One, you don’t understand why such old pictures have to be copyrighted. Me neither. So why are they?

Two, “look copyrighted”? Meaning: don’t get too good at taking pictures if you want to use a photo lab to print them. Photo labs are only for crappy pictures.

I actually understand why labs do this. After all, it’s not like there’s an easy way to figure out whether you’re doing something illegal when you copy a photo. But that’s just another example of why the copyright laws are so screwed up. Technically, photo labs shouldn’t exist, because of the legal liability, but they’re too popular, so we pretend that we’re doing something legal when we look at the “Professional Photo Paper” thing on the back of the photo, or refuse to copy “good-looking” photos. Maybe labs should have legal protections like web sites have, where they’re assumed to be innocent infringers.

Three, as my original post tries to argue, is it better to tell people “you just can’t have it, you filthy criminal” or “here, it’s easy, just click here, and it’s only $4 per 8×10 (or whatever) for legal copies”?

I’m glad if Lifetouch is getting a clue (as Sheryl says). I wonder why they don’t bother just taking the pictures and handing the disks out anyway, as opposed to making customers jump through hoops. But progress is a good thing, even if it’s not the perfect thing.

Lifetouch now makes it possible for you to purchase your photo session on disk. Once you purchase the disk, you own the copyright. These disks cost about $100, and that’s without having any prints made.

They are also not unreasonable when it comes to photos that they no longer have the negatives for and cannot reproduce.

In the past I’ve wanted to had photos reproduced that Lifetouch no longer could print for me. Even though the photo does not say “Lifetouch” anywhere on it, my understanding is that because the paper on the back of the photo says “Kodak Professional: Professional Images are Copyright Protected,” the pictures were under copyright. He told me I would need to get a form from Lifetouch that released the copyright to me.

I did just that. I went back to the studio, they gave me a form that released the copyright to me to have prints made from my prints. I then took that form back to my local photo place, presented the form, and I was able to have those prints redone without a problem.

Just FYI.

I hope it works out well for you.

I’ve also read about studies on the music/movie industry downloads which show many (by no means all) downloaders were more likely to buy the album/dvd after downloading it first. “Try before you buy.”

The studies showing such vast sums of “losses” are highly prejudicial using the assumption that each download must equate to a dvd/album purchase – which I believe is a false premise.

A case could be made for a sizable portion of sales which otherwise would never have occurred if downloads had not taken place first. Nature of the beast I suppose.

Relating it to photography, my contention is the average person is more likely to frequent a photographer that makes it easier on the clients to obtain, use, maintain/edit/reprint, and distribute photos they have already paid for, resulting in a higher number of sales through repeat business rather than 1-time $400 16×20 shots (which can be had through MPix and other online “labs” for MUCH less).

Of course, that’s in a perfect world. And to think – all this ranting is because I’m scared to scan in some photos for a friend who doesn’t believe he knows how and I don’t want to cross the line morally. Then again, I suppose I do that everyday if I go 30 in a 25 mile-an-hour zone. But that gets back to the discretion of the officer who’s clocking me, doesn’t it?? 🙂

Thanks for this post. It’s allowed me to learn some things and to vent at the same time.

In general, I tend to do what I consider reasonable, and rely on two basic facts. One, my idea of reasonable is likely to be shared with a lot of people, including possibly the copyright holder. Two, “reasonable” includes not doing anything particularly public, which means I’m not likely to be noticed in those cases where the law and reason might differ.

From a moral standpoint I do not want to be considered a “law-breaker”. Professional photography needs to find a new business model (no pun intended). I understand many would disagree with me, and that is fine. But there are way too many of these threads about the ridiculousness of 50-70 year copyrights, tracking down descendants of studio owners, etc. just to preserve treasured moments, for there NOT to be some kind of change.

I have a high-end photo-lab printer. I have an excellent scanner. I am an amateur photographer with a VERY MODEST home studio and have several years under my belt with graphic design. I can do most things a pro can do to produce an incredible image, albeit on much more modest equipment.

In our “microwave” culture we don’t want to bother with the hassle of tracking down the photographer/studio, and we certainly don’t want to waste time waiting on touchups or prints we could make on our own. The prints I make at home are as good as the lab I have used, and sometimes better (personal opinion based on what I think looks best with color saturation/etc.)

Even non-photogs and non-graphically-inclined computer users can easily use products such as PS Elements and even Picasa to do some nice photo enhancements. Toss in a low-end Epson and some decent paper and you have better-than-average reprints without the hassle of waiting.

Personally, as a photographer, I don’t want the headache of doing reprints. I’m more of a “work for hire” guy. Others aren’t. But in my OPINION there should be SOME kind of “limited use” inherent for owners of PRINTS (notice I did not say owners of COPYRIGHT). That limited use should be clearly spelled out and simple.

A question still remains about loss of revenue, too. If a photographer charges $100 for a set of 4 wallets, that is his/her discretion. In my experience, though, the “Average Joe” sees reprints from the original photographer as a prohibitive price. Thus, “Joe” would NEVER purchase those wallets from the photographer. If “Joe” scans his pro images for backup purposes and then decides, “Hey, I’d like a wallet-size of old Junior here,” I believe the “limited use” should apply. We can bicker about number of copies allowed, distribution rights, etc., but the root still comes back to, “Would Joe have ordered these from the photographer EVER given what Joe considers to be an outrageous pricing structure?”

The answer will almost always be a resounding “NO”. So I can see where a case can be made where Joe, even though he made his own prints (a current violation of copyright law), did NOT lessen the photographer’s monetary gain. Obviously there are people who do pay exhorbitant amounts of money for professionally developed prints, but again, we’re talking about the masses here. Most of us are “average Joes” who get pictures from the local Costco or CVS and are happy as can be with the quality of prints. We’re also used to that pricing structure.

I suppose I’m ranting now and composing at the keyboard but I’d like to one day have peace of mind about making backups of photos (which I would consider fair use) without having to track down people all the time to get permission. Or not to worry about having to pay a load of cash for reprints I could print out better myself, at home, and cheaper if I one day decided I wanted to have a few newer copies in a different size.

But what do I know? In the end I firmly believe market demand will kill the current paradigm. Unless photographers decide to follow the route of the music industry and rigorously police their work AND sue the pants off people that violate current copyright, that is. 

The problem is that “fair use” is not defined anywhere, and so you often have to ask a lawyer.

Some things are probably safe, like quoting, or reproducing portions of some work for parody. Others, like noncommercial scanning, are still unclear. It’s possible that the act of scanning would be OK, but the act of publishing the scan on your website (even if noncommercial) would not be.

Practically speaking, you’re not likely to get prosecuted unless you make a nuisance of yourself. Doing a favor for a friend is very unlikely to get you in trouble. But I’m telling you about what’s likely, not what’s possible.