Important Reminder: LABEL YOUR PRINTS.

Captain Flaps

As those of you who've popped in to see me in work know I work part time in a Fujilab as my fulltime college schedule doesn't lend itself well to a ton of photo work. Having had an unpleasant experience with a customer today, I thought I'd take a few minutes to post this from the perspective of both a working photographer and someone behind the desk in a lab.

One of the most common services we provide is photo reproduction, as in scanning a print and making a copy of it. For the most part this is people who've lost their negatives just looking to get some reprints which is obviously fine. Where we run into trouble is when a customer comes in with something which has obviously been taken by a professional looking to get a copy made from the print. Obviously, without the permission of the photographer, this is an infringement of copyright.

Now, I personally am well aware of this, so if an image has obviously been taken in a studio or by a wedding photographer I'll tell the person that we're not legally allowed to reproduce commercial work. I've explained this a few times to my colleagues and I think they're generally getting good at ensuring that none of these types of images are copied.

The problem is that it's very hard to definitively say that an image was taken by a pro in some cases, or rather, it can be hard to prove it. This is why I'm encouraging all of you who distribute prints as part of your service to ensure that they're labelled appropriately. Use a sticker or an ink stamp, it doesn't matter, but put a note on the back which in some way signals that the print should not be copied without your permission. If you've labelled it 90% of people won't try and get it copied, and the remaining 10% will be turned away from the counter. Of course, you'll always get people who'll try to remove the label, but there's not a huge amount can be done about that.

Today I had two ladies come in with a photo of a couple of kids which had clearly been taken by a professional in a studio. By the style I'd guess it was done by Venture or one of those groups, but I can't be sure. The conversation went as follows:

Me: "I'm sorry, I'm afraid we're actually not allowed to reproduce professional images"

Her: "That's ridiculous, why not?"

Me: "Because without the consent of the original photographer we're infringing copyright if we do."

*long pause*

Her: "I'm the photographer."

Now, I know for a FACT that this woman was not the photographer. She would have known why I couldn't reproduce the image and she wouldn't have needed to bring in a print to get a copy made. She had no idea about print sizes and didn't know the difference between matte and glossy paper. However, because the print wasn't marked in any way, I can't prove BEYOND ALL DOUBT that she didn't take it. Against my better judgement I made the copy... I'm still not happy about it but unless I can prove that someone didn't create the image I risk antagonising a legitimate customer for no reason.

So, the moral is make sure your prints are clearly labelled. Protect your intellectual property and make my position that little bit easier to enforce on your behalf.

stcstc

but you still didnt have to copy

i would of turned down the work anyway if i felt it was another photogs work

especially if they were as cheeky as that

PCPhoto

I would have asked her what aperture she used ..... if she couldn't answer press the red button to the trap door to the dungeons.

phog

I'm not sure where I stand on this, obviously, I dont like my pics being used without permission but I think some rights are just so difficult to implement.

In this case the lady had already paid the photgrapher for their work. What would happen if the photographer's business had closed, does that mean she can no longer get copies of the photograph.

What if someone came in with an old B&W family photgraph, would you make a copy of that?

Where does one draw the line, how many photgraphers have downloaded music, copied a match and passed it on, downloaded their favouite youtube clips from a game or concert and emailed them around the place.

sineadw

One draws the line at the law. 70 years after the death of the copyright holder. It's as simple as that, and just because we live in a culture that doesn't seem to respect it, doesn't mean we shouldn't bother.

That being said, i think its easy for those who have their own businesses to say they wouldn't have copied. When you're trying to hold down a job in a lab i'd imagine this is exactly the type of thing that happens all the time. Thanks for the heads up captain

Captain Flaps

stcstc wrote: »

i would of turned down the work anyway if i felt it was another photogs work

I don't have the luxury of working for myself and only having myself to answer to. I stand behind a desk in a busy shopping centre often with a group of people waiting to be served. If I'd pushed this the end result would have been several minutes of arguments, the manager being called and me being told to do it just to get rid of her. I'm not saying that makes it ok at all, I'm just saying that my situation is a bit different yours and if I had the same level of control I definitely would have sent her packing.

PCPhoto wrote: »

I would have asked her what aperture she used ..... if she couldn't answer press the red button to the trap door to the dungeons.

Great idea, I think this might have to be my new approach!

phog wrote: »

In this case the lady had already paid the photgrapher for their work. What would happen if the photographer's business had closed, does that mean she can no longer get copies of the photograph.

It's still copyright infringement without the consent of the photographer

phog wrote: »

What if someone came in with an old B&W family photgraph, would you make a copy of that?

This happens quite a bit an to be quite honest it's often impossible to ascertain how old the pic is, and often the person doesn't even know who took it as they themselves might be a child in it. I think the general rule of thumb is that an old photo which was taken by an amateur will be copied, whereas something that's clearly of professional standard will be dealt with with more care before a copy is made. I'm speaking about copying in labs in general, not specifically about my store.

Anyway, the point of this thread wasn't to discuss semantics, I'm just encouraging people to label their prints. Many labs won't be anywhere near as vigilant about this as we are.

Ross_Mahon

They get away with it in my job, self service machines.

pikaia

The amount of things I have read on here about stealing photo's, copywright, competition small print, really photgraphy rights is a very dark and murky place.:)

I've gotten prints made in three different places. All of which printed "img1049_149" (or whatever the file name was) on the back of the print.

Before printing, can ye not just change the filename to "ShaneMaguire.ie IMG0001", "ShaneMaguire.ie IMG0002", "ShaneMaguire.ie IMG0003" and so forth? (obviously using your own website/name/business, etc.)?

When this is then printed on the back of the print, it should make it fairly obvious if the printer is in doubt?


(this obviously wont work if you do LOADS of printing, though, of course, as manually it'd take forever, but im sure there's a programme out to automate it).

stcstc

sorry i didnt mean to sound like you shouldnt of, or because of your situation.

what i meant was

1. you dont have to accept all business
2. in my situtation i would do it if there was any doubt

as for working out if its old or not

depending on the paper type, most labs would use one of only a small number of papers. fuji crystal archive, kodak endura etc

all of these are printed on the back. none of these papers have been around for 70 years, so would give you a hint as to whether its out of copyright. well unless its a copy to start with


this is one of the reasons i dont have a typical shop environment. means i dont have to generally deal with PITA customers like this. who generally their business is not even worth the amount of time you have to spend doing what they want.

you are the exception to the rule too, most people in retail mini lab type situations wouldnt even bother asking and would just do this day in day out for people so good on you for posting

hbr

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Now, I personally am well aware of this, so if an image has obviously been taken in a studio or by a wedding photographer I'll tell the person that we're not legally allowed to reproduce commercial work.

Why the distinction between professional/commercial photographers and amateur
photographers. Isn't it equally illegal to make unlicensed copies of photographs
taken by amateur photographers?

Establishing copyright ownership would put an unreasonable burden on
minilab operators. What if the photo of this woman's children was taken
by her husband, or her estranged ex-husband who has not given permission
for copies to be made.

Captain Flaps

Deleted User wrote: »

Before printing, can ye not just change the filename to "ShaneMaguire.ie IMG0001", "ShaneMaguire.ie IMG0002", "ShaneMaguire.ie IMG0003" and so forth? (obviously using your own website/name/business, etc.)?

This would go a bit of the way towards it, certainly. If I saw that I'd immediately know and refuse to copy it. Believe it or not though a lot of labs have no idea that this law even exists so you're relying on the staff to be educated. My shop didn't enforce this or know about it before I started but now my boss is very vigilant for fear of being sued.

What you also have to remember is that a lot of pros will do their own printing rather than getting them done in a minilab and so they're less likely to have backprinting.

hbr wrote: »

Why the distinction between professional/commercial photographers and amateur
photographers. Isn't it equally illegal to make unlicensed copies of photographs
taken by amateur photographers?

Establishing copyright ownership would put an unreasonable burden on
minilab operators. What if the photo of this woman's children was taken
by her husband, or her estranged ex-husband who has not given permission
for copies to be made.

You're right, there shouldn't be a distinction, but you've said it yourself; it's unreasonable and almost impossible to establish copyright with amateur/family photos, and it's also far less likely that an amateur will take issue with it. Many wouldn't care about copies being made and probably don't even know their own rights over the image. It's enforced for pros because they're the ones that will come after the lab, simple as. This doesn't make it right but there has to be a line drawn somewhere or else this type of reproduction should just be outlawed entirely.

OSiriS

I thought it was common practice for pros to stamp "DO NOT REPRODUCE" on the backs of their photos, though after reading this thread, I went looking at the prints I have from professional photographers, and the backs were blank.

Kenny Logins

Deleted User wrote: »

I've gotten prints made in three different places. All of which printed "img1049_149" (or whatever the file name was) on the back of the print.

Before printing, can ye not just change the filename to "ShaneMaguire.ie IMG0001", "ShaneMaguire.ie IMG0002", "ShaneMaguire.ie IMG0003" and so forth? (obviously using your own website/name/business, etc.)?

When this is then printed on the back of the print, it should make it fairly obvious if the printer is in doubt?


(this obviously wont work if you do LOADS of printing, though, of course, as manually it'd take forever, but im sure there's a programme out to automate it).

It's actually pretty easy to do, just press Crtl + A and then F2, it will rename everything in a folder with your chosen title and suffix with a sequential number.

oshead

There are photographic papers on the market that have anti-scan properties. They look great and are cost effective, but when scanned, you end up with an image with a lot of white noise on it. Permajet do one I believe, with a Pearl finish to it.

Dotsie~tmp

What a scam. Hang your heads boys.

Paulw

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

What a scam. Hang your heads boys.

What scam? What are you talking about?

The scam of trying to get around copyright and having someone scan in a print to reproduce an image they're not entitled to reproduce?

Dotsie~tmp

Paulw wrote: »

What scam? What are you talking about?

The scam of trying to get around copyright and having someone scan in a print to reproduce an image they're not entitled to reproduce?

Yep thats the one.

gone2themoon

Kenny Logins wrote: »

It's actually pretty easy to do, just press Crtl + A and then F2, it will rename everything in a folder with your chosen title and suffix with a sequential number.

^^^
This is Probably the best piece of information I've learned in a long time.

Regarding the Issue in OP:
I know where you're coming from regarding copyright and I stand on the same side of the fence. But how can you prove if the snap was taken by anyone other than the holder unless marked? If the person that took the snap didn't mark it, then how can you be expected to uphold their copyright protection? You may well know that the snap wasn't taken by the person holding the photo but unless you can prove it then there's not a whole lot you can do about it. So the title is a good one. "Label your prints" It would make your job a lot easier.
I wonder how this would go in court if the original photographer found out and pressed charges?

Paulw

gone2themoon wrote: »

But how can you prove if the snap was taken by anyone other than the holder unless marked? If the person that took the snap didn't mark it, then how can you be expected to uphold their copyright protection? You may well know that the snap wasn't taken by the person holding the photo but unless you can prove it then there's not a whole lot you can do about it.

The onus of proof is not on the print lab, it's on the person with the print. They don't have to prove that the person wanting a reprint doesn't have the right to reproduce it. The person getting the print is the one who must prove they have license to reproduce the image.

Any store can refuse business, for any number of reasons.

Personally, all my images have a unique enough name, and all my prints get a sticker on back with my details.

Fair play to the OP for highlighting this.

gone2themoon

Paulw wrote: »

The person getting the print is the one who must prove they have license to reproduce the image.

How? I'm not being smart.
Letter/document from photographer?

Paulw

gone2themoon wrote: »

How? I'm not being smart.
Letter/document from photographer?

Yep, that's one way of doing it.

On all CDs of images I produce, I put a file within giving license for reproduction. This license file has all my contact information (name, phone, email, website), and lists what license I grant, and to whom I grant the license (their actual name, rather than saying the person with the CD).

nilhg

Paulw wrote: »

The onus of proof is not on the print lab, it's on the person with the print. They don't have to prove that the person wanting a reprint doesn't have the right to reproduce it. The person getting the print is the one who must prove they have license to reproduce the image.

Any store can refuse business, for any number of reasons.

Personally, all my images have a unique enough name, and all my prints get a sticker on back with my details.

Fair play to the OP for highlighting this.

Paul to be fair to the print labs if the original photographer didn't seem to care enough to clearly mark the back of the print why should they turn away business? If the back of the print has obviously been tampered with then yes the lab should ask questions and be prepared to be skeptical about the answers.

I'm wondering whether to some extent things have moved on for the future, my understanding is that now many people stipulate hi res files on DVD as part of their package, are rights to print copies included in this deal and if so how can it be enforced seeing as many of the print labs use those terminal machines and often the only input bu staff is to collect the money?