Copyright law allows casual copying. Copyright law allows copying
for your own personal use. Copyright law allows copying in limited
quantity.
There is no comparision between making 1 copy for your own use, and
1000 copies for other to use.
But, that isn't really the issue here. You cannot make a copy for someone else's use (Aunt Edna). Nor can Walmart make a copy for you for your use. If you want to scan the photo and stare at it. Or even print a copy for your own use on your own printer, that is possibly (arguably) allowed. But, you CANNOT distribute them for pay or not.
"As Jessica Litman, author of “Digital Copyright,” writes in her
law review article “War Stories,” 20 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment
Law
Journal 337 (2002):
Under the old way of thinking about things, copying your CD and
carrying the copy around with you to play in your car, in your
Walkman, or in your cassette deck at work is legal. Borrowing a
music CD and making a copy on some other medium for your personal
use is legal. Recording music from the radio; maxing different
recorded tracks for a ‘party tape,’ and making a copy of one of
your CDs for your next-door neighbor are, similarly, all lawful
acts. The copyright law says so: section 1008 of the copyright
statute provides that consumers may make non-commercial copies of
recorded music without liability. Many people seem not to know this
any more.
Now, this is not to say that individuals have a right to make an
unlimited number of an unlimited number of CDs for their friends."
Ok, here is section 1008.
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement
of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution
of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording
medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium,
or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or
medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical
recordings."
This section means that the people who manufactured the DEVICES that do the recording cannot be sued because someone used them to record copyrighted material. The use of the device isn't illegal.
But, more on point is section 106 which states:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under
this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of
the following:
(paragraph 1 and 2 cut for brevity)
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted
work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by
rental, lease, or lending.
In other words, pretty much any way you distribute them, other than sale of the original photograph (which is perfectly legal) is a violation of the copyright.
Also, under section 113 (Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works ) you find included in this scope:
Subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this
section, the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial,
graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106 includes
the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article,
whether useful or otherwise.
Section B and C state:
(b) This title does not afford, to the owner of copyright in a
work that portrays a useful article as such, any greater or lesser
rights with respect to the making, distribution, or display of the
useful article so portrayed than those afforded to such works under
the law, whether title 17 or the common law or statutes of a State,
in effect on December 31, 1977, as held applicable and construed by
a court in an action brought under this title.
(c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles
that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the
public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making,
distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such
articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related
to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection
with news reports.
Hope this helps,
DIPics
Regards