|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Mr. StratMr. Strat Date: Jun 29, 2008 19:26
In article aioe.org>, Cal I Fornicate bitz.com>
wrote:
> Most places won't make copies of images which were
>> obviously taken by a professional.
>
> This would have to be the dumbest thing I've read this week.
If you take a photograph which was obviously created by a professional
(most people can tell the difference) to, say Wal-Mart, and ask to have
a copy made, they won't do it unless you have a signed release from the
studio.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Mr. StratMr. Strat Date: Jun 29, 2008 19:27
> Actually, it's true. It was weird the first time I ran into it, but I
> had to provide documentation that the customer did have the right to
> have the images printed. One of those big box stores like Wal-Mart
> refused to print the images because 'they were obviously
> professionally done.' I now routinely include the copyrights with the
> DVD's.
I had this problem a few years ago. I had closed the studio, but for
some reason needed a copy from a print I couldn't find the negative
for. I had trouble explaining to the twit behind the counter that I was
the (former) professional who had created the image.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Mr. StratMr. Strat Date: Jun 29, 2008 19:28
In article aioe.org>, Cal I Fornicate bitz.com>
wrote:
> That's be the second dumbest.
Looks like you're the tard.
> How can they ascertain that a professional was involved without also
> assuming that all amateurs are totally inept? There are many amateurs
> who can match or surpass the work of day to day professionals.
I've seen very few.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mr. StratMr. Strat Date: Jun 29, 2008 19:30
In article aioe.org>, Cal I Fornicate bitz.com>
wrote:
> I would be no more likely to use Walmart or similar for any form of film
> or digital processing than I would to go to an astrologer for investment
> advice.
Wal-Mart was just an example. Substitute "any amateur photofinisher."
> Already covered. If there are watermarks, logos, with some sort of "Do
> Not Duplicate" warning, or the Logo of a known local Wedding
> Photographer, yes, I agree. The discussion is about refusing to make
> copies of work that was "obviously" done by a professional. There is
> nothing obvious about being professional.
Professional posing and lighting is beyond the realm of understanding
of most amateurs.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tony coopertony cooper Date: Jun 29, 2008 19:52
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:05:06 +1000, Cal I Fornicate bitz.com>
wrote:
>>> Because it isn't true. They aren't breaching copyright by copying
>>> something at my request. They have no onus to determine the provenance
>>> of any file they are asked to copy. They aren't selling it, all they are
>>> doing is making a copy.
>>
>> Good Lord. What do you think charging you for making a copy is? Is
>> that not selling their service?
>
>Yes, a service. They are not selling an illegal copy. Will a taxi driver
>who takes a bank robber to an airport be arrested for providing a
>service that aided in his escape?
Damn! It's almost embarrassing to see you make yourself look so
foolish. Yes, the taxi driver would be arrested if he knowingly aided
the felon to escape. Aiding and abetting. Just as the camera store
clerk could be fined for knowingly copying copyrighted images.
Selling is selling whether you sell a product or a service or both.
The professional photographer sells both.
|
| Show full article (3.77Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tony coopertony cooper Date: Jun 29, 2008 19:55
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:04:40 +1000, Cal I Fornicate bitz.com>
wrote:
>> There's no need to look at EXIF data. Watermarks, embedded copyright
>> information, and stamped logos blow your cover.
>
>Already covered. If there are watermarks, logos, with some sort of "Do
>Not Duplicate" warning, or the Logo of a known local Wedding
>Photographer, yes, I agree. The discussion is about refusing to make
>copies of work that was "obviously" done by a professional. There is
>nothing obvious about being professional.
What do you think the watermark, embedded copyright info, or stamped
logo is? Is that not an obvious indication? If the person taking the
image in removes those obvious points, he may fool the clerk but he
has still violated the law. Even with the points removed, the work of
a studio photographer is often obvious.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tony coopertony cooper Date: Jun 29, 2008 20:01
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:32:19 +0100, Chris H phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>>Even with heavily protected items like movies and software,
>>prosecutions are always for distributing or selling, not for actual
>>copying.
>
>NO. Movies etc. include copying.
>The distribution and selling (also broadcasting ) are something else
The FBI has jurisdiction over the copying of copyrighted videos and
DVDs. You can legally make a copy for your own use, but you can't
sell the copy or use the copy for profit (charge admission). The
copying and selling go hand-in-hand when it's done illegally.
>
>>If someone uses an image without a licence in a publication, say an ad
>>in a magazine, the person who created the ad is prosecuted, not the
>>company who ran the print job.
>
>Yes. The printer is not in a position to know and it is the publisher
>who is at fault. This is a different scenario
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PeterPeter Date: Jun 29, 2008 20:20
"tony cooper" earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:g7jf645mqdgelcdso8o1ifdtiuus8n1ra2@4ax.com...
> That assumes the printer is not in-house.
Are you suggesting we use outhouse printers?
--
Peter
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Cal I FornicateCal I Fornicate Date: Jun 30, 2008 01:13
tony cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:05:06 +1000, Cal I Fornicate bitz.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> Because it isn't true. They aren't breaching copyright by copying
>>>> something at my request. They have no onus to determine the provenance
>>>> of any file they are asked to copy. They aren't selling it, all they are
>>>> doing is making a copy.
>>> Good Lord. What do you think charging you for making a copy is? Is
>>> that not selling their service?
>> Yes, a service. They are not selling an illegal copy. Will a taxi driver
>> who takes a bank robber to an airport be arrested for providing a
>> service that aided in his escape?
>
> Damn! It's almost embarrassing to see you make yourself look so
> foolish. Yes, the taxi driver would be arrested if he knowingly aided
> the...
|
| Show full article (7.08Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Cal I FornicateCal I Fornicate Date: Jun 30, 2008 01:14
tony cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:04:40 +1000, Cal I Fornicate bitz.com>
> wrote:
> >>> There's no need to look at EXIF data. Watermarks, embedded copyright
>>> information, and stamped logos blow your cover.
>> Already covered. If there are watermarks, logos, with some sort of "Do
>> Not Duplicate" warning, or the Logo of a known local Wedding
>> Photographer, yes, I agree. The discussion is about refusing to make
>> copies of work that was "obviously" done by a professional. There is
>> nothing obvious about being professional.
>
> What do you think the watermark, embedded copyright info, or stamped
> logo is? Is that not an obvious indication? If the person taking the
> image in removes those obvious points, he may fool the clerk but he
> has still violated...
|
| Show full article (2.77Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
