A comma delineated list implies one form of usage, like, "the big, red dog" implies one dog, not one big dog, and one red dog. So the clause refers to personal, non-commercial use v. commerical use. I am a person, not a corporate entity, and I'm not profiting from posting their material.
Which brings up a point.....
Ah, it seems that something sort of along those lines is in the works in the US. The following link presents it as a dire warning that "Photographer's Rights" are under assault, but it seems to me to be a step toward simple common sense:
Hmm, normally our legal system operates under the rule that ignorance is no excuse. And, after all, if it is legal for the photofinisher to copy a copyrighted work, then it would be legal for ANYONE to have that photofinisher do it. I agree with the website, it IS an assault on photographers rights.
Current law puts the onus on the person actually doing the printing. And, this is how it should be. Since this covers ALL printing methods.
I'd appreciate your opinion on my taxi analogy, if you don't mind.
I don't see how physically handling it matters, but let's say he placed the customer's baggage in his cab's trunk himself.
How does the quality of the camera in any way identify it as stolen? How does the quality of a photograph in any way identify the owner of the copyright?
I don't see how that's at all relevant, but if you like, we can change the analogy from a stolen camera to a woman being transported across state lines by her companion who has criminal sexual intent. Should the random cab driver be guilty of aiding the crime?
That's not a fair point in the comparison because the requirement you talk of is a result of the current copyright law, not a factor in deciding that such a law would is required.
Again, how does the content of a photo (other than a clear copyright notice!) at all indicate who currently owns the copyright. There is simply no way to know ,
The difference is that by definition it's clear when someone is "visibly drunk." A bartender is not accountable to someone drunk off their gourd who does not appear so.
You don't? You don't see the difference between producing a product, actually physically making a copy of it and selling it, and just moving it from one point to another?
If I see a camera, there are NO markings, on any camera, that show it might be stolen. If I see a photo with a studio background and "Olan Mills" stamped on the corner, that isn't the case.
No, once again he has no way of telling. Also and more importantly, he isn't producing a product for sale. Because of this, he falls under the same "common courrier" exception that ISP's fall under. He's just transporting it, not producing it.
The reason the law should be required? Unless a creation is somehow protected from copying, it's value goes to next to zero. That is the reason we have intellectual property laws (copyright, trademark and patent). It is to encourage creativity.
If you see a photo with a studio background or even one that uses decent fill flash outdoors, I would personally ask for evidence that either you took it or that you have permission to print it.
No, actually the difference is that the product was produced for sale (the photo and the drinks) and a person who produces a product is ALWAYS liable for that product.
You still seem to think that copyright is a criminal offense. Generally speaking, it is a civil offense. No jail time, just the chance to get sued. You should research it a bit before complaining about it.
In the case of the cabbie analogy, the mere act of transporting is what's against the law, and it's that illegal act for which he can't be held accountable because he's just providing a service that can be used for good or for bad without his reasonably having any knowledge one way or the other.
You're talking about a photo original (as opposed to a negative or digital image), so it's not really the same thing that started this thread, but in this case ("Olan Mills") I agree with you completely. The law change being contemplated would hold a photo printer accountable for that.
What evidence do you suggest could exist in the common situations that would be both sufficient to reasonably prove copyright ownership (not who took the photo, but who holds copyright now), yet be sufficiently difficult to fake such that its existence could be relied upon?
Ah, the "you should do some research" line. Very nice. Yes, I was sloppy in my side note, sorry. It's not a relevant point. (But FWIW, it is a criminal offense where I live, although that's not what this thread is about.)
No, actually the mere act of transporting ISN'T illegal. There must be criminal intent. And, that just isn't here.
Please. That's a bit beyond reality. All the photofinisher needs to show is due diligence. If he gets the customer to sign a release for questionable photos, that will most likely (this is civil court after all) transfer the issue to the customer from the photofinisher.
Or a scanned image, or a file you stole from the internet. Any of the above.
I strongly suspect that most courts would accept a letter of permission on letterhead (like I furnish my clients) and/or a business card showing you are a professional photographer along with the aforementioned signed waiver.
I honestly have never asked one for that. That is the reason God created self timers.
I thought product liability was related to stuff like "warning: contents may be hot" on a cup of coffee. Rather, I though we were talking about liability for copyright infringement... (???)
Is "sign this release" due diligence? Have any copyright holder's rights been protected with that simple act? I'd think that such a release would be SOP for any photofinisher, on the order form. So if it's really that simple to avoid the issue, what's the point of having it?
So, someone prints up a pretty letter that says "I, Richard Harrison, do hereby assign copyright to...." and the printer is of the hook?
Wow, I don't even recall self timers on cameras when I was younger. My first camera's exposure meter didn't even work, so perhaps I just wasn't up to that level of equipment back then
I agree completely, particularly as an author of three books, but what does that have to do with this thread?
We are. Unless you produce a product (as in a copy of the photo) you aren't liable for copyright infringement.
Small print on an order form that people probably don't read in my opinion wouldn't sway a civil jury very much. I suspect that Wal-Mart feels the same way which is why they have the large, more formal form for you to sign if they feel that there is a copyright issue. This shows that they have evaluated the photos and feel that there might be some question. By signing the form, you are transferring responsibility to yourself from the people with the big bucks and many lawyers.
And, since they are the ones that produce the final product, that is exactly where it should be.
It's not intended to put up a roadblock. It is CIVIL law. It is intended to assign responsibility for the action. And, that is exactly what it does. This makes it much easier to find out who the photographer should sue if he or she is so moved.
If you mean online printers, several of them have had me sign waivers saying that I have the copyright or, in the case of Millers professional labs, had me do an application to show that I was a professional photographer in the first place. Because, you see, they are responsible for their product also.
Again, they aren't trying to protect his interests. They are just assigning responsibility.
Well, dotphoto had me fax them a letter on my letterhead. Millers had me fill out an application before I could use them at all. I suspect that they all come up with the method that makes them feel covered. After all, it is a CYA situation. What makes you feel secure that you won't be the one sued?
I started in 1980 with a Canon A-1. Self timers predate that by, well at least 2 decades. On SLR's it was usually a funny looking lever flush to the body and to the left of the lens.Wow, I don't even recall self timers on cameras when I was younger.
My first camera's exposure meter didn't even work, so perhaps I
just wasn't up to that level of equipment back then
I don't know, you asked the question. I just answered it and gave the reason for my answer.
