

Yeah, I'd say she had probably 8-10 hrs at our wedding, 1hr at our engagement pics, and an hour at the bridal portraits.

6/19/2009 4:16:52 PM

Fail Boat Quote:

Quote :

"No, there are no watermarks. These are the originals, we've blown one up to about 2'x3' or something like that, I imagine I would have noticed a watermark on them."

Dumbass. A digital watermark is != a copyright flag.

6/19/2009 4:36:49 PM

Quote :

"Dumbass. A digital watermark is != a copyright flag."

THAT WAS A REPLY TO QUAGMIRE THAT ASKED IF IT HAD WATERMARKS YOU ARROGANT CUNT RAG

If you would have taken the fucking time to read everyones reply you would have known that.

6/19/2009 4:40:21 PM

lol, is your wife Russian?

6/19/2009 4:43:40 PM

No, the caps are really the only way you can convey a sense of frustration with users.

I mean, I point out that he probably didn't read hardly any of the thread, then he goes and proves me right with what he quoted.

It I facepalmed as hard as necessary to accurately convey the emotion I'd knock myself out every time I read a Neon post.

6/19/2009 4:50:26 PM

You're not even close to being correct, btw. But keep digging that hole all you want.

6/19/2009 4:56:03 PM

I still think this thread started off as a troll. I mean seriously...fail boat married? haha...thats the joke of the year.

6/19/2009 4:59:37 PM

Quote :

"You're not even close to being correct, btw. But keep digging that hole all you want."

: facepalm :

6/19/2009 5:05:51 PM

*dig dig dig*

Heading to China are ya?

You can keep facepalming all you want, that doesn't change the fact that the moron in the room is named Fail Boat.

For very good reason.

6/19/2009 5:26:40 PM

Look, I won't even bother to talk shit if you can actually give a credible reason for how I'm being a moron in this thread.

6/19/2009 7:03:03 PM