Update to "National Magazine encourages....."

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

Forrest41926 said:

School pictures. Their price, the fact that you can't even do what
you want with them, and that you charge way too much for a 10 sec
job ?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Er, you can't do all you may want with CDs and DVDs, either.
That's really not a scam; it's a situation where the rights of the
buyer and the rights of the creator clash, and something has to
give. Debatable and scam are pretty different.

Forrest41926 said:

Funny that the photog gets all the blame on this one! The school
is actually taking nearly 40% off the top of that price. The
photog gets the leftovers. Not only that, but the photog generally

Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe 60 % as "the leftovers" - technically that
would be "the majority."

Click to expand...

Actually, you seem to forget overhead. In this, the school has, in effect, none. The studio quite a bit. The school profits more than the studio generally.

Forrest41926 said:

Forrest41926 said:

and fulfillment. School photography is the lowest margin type of
photography on the planet - give the photog a break with all this

Click to expand...

That's interesting compared to digipic's assertion that the
industry enjoys huge profit margins.

Click to expand...

Buzzz. Thank you for playing. I have never said that they enjoy huge profit margins. I said that some of them (Lifetouch for example) make huge profits. There is a difference, ask your accountant. Let me give you a clue though. Scale.

Forrest41926 said:

At the end of the day, though, anybody who feels school
photographers are a scam is free not to buy any.

Click to expand...

Yep.

DIPics

Forrest said:

LOL! Sounds like you have some pretty deep rooted anger there
DIPics . Let it go guy.

Click to expand...

Naah, this is entertaining

DIPics

Forrest41926 said:

dipics said:

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

Hmm, interesting. I know that the local ritz is pretty good about
checking copyright permissions. If I walk in there with a cd of a
lot of photos I took, I have no problem, If my wife goes there
with one or two they often call me. Not always, there are always
some ignorant types out there, but probably 40% of the time.

Click to expand...

That sounds really strange, unless they personally know you and
your style? How would they reasonably suspect your wife didn't
shoot the photos herself, or have permission to print them?

Click to expand...

Do you think it may have something to do with my studio symbol down
there in the lower right-hand corner? And, unless they know her
personally, it is their obligation to make sure that she has my
permission. They legally cannot "assume".

Forrest41926 said:

My experience at any photo lab has been a lot like picking up a
prescription when I'm sick. They've never asked to look at my ID
to make sure I'm the person named on the 'script, even for things
like percocet when I broke my rib and elbow. This just doesn't
seem like a good case for vicarious liability. We're not talking
about Kaazaa that was set up to violate copyrights - we're talking
about an individual "cheating the system."

Maybe it's a difference in state laws. Or the types of areas we've
lived in. I don't know, it's just been my experience that no one
has ever asked.

Click to expand...

Well, just ask one of the managers of the local Fox photo kiosk.
Remember those, they used to be in shopping center parking lots all
over the nation. They were the largest photofinisher in the nation
by quite a large margin. Ever wonder what happened to them? The
PPA happened to them. They kept fighting in court them over Fox
copying copyrighted photos. Fox kept losing. To the tune
eventually of several million dollars. This is the reason that Fox
is no more. Copyright law is a federal matter, not a state one.
It is covered under Title 17 of the U.S. code.

Forrest41926 said:

Forrest41926 said:

But, you notice I was talking about "copies of obviously
professional photographs" by that I meant hard copies of them.
Files of scans get caught less often and if you happen to have a
full size .jpg it is seldom caught at all.

Click to expand...

Well I've never had a need to make reprints from a print, so I
can't speak to that. But these days, almost every drug store has
one of those scan/print kiosks, so you can do that without an
employee being involved.

Click to expand...

Some of those print at the kiosk. More of them just scan and the
printing is done on the minilab behind the counter since those are
quite a bit cheaper to run.

DIPics

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

dipics said:

mamallama said:

dipics said:

Actually, as I have said before, I am fairly familiar with the
business and I happen to know the regional director for Lifetouch
(the nations largest school photography busines) fairly well. As a
pretty consistant rule of thumb, the higher average income at the
school, the larger average package size and the higher percentage
of students actually buy the package.

Click to expand...

That's because people in the higher income schools have more
important things to be concerned about than the cost of a picture
package and look upon the school picture business as sort of a
charity to help the schools.

Click to expand...

That's likely one reason. Another is the fact that they can easily
afford the "big" $40 package and feel a slight twinge of guilt at
letting any of little Bobbie's photos go to waste.

Click to expand...

As I said the picture expense is small potatoes for the more affluent and they feel they are helping the school.

dipics said:

dipics said:

dipics said:

What do you mean they make their money at the public tax trough?
They get no tax money at all. The schools don't pay them.
Actually, it is totally the other way around, the photography firms
give anywhere from 20-40% of the package price to the school.

Click to expand...

I see the public trough connection as taking advantage of a
captured and willing institution, most of which are tax supported.
You can afford to give away promotions to the school. After all, it
has done most of the marketing. I don't begrudge the services and
the charges of the school photographer. I just think some of the
practices and hidden reserved rights are a bit obscure and
underhanded. And going after a family for scanning a school picture
of junior for grandma is the pinnacle of greed.

--mamallama

Click to expand...

Captured and willing? Isn't that almost a contradiciton in terms?

Click to expand...

Not really. The schools are willing and the kids and parents are captured. The school is comprised of many parts.

dipics said:

The school sends home the printed materials provided by the studio.
But, exactly what practices or hidden reserved rights are you
talking about? I have never seen a portrait package from a school
photographer that didn't spell out the copyright in pretty plain
language. If the parents don't read it, it's hard to fault the
studio. Plus, I am pretty sure that none of them have ever sued a
parent who scanned a photo. They HAVE and will sue photofinishers
who copy or print them though.

Click to expand...

The fact that you've never seen one doesn't mean it's never happened. It was NEVER made that clear in the school pictures I bought for my kids in the 1980s. One poster in this thread also stated a more recent case of no clear copyright disclosure.

With the technology as it is today I think the old retention of all rights by the photographer just leads to confusion. Can the picture be e-mailed? If I take a video with the school photo on the mantle in the background, can I send it to grandma? If I post a picture on pbase with the school picture in the background will you go after pbase for distributing it? Hey man, reprints from this school picture thing ain't no gold mine. Why don't you just change your pricing model by charging a little more initially to account for the anticipated lost revenue from people scanning and copying either privately or using WalMart and purchasers own all rights. That would simplify everyone's life.

--mamallama

LMAO.

dipics said:

The phone company does nothing to produce the conversations. On a
basic level their equipment just passes on electrons from one
customer to another. Photofinishers however are integral to the
final product. And, while the minilabs do the processing, it is
generally (except possibly in VERY large operations, I am not as
familiar with those) us frail, falable human types that package the
final prints.

Click to expand...

I'll submit that there is precious little difference in involvement between the phone company transmitting the calls and a machine that produces a stack of pictures. "Packaging the prints" only requires the operator to see, at most, a single print from the order. (And as you say, none at all, if the machine does the packaging.) They would be unseen by human eyes until you opened the package and examined them yourself.

Unless the mini-lab operators are ordered to manually examine each print. This is the exact same circumstance as if the phone company was ordered to monitor every phone call.

Wayne

Wayne Larmon said:

dipics said:

The phone company does nothing to produce the conversations. On a
basic level their equipment just passes on electrons from one
customer to another. Photofinishers however are integral to the
final product. And, while the minilabs do the processing, it is
generally (except possibly in VERY large operations, I am not as
familiar with those) us frail, falable human types that package the
final prints.

Click to expand...

I'll submit that there is precious little difference in involvement
between the phone company transmitting the calls and a machine that
produces a stack of pictures. "Packaging the prints" only requires
the operator to see, at most, a single print from the order. (And
as you say, none at all, if the machine does the packaging.) They
would be unseen by human eyes until you opened the package and
examined them yourself.

Unless the mini-lab operators are ordered to manually examine each
print. This is the exact same circumstance as if the phone
company was ordered to monitor every phone call.

Wayne

Click to expand...

A minilab operator SHOULD at least glance at every print, if nothing else, just for quality control purposes. That, and packaging, is the reason those human types are behind the counter.

DIPics

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

Forrest41926 said:

School pictures. Their price, the fact that you can't even do what
you want with them, and that you charge way too much for a 10 sec
job ?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Er, you can't do all you may want with CDs and DVDs, either.
That's really not a scam; it's a situation where the rights of the
buyer and the rights of the creator clash, and something has to
give. Debatable and scam are pretty different.

Forrest41926 said:

Funny that the photog gets all the blame on this one! The school
is actually taking nearly 40% off the top of that price. The
photog gets the leftovers. Not only that, but the photog generally

Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe 60 % as "the leftovers" - technically that
would be "the majority."

Click to expand...

You'd be the mathmatically challenged one here - you clipped the rest of the statement regarding all the other services and products supplied to the school by the photog for FREE! That makes a significant dent in the 60% - not to mention the overhead the photog already pays out of that "60%". When all is said and done, the photog is seeing less than 10-15% profit on the revenue of the day - the school sees 40% + the freebies.

Forrest41926 said:

Forrest41926 said:

and fulfillment. School photography is the lowest margin type of
photography on the planet - give the photog a break with all this

Click to expand...

That's interesting compared to digipic's assertion that the
industry enjoys huge profit margins.

Click to expand...

Huge profits not huge margins. 10% of a "ton" of money is still "a lot" of money. But you work harder than most photogs and you are one semester from being out of business when someone else gets that contract.

Forrest41926 said:

At the end of the day, though, anybody who feels school
photographers are a scam is free not to buy any.

Click to expand...

This is true.

dipics said:

A minilab operator SHOULD at least glance at every print, if
nothing else, just for quality control purposes. That, and
packaging, is the reason those human types are behind the counter.

Click to expand...

This is a very narrow argument. It supposes that all image processors, current and in the future can never be completely automated. That color management process control can never be completely realized. That manual inspection of each image that the machine produces must always happen. Even if if is a mass processing lab that only accepts Internet uploads and all output would otherwise be mechanically packaged and shipped out.

In fact I wonder if this isn't already taking place. Do you suppose that low price/high volume operations like Snapfish that only accept uploaded images and (presumably) have automated the process to the extent that is technically possible, hire additional people for the sole reason of examining every image for possible copyright violations? I don't know what the SOTA for large scale image processing, but I'll bet that it is more automated than what we see in our local Wal-Mart.

I posit that it is very likely that large scale photo processors have reached the stage where there is no technical reason for visually examining each image that is processed. Especially at low price/high volume $.12/print labs. But at this point I think we'll have to leave our discussion. Unless somebody with knowledge of how large scale image processors operate can jump in and answer the question of whether or not each image needs to be manually examined, for process control purposes.

I'm probably going to hate myself for suggesting this, but has the PPA audited Snapfish? Or EZPrints? Or any of the other on-line only high volume processors? To make sure that they are visually examining each image that is processed?

Wayne

Narrow argument? That businesses should be required to follow the laws pertaining to their business? That's sort of an odd argument. After all, can you think of a single business that wouldn't find life easier if they could ignore the laws pertaining to their business?

While I can't vouch for how snapfish operates, I can say that Dotphoto gave me a call about 3 months ago. A customer of mine that purchased a cd of images from me (yes, I sell them, it costs a lot but I do) went through them (in spite of me trying to steer them to Mpix or one of the other better quality amature sites) to do their printing. Since the photos have my logo on them, they asked the customer for proof that they had permission. They faxed them my permission letter which includes a phone number if the photofinisher has questions. Well, they called it.

So, if this happens at Dotphoto, one of the larger and cheaper ones, I assume that the others can do it.

And, the PPA never audits to make sure they look at every photo. What they do instead is have someone send in scans of photos with a copyright symbol and a studio name on it. If they print them, then they send an educational/warning letter. If it keeps happening, then they call in the lawyers. It has worked for them quite well. Now, what if a photographer doesn't put a © or at least a "photography by" on the print, then I have no sympathy.

DIPics

Wayne Larmon said:

dipics said:

A minilab operator SHOULD at least glance at every print, if
nothing else, just for quality control purposes. That, and
packaging, is the reason those human types are behind the counter.

Click to expand...

This is a very narrow argument. It supposes that all image
processors, current and in the future can never be completely
automated. That color management process control can never be
completely realized. That manual inspection of each image that the
machine produces must always happen. Even if if is a mass
processing lab that only accepts Internet uploads and all output
would otherwise be mechanically packaged and shipped out.

In fact I wonder if this isn't already taking place. Do you
suppose that low price/high volume operations like Snapfish that
only accept uploaded images and (presumably) have automated the
process to the extent that is technically possible, hire additional
people for the sole reason of examining every image for possible
copyright violations? I don't know what the SOTA for large scale
image processing, but I'll bet that it is more automated than what
we see in our local Wal-Mart.

I posit that it is very likely that large scale photo processors
have reached the stage where there is no technical reason for
visually examining each image that is processed. Especially at low
price/high volume $.12/print labs. But at this point I think
we'll have to leave our discussion. Unless somebody with knowledge
of how large scale image processors operate can jump in and answer
the question of whether or not each image needs to be manually
examined, for process control purposes.

I'm probably going to hate myself for suggesting this, but has the
PPA audited Snapfish? Or EZPrints? Or any of the other on-line
only high volume processors? To make sure that they are visually
examining each image that is processed?

Wayne

Click to expand...

Now, what if a photographer doesn't put a © or at least a "photography by" on the print, then I have no sympathy."

Huh? That entire speech about following the law goes out the window and "[you] have no sympathy" if I don't want to muck up my photo with a copyright symbol or a photography by statement.

Rdefen said:

Now, what if a photographer doesn't put a © or at least a
"photography by" on the print, then I have no sympathy."

Huh? That entire speech about following the law goes out the window
and "[you] have no sympathy" if I don't want to muck up my photo
with a copyright symbol or a photography by statement.

Click to expand...

Well, then I have no sympathy. While I firmly believe that photofinishers should screen for illegal copies of photos, how are they supposed to be able to tell an "advanced amateur" who is printing his own stuff from that of a pro? If they are copying a photo, I think that they should be held to a higher standard of proof. But, for files sent in? Like I said, I have no sympathy.

DIPics

dipics said:

Now, what if a photographer doesn't put a © or at least a
"photography by" on the print, then I have no sympathy.

Click to expand...

I've NEVER seen a photo produced by a school professional photographer with a copyright sign or any identification that it was copyrighted. And I've seen many over a span of more than 50 years. So how can you expect WalMart or any other photo service for copying and printing a school picture? I think you said that PPA go after the service for this violation.

--mamallama

mamallama said:

dipics said:

Now, what if a photographer doesn't put a © or at least a
"photography by" on the print, then I have no sympathy.

Click to expand...

I've NEVER seen a photo produced by a school professional
photographer with a copyright sign or any identification that it
was copyrighted. And I've seen many over a span of more than 50
years. So how can you expect WalMart or any other photo service for
copying and printing a school picture? I think you said that PPA go
after the service for this violation.

Click to expand...

What we have heard (on these forums) is plenty of complaints by amateurs that set up a basement studio, with Alien Bees, softboxes, real backdrops, etc. to take pics of family and friends. And then find that Wal-Mart (et, all.) refuses to print their images.

If the standard was a clear cut as "© or photography by..." on the print (or a Digimarc stenographic equivalent in image files) means no processing, but they are processed otherwise, then I don't think there would be any problem.

The situation is untenable. The requirement is that the operator of the machine that processes the prints make a fine legal judgement on each $.12 image that their machine processes. The require for examination of each print was reasonable back in the days when print production was considerably more manual and before the rise of hobby "Alien Bee" studios in the basement. And the rapid rise of DSLRs and "L" lens junkies. But it isn't tenable now. There are too many amateurs that produce pro quality work. (Or what looks similar to pro quality work.)

I expect that some time or other, a large company like Snapfish or Wal-Mart (that also has a Snapfish style on-line only printing division) will demonstrate to the press and to Congress that their machine are automated to the extent that they need to hire people for the sole reason of inspecting prints which raises costs for the consumers while providng no increase in the quality of the prints. It makes them sad to raise costs to the consumers. They'd prefer to lower costs for the consumers. And, hence, photo finishers should be declared "common carriers", so that the press and Congress can claim credit for lowering prices to the consumers.

Unless a stenographic equivalent of a © (Digimarc....) is developed, such that this examination can be done automated (like is currently being done for US currency--scanners, inkjet printers, and PhotoShop now refuse to process currency.) So there's your solution. Forget about policing by visual examination and lobby the industry to adopt stenographic digital rights management.

I do support your crusade for maintaining photographer's rights. What I disagree with is the focus on visual examination. This is not practical anymore, for reasons I have described. And it totally ineffectual when it comes to consumer-owned scanners and printers. Go stenographic.

Wayne

You keep changing the subject from my point that (most likely) large scale photo finishers are entirely automated and there is no technical reasons whatsoever for any human to look at any print that is processed. You keep dragging the process back to 20 years ago, when humans had to physically deal with every print.

I'll state the premise as clearly as I can. If the SOTA for high volume photo finishers (and possibly even SOTA Wal-Mart level mini-labs) is such that there is no technical process control reason for humans to look at any print, are you requiring that the companies hire additional people for the sole reasons of doing visual copyright examinations of each print that is produced?

With the additional requirement that they accurately determine the difference between professionally produced images and images that are produced by amateurs with "Alien Bee" basement studios and "L" lens equipped DSLRs.

While still maintaining a $.12 per print price.

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice for an answer.

Wayne

The answer is more than a simple yes or no. Can you name to me a single business that doesn't have extra expense because of governent regulation of one sort or another?

Of course not.I know I spend quite a few hours every year keeping my ducks in a row legally speaking.

Well, photofinishing isn't any different. I'm afraid that they are responsible for their product just as is every other business.

DIPics

Wayne Larmon said:

You keep changing the subject from my point that (most likely)
large scale photo finishers are entirely automated and there is no
technical reasons whatsoever for any human to look at any print
that is processed. You keep dragging the process back to 20 years
ago, when humans had to physically deal with every print.

I'll state the premise as clearly as I can. If the SOTA for high
volume photo finishers (and possibly even SOTA Wal-Mart level
mini-labs) is such that there is no technical process control
reason for humans to look at any print, are you requiring that the
companies hire additional people for the sole reasons of doing
visual copyright examinations of each print that is produced?

With the additional requirement that they accurately determine the
difference between professionally produced images and images that
are produced by amateurs with "Alien Bee" basement studios and "L"
lens equipped DSLRs.

While still maintaining a $.12 per print price.

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice for an answer.

Wayne

Click to expand...

mamallama said:

dipics said:

Now, what if a photographer doesn't put a © or at least a
"photography by" on the print, then I have no sympathy.

Click to expand...

I've NEVER seen a photo produced by a school professional
photographer with a copyright sign or any identification that it
was copyrighted. And I've seen many over a span of more than 50
years. So how can you expect WalMart or any other photo service for
copying and printing a school picture? I think you said that PPA go
after the service for this violation.

--mamallama

Click to expand...

Hmm, I have but it isn't common. I do think it would be best for them to put a mark on the front.

But on the other hand, can you tell me with a straight face that you can imagine a photofinisher that couldn't spot a likely school photo? I thought not. Plus, spotting a scanned photo generally isn't hard at all either.

DIPics

I have the honor of residing in Texas. Unless it is late July or August, I'm generally safe to be around even during weather discussions.

DIPics

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

LOL! Sounds like you have some pretty deep rooted anger there
Forrest. Let it go guy.

Click to expand...

If making an observation sounds like "deep rooted anger" I'd hate
to be around when someone comments on the weather around you!

Forrest41926 said:

Forrest41926 said:

The guy who wrote that is just BEAMING with pride over what other
people have done. It sounds like it was grassroots pressure more
than the PPA itself that got the article burried.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's all so much twaddle because photofinishers are not required to examine prints by "government regulations." as you stated several times. They do it because of fear of lawsuits filed by the copyright holder, not because of government mandate. And that's the way it should be...the person who holds an interest in the copyright should protect it, not the government. And the courts hold that view too because if a copyright holder fails to protect his/her interest then property become public domain.

Can you cite the law that states that photofinishers must examine prints for possible copyright violations?

dipics said:

Of course not.I know I spend quite a few hours every year keeping
my ducks in a row legally speaking.

Well, photofinishing isn't any different. I'm afraid that they are
responsible for their product just as is every other business.

DIPics

Wayne Larmon said:

You keep changing the subject from my point that (most likely)
large scale photo finishers are entirely automated and there is no
technical reasons whatsoever for any human to look at any print
that is processed. You keep dragging the process back to 20 years
ago, when humans had to physically deal with every print.

I'll state the premise as clearly as I can. If the SOTA for high
volume photo finishers (and possibly even SOTA Wal-Mart level
mini-labs) is such that there is no technical process control
reason for humans to look at any print, are you requiring that the
companies hire additional people for the sole reasons of doing
visual copyright examinations of each print that is produced?

With the additional requirement that they accurately determine the
difference between professionally produced images and images that
are produced by amateurs with "Alien Bee" basement studios and "L"
lens equipped DSLRs.

While still maintaining a $.12 per print price.

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice for an answer.

Wayne

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You don't consier that the United States Code qualifies as a government regulation? That's an odd position to take. Laws ARE regulations after all. And, yes, I can cite the relevant law.

It is U.S. code, title 17 § 501. This law forbids the photofinishers from duplicating copyrighted material without express permission from the copyright holder.

Glad I could help.

DIPics

suddie1215 said:

Can you cite the law that states that photofinishers must examine
prints for possible copyright violations?

dipics said:

Of course not.I know I spend quite a few hours every year keeping
my ducks in a row legally speaking.

Well, photofinishing isn't any different. I'm afraid that they are
responsible for their product just as is every other business.

DIPics

Wayne Larmon said:

You keep changing the subject from my point that (most likely)
large scale photo finishers are entirely automated and there is no
technical reasons whatsoever for any human to look at any print
that is processed. You keep dragging the process back to 20 years
ago, when humans had to physically deal with every print.

I'll state the premise as clearly as I can. If the SOTA for high
volume photo finishers (and possibly even SOTA Wal-Mart level
mini-labs) is such that there is no technical process control
reason for humans to look at any print, are you requiring that the
companies hire additional people for the sole reasons of doing
visual copyright examinations of each print that is produced?

With the additional requirement that they accurately determine the
difference between professionally produced images and images that
are produced by amateurs with "Alien Bee" basement studios and "L"
lens equipped DSLRs.

While still maintaining a $.12 per print price.

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice for an answer.

Wayne

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

dipics said:

The answer is more than a simple yes or no. Can you name to me a
single business that doesn't have extra expense because of
governent regulation of one sort or another?

Of course not.I know I spend quite a few hours every year keeping
my ducks in a row legally speaking.

Well, photofinishing isn't any different. I'm afraid that they are
responsible for their product just as is every other business.

Click to expand...

You are still changing the subject. And trying to substitute a general truism (that following governmental regulations quite often incurs extra expense) to refute a specific claim (that it is now possible (or will be in the near future) for photo finishing to be 100% automated--from accepting image files from the Internet to loading sorted and addressed envelopes onto USPS (or UPS, etc.) delivery trucks. Such that visually examining images will require employees that have no other function, other than to examine images.)

Please stick to this specific claim.

Wayne