Slashdot Mirror
Your Digital Photos Are Too Professional
ScentCone writes "AP's technology writer Brian Bergstein reports that your 8 megapixel camera, and lukewarm+ lens/Photoshop skills may keep you from getting over the counter image printing services. Professional photographers have successfully sued processors (like Wal-Mart) for reproducing their digital works without permission. Clerks are now being told to deny print orders for some work that looks too good. Talented amateurs are having to jump through hoops, present documents, and otherwise cajole teenage cashiers into taking their orders. No doubt one successful suit costs more than a thousand denied amateurs' orders, but sheesh. On the other hand, pro wedding photographers depend mightily on the income derived from reproducing their work, and it will take time for things to evolve to the point where clients are willing to pay a lot more up front in exchange for wider image rights after the fact. There's no well-supported digital equivalent to a negative (as reasonable proof of ownership), so retailers are defensively resorting to near paranoia to stay out of court."
I don't know what all of the fuss is about.... I've been having my pictures printed at WalMart for years, and never had any problems....
..., ahem, ...., uh, ...., never mind.
I always cringe when I read something like this. To anyone who is planning a wedding out there: Don't be fooled into this!
It's a little off-topic, but I want to point out that this practice - once "just the way it was" when it came to wedding photography - is becoming less and less common. When we got married (a year ago next Sunday), the #1 thing we looked for was a photographer who wouldn't insist on maintaining the copyrights to the photos.
This turned out not to be a problem; the few photographers we looked at who still wanted to maintain copyrights were all old-school (in a negative sense) in other ways, too. One guy even wanted to tell us that our relatives wouldn't be allowed to take pictures at our own fucking wedding! I can't imagine how someone would hire this guy; what kind of asshole is actually going to tell their guests they can't take pictures?
Anyhow, the photographer we ended up with used film rather than digital. I actually looked for this; it added a little bit of work on our part on the back end of the wedding, but as a hobbyist myself I feel there's a real advantage to film specifically in terms of the quality of black and white photos. She did a great job, too.
Once the pictures were developed, we got all the negatives. We scanned the pictures using a kick-ass negative scanner from Nikon that we bought refurbed (and then sold on eBay for a profit) and stuck the pictures out on Ofoto so our friends and relatives could order right from there. Compare this to my Best Man's wedding a year earlier where he went with a "traditional" photog who kept the copyrights from the photos and wanted to charge us $20 per shot... Well, let's just say I don't have any of the pro shots from that wedding.
Now, back on topic: If your photos look too good, why hassle with the local Walmart just to get yourself what's going to be, at best, an 'okay' print? Unless you need the prints Right Now, go online! When I'm trying to get my own "good" photos printed, I've had great luck with Adorama's printing service. Plus, they're used to seeing shots that are far better than what I can produce. Ofoto (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) generally kicks out satisfactory results as well.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Adding insult to injury, the photofinishers refuse to give explicit guidelines as to what qualifies as "professional-looking" (in all likelihood there are no guidelines, of course). But an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune on this topic shows one customer's example of a photo rejected by Wal-Mart, alongside an equally good-looking photo that Wal-Mart, in its infinite wisdom, deemed amateurish enough to print.
If the wedding photographer is giving out the 8 megapixel versions of the images on CD, then they're just stupid. If a person has a CD that has 8 megapixel pictures on it, chances are good that they took them themselves.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
"Your Digital Photos Are Too Professional"
Yes, I know. Thank you.
Dashboard Widgets
So are we trying to squash small business here or what? if you are a professional and dont digitally sign your photos then that is your fault.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
All the Walmarts I've been to denied the pictures from my honeymoon. I guess they must be some really good professional pictures.
They said it might be a trap.
..and yet you can still buy knives, hammers, pillows and other dangerous object that could be used to KILL someone. I guess full and complete protection of 'intellectual property' is more important than full and complete protection of human life.
Or maybe, just maybe we dont need everything to be protected?
Starsucks
If I sign something claiming ownership of the image, why are they liable? They have no way of actually knowing, and couldn't reasonbly be expected to do so. To expect the printer to be the enforcer is only creating a point of friction between the printer and their customers. This just seems so black and white obvious to me.
I'm getting married in 2 month, and the professional Photographer I've hired uses a digital camera and photoshop to accentuate colors and things like that.
The only difference is that a professionnal photographer, unlike me, knows how to take good poses, good angles, and knows what to do in photoshop to make the picture a lifetime souvenir
I wouldn't mind you in my head, if you weren't so clearly mad -Lews Therin Telamon
My brother does wedding photos http://www.bairphoto.com/ and gives the "digital negatives" to the people - he just charges for time. He sent me this link yesterday, he said now he knows why more and more of his clients are asking for print release forms. He is starting to include a stack with the CD when he gives it to people.
... to the invention of the photocopier.
Remember when you went to a Staples or Kinkos and they wouldn't let you photocopy lots of things because they *might* be copyrighted works? Remember when you had to jump through hoops to prove that you were photocopying a book segment for a school book report?
Fast forward to today. No problem anymore. They just refer you to the Self Serve copiers with the "Don't Copy Illegally" signs and look the other way while you make your own Oxford Englsh Dictionary at 5 cents a page.
This will be a ridiculously short-lived phenomenon for two single word reasons:
* Kiosks
* O-foto (that's not really a word...)
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
RE:"There's no well-supported digital equivalent to a negative"
While it's not absolute proof of ownership, most digital formats these days include a specification called EXIF. (Google for "EXIF" or see http://www.exif.org/ for more info).
The extraneous information in a digital photo containg EXIF data includes such information as Make & model of camera, etc. While such information is not absolute, it can, in a pinch, providde reasonable proof of ownership, as long as you can show you own the equipment specified, and that all the images point to your equipment.
"Yes, I have a Disaster Recovery Plan. It's called my Resume"
I can't wait till they start DRM'ing film. You have developed this film more than one time. Please call this activation hotline you god damn pirate. Thank you
Maybe it's time to start up a photo business that doesn't care about copyrights.
Honestly, why would a photographer want copyrights on Ma & Pa Kettle's wedding photos? Is there a release form the couple has to sign off to the photographer for all images of THEM?
Maybe the photographer should be paying them for modeling, with a clause that they(wedding couple) get a copy for framing.
Or pony up the $ and just do it all yourself, have a neighbor kid take the photos and pay them an agreed-upon fee.
Same thing with other Wal-mart products, I'm afraid... I can't be sure that they're not violating the trademark protections of Coca-cola by packaging a knockoff as The Real Thing (tm).
Except in extreme circumstances, digital is going to kill off a lot of "professional" picture takers.
With more and more megapixels, you can take bad pictures, incredibly off-center, etc.. crop, and voila, the subject is now perfect center(you can even measure it with photoshop to be sure!).
Sure, there'll always be call for professionals, but it's getting to where you can have just about anyone with a 45-minute course and a big-megapixel camera can do some pretty good shots.
My favorite is my cheap kodak digital can take pictures from far away, with its little bit of zoom, and I can get home, zoom in on the picture in photoshop(reduces maximize size of final print though, not that I really print much) and it looks like I either had a very professional camera with a huge zoom, or I was much closer when I took my picture, even if that isn't a possibility.
You're a behemoth corporation with more money than I can imagine. Why don't you throw some of that weight and money around and take a stand against these bullshit laws? Fight the lawsuits in court to establsh a set of sane legal precidents, and promote a new "common-carrier printer status" law.
Not only because it's the right thing to do, but because by being sissies, you're undercutting your future sales.
Signed,
Everybody
From what I've learned about weddings (from working as a holiday inn Chef) they seem be a the eternal hotbed of scams. Everything from when they sell you a small rock for thousands of dollars on down to the throwing of bouquet is a scam of some sort and everybody wants a piece of the pie. Ernest young lovers ready to through as much of their parents money away as possible are hard to resist. But keeping the copyright to the wedding photos? That is truly ridiculous. At our wedding (which didn't cost a dime btw) we had three photographers, all amature. I did a compilation of photos for everybody afterwards and burned them to cheap CD's.
My question is this; who is printing their digital photos at Walmart anyhow? With ink jet printers being the cheapest they've ever been (and with the average consumer knowing little about fading inks and the like)wouldn't a printer purchase quickly pay for itself?
only one everything
That's a bad precedent. Service vendors should not be put in the position of monitoring content or judging it, any more than an ISP should monitor its customers' activity (except in a general way). Whether a customer has copyright or permission on a file or photo is not their call, unless they see something obviously illegal happening.
This isn't Big Brother, really, it's worse: enforced imitation bureaucracy.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I had something like that happen at a Quebec to Vermont border crossing. I was in my early 20's driving a brand new (gasp) SUV. The US BP agent was certain I couldn't own such a vehicle. She even hesitated to accept the temporary registration and title application as proof (I hadn't registered it yet).
There's too many busy-bodies and not enough MYOB sense.
Why would Martmart even be the victim of a lawsuit? They acted on a request of a customer, if the customer ordered a reprint of a copywritten work THEY should be the guilty party. Without an absolute way of verifying copyright status it's absurd to hold Martmart responsible.
Ok, I have a metric assload of problems with this whole concept.
First and foremost, photographers are paid to take really good pictures, and maybe do some prints. I still think the digital version belongs to the person who's wedding/whatever it is. Yes, the photographer needs to be paid, but he gets paid. And quite well too. What is it, a grand or two for a days work?
Second, if there are legitimately copywrited photos printed by someone who doesn't own them, it's the person who had them printed who is liable. Not the printer. Otherwise it's like suing maytag because someone washed your dry-clean only sweater.
It seems legal battles are now just big finger pointing contests, and copyright is about who you can sue. I think the whole process needs a reality check, because the spirit of copyright and other laws has been completely lost.
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
A stipulation where? Not in copyright law. Copyright does not allow you rights to reproduce "orphan" works such as wedding photographers--at least in the US. This problem is much bigger than Walmart. Ironically copyright law *presumes* that the person who commissioned the work owns the copyright, therefore if you or your relatives are in the photos it is reasonable to assume that the copyright belongs to you regardless of who took the pictures. Professional photographers try to turn copyright law on its head and make clients sign contracts saying that the work for hire is not work for hire and that the photographer owns all rights to your photographs. The first thing is to never agree to give up copyright to a photographer. Remember, if there is no written contract to the contrary, any photography you commission is copyright by *you*, regardless of whether the photographer tries to write "proof" or copyright by so and so. If this wasn't' the case, those pictures you ask strangers to take of you on vacation wouldn't belong to you either. At least one European country has a law saying that you have a right to reproduce pictures of yourself or of dead relatives. We need such a law to make sure that our heritage isn't locked up by silly copyrights.
If a person has a CD that has 8 megapixel pictures on it, chances are good that they took them themselves.
How would they know it's not an unauthorized 8 Mpixel scan of a copyrighted photo? Let's see... (touches buttons on wristwatch calculator) a scan of a 4x6 print at 600 dpi will be about 8 Mpixels.
If you can take nice photos, great, but don't expect to get rich doing it. When the technology was new and the expense of equipment and processing was prohibitive then very few people could afford to take nice pictures. With today's digital tools, even a hack like me can get some really nice shots. When you take 1000 digital pictures at zero cost then the law of averages means you'll get a few good ones, and even the not so good ones can be post processed to make acceptable prints.
I know this is not exactly on topic, but I have attended events where cameras were permitted but not "professional" cameras. I've got an Olympus C-730. Not a "cheap" camera, but not what I'd call professional either. In any case, I have had to talk people into allowing me to bring my camera. Ridiculous.
Okay, so technology in the hands of the average/casual user is getting better and better. The results from these devices are better and better. That's what people want. Now we can't use them for fear of being sued? It's getting ridiculous.
I haven't run into that problem yet but then again, I don't see the point in getting pictures printed anyway... and if I did, it would give me the perfect reason to go out and buy me that awesome dyesub printer or really nice color laser printer. (Inkjet just sucks and as often as I print color things, I'm lucky to get a few pages printed before the ink goes bad.)
I recall a run-in I had with a wedding photographer... he did everything he could to get in my way. Those attitudes are definitely out of control as well. It was good to read that these professionals are gradually shifting to getting paid by the time spent taking the pictures rather than by the print.
And finally, this "PPA" group? I think they need an extra "A" in there to be the PPAA. Then it'd fit in nicely with all the other **AA groups that we can collectively hate for stifling our freedoms.
You have to remember: these rules like so many exist to somehow make people feel like the problem is being addressed without actually addressing it.
The employees have been told they need a copyright release form, but obviously wouldn't know a legitimate release from their own ass.
If they're your photos, find out what a copyright release form looks like, make one and sign it. Make sure it is signed and printed with a different name from your own as that is probably the spectacularly brilliant method of determining legitimacy. So make up a pseudonym for your photo work and make your own release form.
Remember - these are your photos, you are doing nothing wrong. You are just giving retail employees what they want.
All this can be avoided with these three sentences: DONE! That's it. DONE. But instead bureaucracy gets in the way of good judgement. Again.
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
My brother-in-law had this very problem recently at Costco. After arguing with the person, he eventually had to fill out all sorts of silly paperwork to get them to let him print his own damn work. Just because he's got a good eye and a decent camera (Digital Rebel rocks with the kit lens, folks) they told him the images must have been done by a professional. A compliment of sorts, but quite an annoying one.
Like others have said, PRINT ONLINE. There are some great services out there, and if you know exactly what you're looking for you can get a good deal. My favorite for amateur photos is currently Mpix.com. They have a great turnaround time, but more importantly, they have metallic paper. If any of you have noticed those crazy cool silver gelatin prints in museums, this gives that same sort of effect. Looks great for black and whites, but especially amazing with reds, blues, and yellows. They also have this cool continuous tone black and white paper (regular digital prints won't give this). Their prices are good, too.
If you're looking to do real work somewhere in the semi-pro realm, there's really only one choice: White House Custom Color. This place is for real. You don't just open up an account and upload photos. This place has you fill out a client questionnaire and then they send you samples of their stuff. The coolest thing they have, which I've not seen anywhere else, is linen textured paper (you'll have to read through one of the PDF's).
If you need something local and same day, Walgreens is great. They almost always have some sort of a special each week, and I ended up paying $.19 for each 4x6 the last time I was there. The color might not be spot on, but it is same day service. Shipping and tax end up balancing out in the end. Not bad at all.
I have flirted with watermarking the images with a copyright notice, but I think it looks bad.
I've kind of just come to expect this as a part of doing business, with the resigned idea that people who want quality will pay for the quality prints from me, but I can't say I'm happy with that as a solution.
I'd love to hear what others are doing if your out there.
San Francisco Photographers
I'm glad that the big box store photo labs question certain photos.
:)
A while back, I needed some quick proofs of a portrait shoot I had done for a client. Went to the local Walgreens for the 1 hour prints. They said "these look professional, we can't print them". I said "Thank you, they are". Then handed them by business card, business license and sales tax resellers permit. No problems, they know me now.
I often use Costco for quick 12x18 and 11x14 display prints for events we're about to do with http://www.actionathletics.com/. They're cheaper than my pro lab, faster and the quality is pretty good, not as good, but good enough. They did question me at first, but I showed them the docs and luckily I have a business account there as well.
As far as wedding photographers giving up copyrights... You're way off base here. If I'm doing an editorial shoot and the client wants copyright transfer, they're paying 10X my normal price.
Protecting copyright is not "old-school" thinking. We live in an IP intense age. The US doesn't produce widgets anymore, it's all intellectual property. There's nothing wrong with protecting your rights, in fact you're a moron NOT to. Apply the same logic to programming and see if you have the same response.
You can still get the "digital negatives" from a shoot. The photographer can license you the right to make prints from those images. You cannot sell them, you cannot publish them, but you can make as many prints as you would like. What's wrong with that?
Going back to the programming example. Say I need you to write an accounting app. You're an independent(not my employee). You write the code, I pay you $XXX. Do I have the right to turn around and claim that it's mine? Depends on the contract. By default, you own the rights to everything you produce unless you explicitly grant those rights to someone or you're an employee. Same thing with photography. It's all about the rights
Um, Walmart's photo printing service uses Dye-Sub printers - and a 4x6 print only costs $.19. I'm sorry, but the quality is excellent and the price is far cheapers than a "consumer" dye-sub's (Kodak, Hi-Ti, et al) cost-per-print.
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
We have plenty of pro photographers use our services for both proofs and a few for their final products. Others just get us to make a CD from their film. We also have a number of amateurs that use us. (and for those of you snickering at the idea of pros using Wally World, we have Fuji Frontiers, look them up, and I at least know how to use it)
;)
:)
All I have to do to determine the authenticity is have a look at their source. After a little practice you can determine most scanned images from an original digital file. There's also EXIF in the originals. Most pros and amateurs just bring in their CF card and most of the happy snappy crowd doesn't know how to use a card reader. And if you are a pro and give your customers non-watermarked hi-res CDs I take that to mean you give them full release. Many photographers do just that.
Sorry for the rather disjointed comment, I'm home on lunch and time is limited!
If you're in Taylors SC and need inexpensive quality prints, just come see William.
-= I can't think of anything witty, creative, or insightful for my sig, so deal with this. =-
Being a serious ameture/semi professional photographer and photography student, I tend to be above average on the picture taking side. Of the many Walmarts within a short drive of my location, there is one that generally refused to release my work to me, even when provided with a copyright release for printing. Simple solution, I don't go there anymore.
Why would a person want to print at Walmart? Simple, convienient, quick turnaround on the cheap.
There are many times that I've done an assignment where I need to provide 4x6 prints for review in class, and Walmart is good enough for that usually. If I need quality, I go elsewhere.
Simply buying a photo printer is not always good enough. Yes, they are incredible compared to what could be done just a few years ago, but they still lack the perminance that a lab print has.
And yes, there are many photographers that will not release the negatives or copyright to a client, which is done simply to try to get more money from the shoot at a later date.
Copyright law gives copyright to the photographer automatically unless there is a contract making it a work for hire, or stating otherwise. I do not see a problem with that, as the photographer IS the artist that is producing the work. If I have a client that wants the negatives, I allow that, but I charge for it. When it comes to wedding work, my most common contract allows the client to reproduce the work, be it at Walmart or where ever, and comes with a copyright release to that effect. I however still retain copyright and just grant use to the client. There's nothing wrong with that, allows them to make copies whereever they want, if they want, but still allows me to use the work for my portfolio, etc. And yes, I charge more for that than I would if I retain all copyright rights.
The funny thing, is that most of them still come back to me for reprints. Mainly because the quality I can give them is beyond when Walmart can produce. Yes, if they really wanted to they could do their homework and have them printed at the same pro-lab I use, and get the same results I would give them. But they usually don't do that.
Traditionally photographers for weddings have retained all copyright, requiring the client to come back to them for reprints. That is a business model that is dying, but still very much alive. If you don't like it, go to a photographer that gives you the option. There is NOTHING that requires you to use a photographer that won't release copyright in any way. It's your choice.
But don't bitch if a photographer that will release copyright wants more money than the one that won't, that's the whole reason they charge less, they expect to make more money later off the client.
As to getting Walmart to print an individuals good quality work, be it ameteur or professional, either have a copyright release handy (you can snag 'em from that newfangled thing called the internet for nothing after all), or DON'T GO TO WALMART. One of the reasones the small photo shop is going under is because of places like Walmart. If you want to be treated nicely, try a smaller shop, you might be suprised that they actually listen to you when you say it's your shot...
A few months ago, the local Staples - their self-serve machines were all down - refused to copy a *tele-facsimile* of a *copy* of a property record of my house from our local town hall. "It's a legal document. We can't copy it." I had them produce their printed rules on this. While lots of other things were mentioned, "legal documents" were not blanket excluded. They still refused. Ditto the manager, and it was leave or they would call the police.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Since DNG is just another file format, there's nothing to prevent you from transcoding from JPEG to DNG. However, it should be possible to immediately distinguish between a JPEG->DNG file and a "true" DNG file just by looking at them, because of the DCT artifacts.
But your larger question is correct: Posession of a DNG file will prove exactly nothing.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Photo printers.
? jumpid=ex_hphqglobal_wwcorp2H05sem/printing
i nters/Direct_Photo/index.asp
c t_Listing_Inkjets_Photo.htm
HP:
http://h10030.www1.hp.com/you/uk/en/printers.html
(Now, isn't that a *stupid* URL?)
Canon:
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Pr
Epson:
http://www.epson.co.uk/products/product_hub/Produ
etc etc.
Deleted
My wife is taking photography classes, and she is quite good at it. As part of an assignment she took pictures of my sister and her fiance' as "engagement pictures". My sister took them to Walmart to have a few dups made to send out to family to announce the wedding. The clerk said they couldn't do it without the photographers permission, so my wife had to go in with her... I understand personally. Professionals don't allow dups unless they do it and over charge you to do it. That's how they make their living. But, it isn't judged by being "too good" of a pic, it's often judged by if there is a professional backdrop, professional props in the pic or such things that are considered a giveaway that the pic was done in a studio... Or, that's what I got out of the experience.
dB Masters
I own everything I create (including my wedding, which I pay for and participate it, and create). The photographer does not 'own' the broadcast of this product (because he has not paid for its rights). I am paying him to document it, but it's not his creation.
It's not his creation, but if you sign a contract that says so, he does in fact own the "broadcast rights".
In the absence of a contract, the photographer could take pictures of the wedding party as they came into public space outside the church, but could not then make commercial use of those images (without seeking permission to do so). On the other hand, neither can you stop him photographing you, nor stop him from making noncommercial use of the photos. (The rules change a bit for "public figures", who have less control over their images. See "paparazzi".)
However, once you sign a contract that explicitly gives the photographer exclusive rights to commercially create and sell reproductions of your image as captured by him, your own right to do so is gone forever, unless and until you get him to give you back those rights , unless your locality has an unprecedented law to the contrary. In the US, at least, you do not have a Constitutional right to be protected from your own bad judgement in signing away your commercial rights (there are certain rights that are not legally recognized as subject to contract law, such as the right to the franchise).
Copyright of a photograph initially vests in the photographer, and has done for years and years and years. Rights to an image of a person initially vest in the person. Before a photo can be commercially copied, both those rights have to align.
-- Old Man Kensey
To a degree, yes (to a degree only; there are a number of ways to remove watermarks in a digital image, unless it's something very obvious such as a huge, clearly legible copyright notice running on the diagonal of the image. You could, for instance, print and re-scan, or convert the image through multiple formats including additional lossy compression, clone areas of the image, or so forth.)
The bigger problem is that while the existence of a detectable watermark would indicate that somebody probably cares about his copyright, the lack of a detectable watermark does not indicate the reverse.
Still, it's an annoying policy. If I were going to have pictures printed in a brick-and-mortar joint, it'd be tempting to haul my gear (camera body, multiple lenses, tripod, flashes, etc -- nontrivial stuff, really) and lay it out on the counter if they question whether I might have taken the shots. Then, set up the tripod or alternately the hefty hot-shoe flash and start shooting customers and the store staff. *shrug* It'd probably be a good way to get kicked out of the store, but it might be amusing in the meantime.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I did the linked portrait session at home with some alien bee strobes & a collapsable background.
I imported them into iPhoto, and used their photo service to order 4x6s, 5x7s, and 8x10s.
I got a nice email about how it looked like I was reproducing a pro's prints, to which I was amused because I thought they didn't look that amazing but I digress.
I had to sign a simple release form, fax it in, and I got my prints.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Costco is more than happy to take your semi-pro or pro shots and print them. In fact, they specifically do things to cater to pro-sumers and independent professional photographers: each and every one of Costco's digital printers are profiled every six months. The profiles are made available on the web at Dry Creek Photo so you can have a completely colour-managed workflow.
The best part is the price :) Costco's largest size, 12"x18", is only $2.99 a copy, and they look stunning. I have six hanging in my office right now and people are shocked when I tell them where they were printed.
Neil
Then again.
Suppose I take a picture and send it to Wal-Mart (or wherever) to get it developed.
A few days later I walk in and they have the picture there, but won't give it to me.
That seems like a HUGE vulnerability to lawsuit there.
They have MY picture there, and won't give it to me?
There's got to be some greedy lawyer that could make a bundle from that kind of situation.
Even suppose that they say that it isn't mine, 'cause they won't sell it to me.
Then they've made an unauthorized copy of my photo, since I didn't authorize them to make any copies that weren't for me.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
I put as solid an end to that nonsense as I could, saying, "Tracing pictures is a great way to learn how to draw, so do it whenever you feel like it and don't worry about it. Nobody with a clean brain is going to care if you hang a drawing of Sponge Bob on your fridge, and if they do, it's their problem. Geez."
Then I gave a speech about how fear and over-control are the death of creativity, and that the world is currently insane, and not to fall for other people's psychological issues. Draw whatever you want. Sheesh.
The thing that really stood out was how the moronic laws and idiot debates are actually taken to heart by children and burned into their brains as Right and Wrong in the same way that "Looking Both Ways Before You Cross The Street" is burned in. Or, "Obey Authority Even If It's Totally, Obviously Insane".
Bavarian Fire Drills are for chumps.
-FL
"Your forgetting the fact that its the photographers equipment. Time == Money."
He did not forget this. You completely missed it when he wrote "any photography you commission is copyright by *you*"
He is describing work for hire. You commission a work, it is a work for hire, therefore under current copyright law _you_ own it for 99 years. The photographer's time and equipment is reasonably compensated by the fee he negotiates for commission, otherwise he should not have accepted the commission.
More music, fewer hits
Actually the current US currency system is pretty stupid. We're making more fake paper money than we have real money (like gold and such) to back it up with. The little fairy tale thing was just me being goofy, but in all honesty the phrase "intellectual property" is pretty oxymoronic...
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
How can you possibly think that the photographer does not own the copyright to work HE/SHE created?
How can you possibly think that the buyer does not own the copyright to work HE/SHE paid for?
You really need to learn what "work for hire" means.
Er, time to come out of the 19th century. :) "Money" is an incredibly complex concept that I'm not going to pretend to fully understand (there's a first for Slashdot), but the fact that it's not "backed" by a hard asset is a feature, not a bug. Tying it to a something like gold puts your economy at the whims of miners and people who stockpile gold.
Currency is an extremely carefully controlled thing. Why do you think the Fed is independent of the government? It's so the government can't start printing money whenever they want to. Currency is, in fact, backed by the US Economy, the total of all assets, and the banking system, and the amount of currency is balanced to all that.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Then think up a new term than "intellectual property," but the concept is solid. Anything that requires substantial investment to develop and has value to people should have a system whereby that investment can be recouped. While I agree current US law has gone a little too far, saying that "intellectual property" as a general concept is bad isn't helpful. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the countries that allow invention to be rewarded in this manner are the ones that tend to do better.
As for US currency vs. gold... what's so special about gold? It's just another method of allocating and accounting for allotments of a percentage of a total valuation. We have computers for that now. Attaching it to the rarity of an abritrary element instead of its value as judged by the world market seems stupid, to me. If gold is sufficiently useful/shiny, pay money for it, but don't link its price to currencies.
E pluribus unum
No it's not. It's just a way of forcing people to pay more for a service/product than they are willing to pay in a free market.
A lot of the crap being passed as "intellectual property" nowadays didn't require much of an investment - however, even if something DOES require a substantial investment to develop, the value of that "thing" is NOT set by the seller - it is set by what people are willing to pay to get it in a free market. If you can't get people to pay a certain amount to get something in a free market, then it isn't worth that amount.
Really? You got some studies to back this up? All of the historical studies that I've read indicate that the U.S. became as economically successful as it is today by riding roughshod over European "intellectual property" concerns. China is getting rich & still growing during tough times by pretty much ignoring "intellectual property" laws (except for some lip service).
It seems more like developed countries try to encumber competitor countries by getting to them to go along with "intellectual property" laws (either by bribing or threatening them). Developing countries which ignore those intellectual property laws often end up with economies which go like gangbusters (except for economy-destroying scenarios like massive corruption).
So give me a few examples of countries that have benefited by passing laws which restrict the ability of their citizens to innovate (which is exactly what "intellectual property" laws do).
Link