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
All the Walmarts I've been to denied the pictures from my honeymoon. I guess they must be some really good professional pictures.
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.
... 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.
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
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.
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. =-
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).