Copyright-Worried Photo Labs Spurn Jobs

[Mynock]

I found this article on Yahoo, and I thought it would be interesting to post and see if anyone has run into this problem or not.

Copyright-Worried Photo Labs Spurn Jobs (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20050617/ap_on_hi_te/photo_printing_frustration)
by Brian Bergstein, AP Technology Writer

[keith1]

Very interesting. Kind of absurd too. I guess they are just covering their a$$ though.

[Mynock]

That's exactly what I thought, 15 minutes left and I'm free.

[MD]

A couple months ago I restored the only existing picture of my Grandmothers wedding portrait. It was really in bad shape with many creases and chunks missing from the corners (a hamster got loose years ago and chewed the hell out of it) I took it over to Walgreens to get it printed from a CD - in order to get it printed I had to sign something saying that Walgreens was not responsible if there was a problem later on. The clerk said something to the effect that it shouldn't be a problem if the portrait was taken before 1973ish.

[steve-o]

Interesting story. Processing is an important part of producing high-quality images and shouldn't be done at these one-hour joints for professional results.

Saturday I snapped about 200 digital photos (of which maybe 30-40 are worth showing) of a friend's wedding and brought them over to CVS yesterday, against my better judgement. I wanted some quick prints to show the bride and groom before they left on their honeymoon.

However, the quality was deplorable! I knew they weren't going to be the best quality, but I did not expect heavy grain on ISO 100, green tinge, and extreme contrast and saturation. The dark areas were black and the lighter areas were blown out. I wouldn't even show them to the b&g.

*In the interest of full disclosure, the darker, underexposed shots printed ok. To be honest, though, they shouldn't have!

As a humble hobbyist, I first accepted the reality that my images were crap and my monitor lied to me. Then I fed the exact same (unedited) files through my Epson 300, and they printed much more respectably. Color balance, exposure, and contrast remained true to the captured moment as it appeared on my monitor. Definitely going to bring the images to the photo shop that I usually use and have them professionally processed. Well worth it.

Now, after reading this article, I only wish my photos were good enough to be rejected through one of these policies. If photo thieves are bringing images to shops like this, copyright owners probably don't have much to worry about.

BTW, I'll post a few of the wedding images tonight, so you can decide for yourselves.

[MD]

I have to admit I was pleasantly impressed with the way my grandmothers photo turned out. Using one of those Kodak DIY machines I printed a few out with different color shifts and picked the one that looked closest to the original.

[PrintDriver]

I just caught this thread.
I'd actually never given it a thought what photoprocessors must have to go thru. We have to sign copyright indemnity forms all the time and we, in turn, collect them from our clients. A company as large as WalMart should have their lawyers check into the practicality of such forms. I'd be curious how much they really protect the photo finisher in a real lawsuit.

What I really love these days is the fine print on all the image websites (including Library of Congress, many museums, even JupiterImages) that states that while they have the photos they may not particularly own the rights to the content of the photos and that by signing the order form you agree to hold them free of any responsibility for any infringement of trademark, publicity or copyright lawsuits. So, even though you may be paying a $400 'licensing' fee (or more), there is no guarantee the image site has legal rights to be selling it to you. It's up to you to perform 'due diligence'. Irksome.

BTW, 1973 as a cut off date is wrong. It's 1923 to be perfectly safe and considered Public Domain. 1923 to 1978 only if the thing was published with no © notice. Otherwise, it gets real tricky.

[Mynock]

Not everything is going to be public domain. Corporations like Disney are tradmarking their characters which should come under public domain. They are rewriting the rules as they go. Rules don't apply to those with money. Does anyone know how Disney got popular? That's right, they did animations which they wrote themselves. It was all their own orginal material. It's funny that Disney is preventing people from doing the exact thing that made them successful. Funny isn't it? Here is some information regarding what I'm talking about. Read them and you'll never look at Mickey in the same light again.

"Copyright and the Mouse: How Disney's Mickey Mouse Changed the World" (http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/?articleID=4031)
By Jack Kapica

"Disney helps secure copyright extension for Mickey Mouse" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/1998/10/16/national0108EDT0439.DTL)
JONATHAN D. SALANT, Associated Press Writer

Free Mickey! (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/09/28/free_mickey/)
Jeet Heer

[JaCkinbOx]

Following up on the Disney bit, I think Disney should be legally entitled to renewing their copyrights. Mickey going public domain opens the door for a disturbingly large amount of slanderous parody and misrepresentation of the mighty mouse's original character -- which isn't to say the Disney of today isn't butchering itself to death as it is. Damn Michael Eisner to hell.

Now, legal issues aside, I think principally the fate of Mickey should rest in the hands of those who created him. Those being Walt and his friends.

As an artist, I would want to elect heirs to retain rights to my creations to see that they're not misrepresented or abused. (One of my favorite artist's work is public domain now and his work is printed on all sorts of [expletive] merchandise it should've never been on. Blasphemy!)

[PrintDriver]

That's why I said the copyright issue gets very sticky beyond the two instances I gave. The Disney ruling added a whole new layer to the copyright issue and made it worse by making it retroactive in some instances and the way it was implemented over 3 or so years. Now we have the Digital Millenium act too which is still being phased in.
=8O

Even with Public Domain stuff you may still have to deal with estates or trusts. It really sucks sometimes to have to track down the provenance of a photo image. Glad I don't do it more often than I do.