Copyright Issues and Photo Shops

[spydersingh]

Went to my local Snappy Snaps to get a few old pics resized as was arranging a photo wall at home. Some of these pics include graduation pics of my older siblings taken many moons ago.

Asked the "cheerful" assistant at said place to resize some the pics, the reply was that he couldn't or wouldn't touch the graduation pics as they were professionally done and hence are copyrighted. He said I had to contact the original photographer to ask for a reprint. Fair point.Looking into this, the original pic was taken maybe 20 years ago! Rang back explaining this and the likelihood of finding yet alone seeing if they were still in business was minimal, he said no.

Other scenario was that if I were to scan and ask for a print of scanned pic. Again, he said no as he knew that it was a professional copyrighted pic!

Is this a common issue?

Is there anyway around it?

Will I get this hassle from other High Street Photo places or do I need to go elsewhere?

[was8v]

scan and then use one of the self service machines in max speilman or boots? So long as you are reducing the size it should be decent quality.

[AndWhyNot]

This is quite common though perhaps not as common as it should be. I'd imagine the graduation photo is pretty dateless so there's no telling them it wasn't done just last year. You could try your luck at numerous other high street locations and get a different result each time.

Slightly different issue but when I want prints (of my own photos) done in a hurry I have a choice of two high street places both run by the same parent company. One gets me to complete a copyright form every time I'm in there despite me now being a familiar face. The other site has never asked about copyright or needed me to complete a form ever. If I was a trying to make a living from print sales I'd be grateful for the first place's attention to detail but more often than not I use the other place out of convenience 'cos the form is a hassle.

The issue you're touching on is why lots of wedding/ graduation/ event pros have factored out print sales as a revenue earner- they sell one yet everyone ends up with a copy...

[olimeads]

i get this alot working at a well known photographic retailer, if we suspect the image being professional then we either refuse totally. explaining that the photographer/company still owns the image and copying it is the same as copying a dvd. Or if the customer says that they infact own the rights but we suspect otherwise, the customer can sign a form stating we are not responsible, blah blah blah.
you may argue that its just a photo, but if the rights owner does chase it up its us in the wrong.

[Photogirl]

Copyright infringement (theft) is a serious matter. Unless the photographer has supplied you with a License to make your own prints for your own personal use then you're breaking the law each time you reproduce that person's work. The lab was acting correctly, as they must under the UK Copyright and Patents Act.

The moment you take a picture, or make a drawing, or write a piece of music, you are the legal owner of that piece. Only you may alter it, use it, or reproduce it, unless you expressly grant consent to another party. When I sell images to my clients on disc, I am not selling ownership (copyright) of those images, I am instead selling the rights to print the pictures under a specific agreement, and the pictures always remain the property of the photographer. The License, in both electronic and hard copy form, can then be shown to the lab as evidence that those rights exist.

Hope that clarifies things.

[Simpo Two]

Spot on. Common knowledge (or should be) to those who make their living from photography, but not to others.

However I think copyright has a time limit - 75 years?

[Photogirl]

Hi Simpo, 70 years. There's a good summary here: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk...

I can understand the OP's predicament because most members of the public are not informed as to what copyright is. I'm pleased he raised the question. It's our studio policy to educate customers and our Licenses are quite detailed so that a good understanding is in place. Most people mistakenly think that because they, or their property, form the subject of a photograph then they have some claim to that image.

[Simpo Two]

Photogirl said:

Most people mistakenly think that because they, or their property, form the subject of a photograph then they have some claim to that image.

The usual view is 'Well I've paid for it so it's mine' - which I can entirely understand!

[Photogirl]

I doubt you would be so understanding if you were to produce original musical scores (after many years of classical training and investment in your business) which were ripped-off and distributed by your customers, and in some cases claimed by another artist as their own work (which I'm afraid is a frequent occurance in the photography industry).

Consequently our Contracts and Licenses, and those of most photographers I know, have become lengthier and more explanatory so that our clients are as well-informed as they can be. We also supply a plain-English fact sheet with most puchases. The vast majority of photographers do act if they become aware that any attempt has been made to circumvent sale or breach copyright.

Despite Snappy Snaps detailing why they will not reproduce the image, the OP expressed his intention to pursue what is an illegal act. I'm sorry if this is seen as a hassle, but it is the law and ignorance is no defence.

Edited by Photogirl on Thursday 7th January 20:28

[Simpo Two]

Indeedy but one of my strengths is that I can put myself in someone else's viewpoint. I can understand something but still have to wits to disagree with it.

You probably break 30mph speed limits when you feel it's safe to do so, but it is still illegal. Just depends who's dishing the law.

[Photogirl]

Sempo, what I'm trying to say is that if you were in the copyright holder's situation, you would be far less inclined to 'see the other viewpoint'. It's incredibly easy to sit on the fence and casually dismiss the law when that issue is somebody else's. I can't be so forgiving of anyone who is unprepared to spend what amounts to a small premium to obtain a copy of a print or image legally. If this route isn't available to them then that's unfortunate but it's the way it is. It's not unusual to see scans (which are invariably appalling quality) on clients' walls and those crude reproductions are, to the viewer, indicators of that photographer's work, which of course is not the case. In that regard I doubt the OP would find the result satisfactory even if he were to pursue this further.

And no, I don't knowingly break speed limits because I belong to a car forum, drive a sports car, and 'think it's OK to do so'. I also have first hand knowledge of the consequences and tragedies that can result - and I wasn't inclined to see the other driver's point of view, which from your statement clearly suggests that I must lack your strength and wit. I'm sorry, but I found your remark unwarranted and in some ways insulting.

Edited by Photogirl on Friday 8th January 11:11

[Simpo Two]

I am indeed a copyright holder, taking over 10,000 commercial images a year, and last year sued and won a case involving breach of copyright. Mind you in that case the other party were simple thieves; the odd innocent slip I can overlook - my customers are ordinary individuals, not businesses.

Putting myself in the position of the OP, if in 20 years time somebody said 'Do you mind if I make a copy of one of your photos?' I'd be far more likely to say 'sure' than invoice them for 99p. Copyright is worth everything and it is worth nothing; it is up to the holder to do whatever he/she wishes with it

Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 8th January 11:50

[Busa_Rush]

Photogirl said:

I also have first hand knowledge of the consequences and tragedies that can result - and I wasn't inclined to see the other driver's point of view, which from your statement clearly suggests that I must lack your strength and wit.

The consequences of dangerous driving (obviously you'd not class 60 on a 50 DC as dangerous, knowingly or not) is very different from breach of copyright.

[Photogirl]

Crumbs ... I had no idea, going through that must have been awful for you, as is the case in any legal process. I'm very pleased you pursued the case and I'm pleased you won, but what a horrible experience it must have been.

I agree that we can't always control how our clients use some of our work, and some cases are comparatively trivial, but when I discuss this sort of thing I feel I have to take a zero tolerance stance. But I do appreciate the point your're making, and thanks for responding.

[Photogirl]

Sempo I've just read your edited post. The reason I edited mine was because 18 years ago I did 36 in a 30 limit and paid a fine for it. I was in another country at the time and genuinely believed I was in a 40 limit (which I still believe I had been). In the interests of accuracy I amended that statement - others would not have.

You had, after all, accused me of deliberately breaking the law if I felt I could get away with it. You are saying that I had knowingly broken a speed limit but had wilfully decided to plead ignorance. This is a baseless assumption and there is a big difference between what I am saying and you are twisting. Please read my post again. I don't want a row with you, or anyone, but I now feel you're making a presumptive and gratuitous personal attack on me.

Edit: Thank you for removing the final paragraph in your post of 11:22, it was very confrontational and I'm pleased you've dealt with it.

Edited by Photogirl on Friday 8th January 11:58

[Simpo Two]

I'm getting tired of this. Can you go and bicker with somebody else please?

[Lucas CAV]

Photogirl said:

I doubt you would be so understanding if you were to produce original musical scores (after many years of classical training and investment in your business) which were ripped-off and distributed by your customers, and in some cases claimed by another artist as their own work (which I'm afraid is a frequent occurance in the photography industry).

Consequently our Contracts and Licenses, and those of most photographers I know, have become lengthier and more explanatory so that our clients are as well-informed as they can be. We also supply a plain-English fact sheet with most puchases. The vast majority of photographers do act if they become aware that any attempt has been made to circumvent sale or breach copyright.

Despite Snappy Snaps detailing why they will not reproduce the image, the OP expressed his intention to pursue what is an illegal act. I'm sorry if this is seen as a hassle, but it is the law and ignorance is no defence.

Edited by Photogirl on Thursday 7th January 20:28

so if you had photographed my wedding - would I be able to obtain extra prints several years down the line?

or would I always needs to buy them from you?

[Photogirl]

Lucas, policies vary but contracts usually inform clients how long the images are archived for. With us, images are officially available for a period of three years, for any repeat orders. However if you purchased a disc of images then the License which accompanies that disc will grant you the right to make your own prints for personal use, in perpetuity.

Hope that helps. The key thing is to ask the right questions before hiring anyone, so you know exactly what your options are.

[diesel head]

I used to work in the Lab for jessops and this was a real issue, most people wern't aware of the issue and would kick up a real fuss. It is difficult to know though as along with people who wanted to just get a cheap copy of a print there were semi pro's who would take some very good pictures but still use us for printing, how can you 'prove' who has taken a picture? There was one lady who took the most fantastic portraits of her own grandchildren and friends children, but looking at her your would never have guessed it was her work, it wasn't until she asked me to turn off the auto correct to maintain her photoshop changes that I dropped my suspicions of copyright.

Anecdotally though, although some of the semi pro's were good some were very very bad, I saw some shocking wedding pictures, it just goes to show that it pay's to see not only a photographers portfolio but an entire wedding album, not just the odd good picture from many shoots. As anyone with a DSLR and actually at least one 'photographer' who 'did weddings' just used a compact can set themselves up as a photographer.

[cirks]

Photogirl said:

I doubt you would be so understanding if you were to produce original musical scores (after many years of classical training and investment in your business) which were ripped-off and distributed by your customers

I think you're being slightly harsh (even if legally correct) on the intentions of the OP. He has the original image, he's NOT (as far as I can tell) trying to redistrubute it and is simply trying to use that image at a different size at home. Yes, he could potentially get another copy from the original photographer but I doubt it after 20 years. If his sibling has the original and he wants a copy then that is redistribution but I didn't thing that's what he was trying to do.
I see it, rightly or wrongly, as the same as in the good old days of owning an LP and taping it to listen to in the car. Not legal but it is not distribution or piracy in the common sense.
Working for a software company, I do try to understand and support copyright law!