HI, Looked over all the forums and chose this one to vent about my AM experience at WalMart. Took some photos I have been restoring to be printed and was informed that they could not sell them to me as they were copyrighted (sp?) . The young lady made a judgement call because there was a backdrop in the photo. When I got home I doublechecked and there is no copyright symbol of any kind on the photo.
Another one was a studio photo made in 1932 and I was told the photo was copyrighted and not 75 years old.
1. Wal mart should post these rules in large print all over the photo lab . When I asked to see the rules I was directed to the Kodak scan/print machine where they were taped to the cover. I was not using this machine.
2. Why should a backdrop construe copyright?

I do not wish to break copyright rules but there must be a more logical way to interpret them. Some photos are taken outdoors by professional photographers who might copyright. (Background rule does not apply)

Who do I contact at WM about there "rules" and their enforcement.

Sadly I must now print on my home printer and be concerned about archival paper and archival ink(which I can not afford)
And that brings up other questions which hopefullly I can find answers to in a different thread.

Does anyone know what the copyright laws are concerning photos???

Thanks, Read that and am still wondering. In both cases the people in the photo are deceased so would not be able to tell me who the photographer was. I am the caretaker of these family photos . There are no marks or identifying names on the photos to indicate who took them so I can ask for a release (photographers are probably deceased also)
Sometimes I have taken photos of people in front of "backdrops" i.e. my drapes. Should I consider these photos to be copyrighted now???? I think not.
Will search the web tonite.

I will check out that link tonite. Thanks. ( I can click around the web quickly in the middle of the nite.)

cinderella, I moved this to the "Work" forum since it falls a bit more into the legal/business category.

I'm not sure I can answer your question...it seems like a photo from 1932 would have become public domain by now with or without a copyright, but I am no expert.

In my own effort to avoid all things Walmart :D ...I would follow spinnnz's advice and have them printed elsewhere. Or, you could take them back to Walmart when the employee in question is not working!

I'm certainly no expert on this subject either. But if there is no way possible to know where (by who) the original photograph was taken, and you have made a sincere effort to find out, I doubt very much if there's a court in the country that would find you liable for breaking copyright laws. If that's the case, I would find another processing lab. The fact that a backdrop was used does not necessarily make the image a commercially made image, any more than using a view camera makes it commercial. Of course anyone can have a copyright on an image, even uncle John Doe. Being ethical is the only thing you have to worry about in my opinion (which sometimes isn't very good).

Ed

Ahh copyright!

As one who owns a portrait studio, bless those who will not copy our work:) . But that does not help you.

I would not jump to hard on Walmarts back for this, for they have been hit hard and often by all sorts of us screaming about protecting our copyrights. To the "highly trained photographic techs" they employ, a background drape means a studio, a studio means copyrighted, and a person trying to get them to reprint such an image may very well be a plant who will then turn it into a federal case costing the company many big $'s and them their job.

Some labs have a form they will ask you to sign, that will place any and all blame for a copyright infringment on you. If they do not you might suggest such a thing (offer to write it up?) and see what they say.

As a studio owner, I say great job by Walmart, as a person who has been in your shoes, bummer!

Mike

So Mike, How would I know your work is copyrighted.? Do you have an identifying logo or something on each print?
In my case there isn't anything on these old photos. So there is no way I can get a release . Your idea about "Some labs have a form they will ask you to sign, that will place any and all blame for a copyright infringment on you. If they do not you might suggest such a thing (offer to write it up?) and see what they say. " Is a good one but the overzealous person at WalMart is probably not in a position to handle this. If I can find out who the higher up person in charge of photo labs would be at WalMart I would be willing to discuss this with them. In the meantime WM has lost my business including grocery shopping. (which I do while waiting for photos)

I am so glad my thread was moved as I have read most of the other threads here about the copyright problem. And can see there is no easy solution.

Must get back to the NBA finals game. GO SPURS

Cinderella

If I remember right, one does not have to place an actual mark on a print to claim copyright. All work is copyrighted by who ever produces the work. Of course there are all kinds of exceptions such as work for hire, etc. But the basic thing to remember is that the author of the work automaticily holds the copyright to the work. If you are trying to make a living by selling copies of it thats kind of important, if you are not making a living in that manner, then maybe not so important. The work does not have to be registered to be considered copyrighted (but it helps a lot to have it registered if you are sueing someone about infringing).

I would talk to the store manager, that person should have a whole better take of the problem than the clerk, or would know who you might be able to chat with to get your problem solved.

Some of these old laws (like the copyright is good for the lifetime of the author plus 75 years) can be a real pain. Common sense would seem to say go for it, no one is left to complain. I have never found too much room for common sense when talking with those who practice the law. Which leads me to ask, have you ever found anyone who ever got done practicing the law and did it for real? ;) (come to think of it, doctors are in the same boat).

Mike

Lots of threads have covered this for one angle or another here but this one is not too difficult. If all you are trying to do is get something printed at a Walmart or Kinko's - just make up a form for a signed release from your customer stating that they own all rights and are giving you permission to do the work for them.

Perhaps that's not the type of thing I'd take to court but it should be enough to satisfy the people you are dealing with. After all, all they want to do is protect the store on their watch so your "proof" doesn't have to be a long legal document, just a signed release

And Mike, as far as old laws and common sense, it could be that the law makers got it right on this one! The basic idea is that if YOU didn't create it - somebody must have, so it's up to you to prove you have some rights in it rather than the other way around. From the creators side, copyright notices are not necessary but they will help in court (if you end up there) to at least show that you were trying to protect your work.

Hope some of this is helpful.

Jim Conway

Well, I thought I'd chime in on this one since I am a Wal-Mart Photo Center Manager.... :)

(Oh, great - now Greg's going to avoid me....)

Federal copyright laws protect all intellectual creations from the moment of their creation whether they are stamped or not and no matter whether they are registered or not.

Our basic mission at Wal-Mart with respect to this issue is to protect the photographer and obey Federal Copyright Laws. If anyone could go and have a portrait done, purchase one copy, and then go to Wal-Mart and have inexpensive copies made, photographers would soon go out of business. Most photographers make the bulk of their profit on print sales, not sitting fees.

If it appears to be a professional photograph, we are not allowed to copy it in any way without a written copyright release from the photographer (unless it is more than 75 years old, in which case it will pass into public domain).

This is the issue I get the most grief over, and the one people are the least understanding about. Believe me, they get furious over this one. I've been threatened, cursed at, called names, and even had one woman grab the phone from my counter and start calling her lawyer...

On this issue, at work, I am completely inflexible and I also expect everyone working for me to be. The first reason is that Wal-Mart is one of the most sued companies over violation of Federal Copyright Law. The second reason is that if any one of us violate this policy, we can be terminated. If anyone working for me violates this, I am obligated to suspend them for a day at the very least, and possibly terminate them depending on the circumstances.

Jim is correct. A written statement from your customer stating that they are the copyright owner and that you have permission to do the work will probably work since it puts the responsibility onto your customer if any question arises. If we copy or print a professional photograph, we're required to keep these written releases on file for 5 years.

Another solution is to contact the PPA (Professional Photographers of America). They have an entire division dedicated to helping people track down photographers and obtain copyright releases.

If you want to contact someone higher up at Wal-Mart, the number is 1-800-Wal-Mart. But in my experience, since it's based on Federal Law, this policy is backed up by upper management no matter how high up you go. Also, the Store Manager doesn't have the final authority on this within the store. That decision falls to the Photo Center Manager (me). I am required to make sure that all store management understands and follows this policy.

Although admittedly a lot of Wal-Mart employees are not rocket scientists, many of us are not completely brain dead either... :) I have been working in the photography field for a long time, both as a photographer and as a photo lab technician/manager. Most of my experience is with high end professional photographers. I can usually look at a photograph (the lighting, the composition, the posing, etc.) and make a very accurate educated guess as to whether it is a professional photograph or not - with or without a backdrop. And, if there is a question in my mind or any of my employees minds whether is is a snapshot or a pro shot, we will err on the side of caution and decline to copy or print it without a release.

I know this often makes us VERY unpopular, but it is a rule we have no choice but to live with and obey if we want to continue to be employed....

Jak - great info...straight from the source no less! :D (...don't worry, I won't avoid you...I'm just a bit suspect of their labor practices...but that's an issue for another thread)

The reasoning behind the policy seems to make a lot of sense, but it's unfortunate that it's not flexible enough to adapt to situations like this one. How on earth is she supposed to find and obtain a release for a photo made in 1932? ...the policy does make a great deal of sense though and I run into these sorts of situations from time to time in my own job. I'm a graphic artist and production manager for a sign company and I occasionally have people bring in magazine photos that they want scanned and placed on their sign or displays. It takes some real patience to explain the concept of copyright, so I do not envy your position where you must run into it on an almost daily basis!

The reasoning behind the policy seems to make a lot of sense, but it's unfortunate that it's not flexible enough to adapt to situations like this one.

I completely agree, Greg. I too am a victim of our own policies at times. But, because it is the law and as such is inflexable, we must be just as inflexable. It's a "rock and a hard place" situation...

I almost forgot...

Yes, Cinderella, the photos you took in front of your drapes are indeed copyrighted and you are the copyright holder. In fact, every photograph anyone takes is technically copyrighted, although most people do not concern themselves with copyright issues on what are obviously family snapshots...


:)

We have a sign up that states simply "Copyright is a matter of livelihood".

No one is AGAINST copying - what we should all be against is theft! If you want the right to reproduce someone else's work, pay the creator for that use. Again, a release from the present owner should suffice and, if you have a record of paying for use rights rather than just taking them, no lawyer is going to cause you any problems.

I'll agree with Ed, its a matter of the ethics that your business operates under - and the legal system will only go after you if you are a consistent big time violator. Unfortunately some of the major chains were (past tense) in that league - so things have changed, and, in my opinion, all for the better.

For one that has been hurt on the other side of this Jak - I'm glad to see that your policy is total inflexibility. It should be because if it wasn't , Walmart could openly advertise and put thousands of photographers out of business. I actually had that happen in Burns Oregon a number of years ago. The day we sent out our Senior Proofs, a major grocery chain store there advertised that they would copy "Senior Proofs" and print them at one tenth the "standard cost" . It was a real heart breaker and a financial loss for us at the time that almost put us out of business,. Now, many many years later I'm reaping the benefits of laws that are actually a lot easier to enforce and very few will risk copying a Bruno photo without permission. Yes, it's a studio founded in 1905 so we do get complaints like "why should we have to pay you anything?" from a few but in my experience, most people truly understand the justification for the law and see nothing unreasonable about it.

Jim Conway

I am not sure if I don't clearly understand this or what, but I have never seen the point in making a huge issue of someone making copies of a portrait. I can see it if you take art photos or landscape photos for artwork purposes which you sell at an art show or in a gallery. If you are taking a shot of a person - charge them for the service what you wish - and then they should have the right to reproduce that photo that THEY have purchased for their own personal use. Even with a CD you are technically allowed one copy for your own use. To me, when a photographer hangs on to the negs of a portrait they have taken just so they can overcharge for reprints, it is a rape of the customer and I happen to think it is disgusting. Why not just charge for the service of taking/framing the shot and let the customer go on their merry way instead of screwing them every time they want a copy? You then force them to come back to you and pay huge prices. I think this is going to be a dying practice anyway in the future and I will be very happy to see it go. Anyone who is getting married or needs a portrait taken should deal with someone who is willing to give them what they need to make prints in the future.

Just my opinion. flame away if you must.

No flames from here - but an attempt at clarity if you truly do not understand what this involves.

Another way of looking at is that it involves selling only certain well established "rights". A photographer, musician or any other artist depends on reprints and/ or reproduction sales and seldom releases that right. That is why we OWN and keep our negatives! Why do you assume "overcharge" and "screwing" without knowing what the photographer would have charged for the reprint or what his or her cost of doing business involves?

It's a given that you can make a copy cheaper if you do not have to support the creation of originals, however in turn, you also end the incentive for anyone going to the expense of making an original of any kind. In the extreme, even without lawsuits, sooner or later the copy houses would get beat by the game because no one will climb the mountain to get the picture you want to own without going out of the house.

To consider "portraits" undeserving of that protection is to prejudge the merit of a specific photo and declare it somehow worth less than any other photograph taken by a professional. Sorry but that isn't your call, that is why there are specific decisions in the law on who owns what rights. The case in point, the reproduction rights BELONG to the photographer unless he or she specificly releases them.

No one would argue that any customer who did indeed buy and pay for ALL rights to reproduction including the negatives should and would have all the privileges you want them to have.

The copyright laws are being strengthened again this year so going in an opposite direction from what you indicate you would like to see I'm afraid - ask Napster!

I don't know if this helps in any general understanding or not - in any event it's probably more than enough said by me! I rest my case! :-)

Jim Conway

Jim Conway [/B][/QUOTE] Another way of looking at is that it involves selling only certain well established "rights". A photographer, musician or any other artist depends on reprints and/ or reproduction sales and seldom releases that right. That is why we OWN and keep our negatives! Why do you assume "overcharge" and "screwing" without knowing what the photographer would have charged for the reprint or what his or her cost of doing business involves?

I don't assume overcharging - I see it. If you would include the necessary cost in taking the photo, then you wouldn't have to cling on to the negatives and force the person to return to you for copies. The cost for you to make a copy of a photo is not what is charged by these photographers (the ones who participate in this practice).

To consider "portraits" undeserving of that protection is to prejudge the merit of a specific photo and declare it somehow worth less than any other photograph taken by a professional. Sorry but that isn't your call, that is why there are specific decisions in the law on who owns what rights. The case in point, the reproduction rights BELONG to the photographer unless he or she specificly releases them.

If I pay someone to take a photo of me, I consider it mine, unless I am doing it as a model for them. It is my image in the photo, and I paid for the service so why shouldn't it be mine? It isn't a matter of being undeserving as much as it is a matter of being different than other types of art. If someone purchases a restoration from me, I don't hold on to their original file, forcing them to come back to me for reprints - they bought the service - they should be able to have the photo so they can have it for their archive long after I am gone.

The copyright laws are being strengthened again this year so going in an opposite direction from what you indicate you would like to see I'm afraid - ask Napster!

Well the law might say that the photographer owns the copyright - but what I am saying is that I see more and more photographers who are willing to give the clients everything related to their order (negatives, etc.) and also people who are looking for that willingness in a photographer.


I don't know if this helps in any general understanding or not - in any event it's probably more than enough said by me! I rest my case! :-)

Well actually I understand very well being an artist, however I just find this practice to be rediculous when it comes to portraits taken of families, weddings, etc. I don't like having a stranglehold on my clients.

Here are a few points to consider regarding the sale of the rights vs. the sale of individual copies of the image:

1. Photographers have overhead - education, equipment, building rent/mortgage, insurance, equipment maintenance, depreciation & upgrades, lab/printing fees, payroll, etc. All of this is figured into the cost of the product. I don't know of any business that sells their product at cost - there'd be no point in that.

2. If the photographer charged for rights instead of individual copies of prints, they would have to figure in what potential future sales might have been. The cost of the rights might be figured at, just as an example, say $500. In order to do as you say, the sitting fee and a package of prints would cost $500 as opposed to buying whatever quantity of prints you wanted ala carte for much less per print.

3. I think most photographers would be willing to consider selling the rights to an image for a cost equivalent to the potential future sales, based on the average sales per image of their work. Most people don't want to pay that kind of money. Would you be more willing to go to a photographer who charged $500 up front for everything and you get the negatives, or would you rather go to a photographer who charged a $50 sitting fee plus the cost of whatever prints you want?

4. Copies of prints are not standardized in quality. One place may do a fantastic job of copying while another's copy looks atrocious. A photographer's prints are also an advertisement for their business. If you have a horrible copy made, or even just one that doesn't live up to that photographer's standards, and then you show it to your friends and family, you have taken the ability to control the quality of their product away from the photographer. If your family and friends feel that it is an awful print, they will likely not consider that it was a horrible copy, they will more likely believe instead that the photographer was a horrible photographer.

5. Copyright laws exist to protect the ability of the photographer or artist to make a living. They exist because of the type of thinking you mention, which is a fairly common way of thinking among people in general. When you purchase a photograph, you have purchased a copy of the product of someone's hard work, talent and expense, not an unlimited supply of copies that they will receive no compensation for. What if we were talking about a furniture factory instead of a photographer? Would the purchase of a single unique piece of furniture entitle you to as many exact copies of that piece of furniture as you wanted at no additional cost?

6. It may not be popular, or even well understood, but copyright protection is the law. The unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material is theft.

I can see it if you take art photos or landscape photos for artwork purposes which you sell at an art show or in a gallery. If you are taking a shot of a person - charge them for the service what you wish - and then they should have the right to reproduce that photo that THEY have purchased for their own personal use.

Didn't they purchase the art/landscape photo for their personal use as well? Shouldn't they have the right to reproduce the print THEY have purchased? What makes the artist's work more valuable and worthy of protection than the portrait photographer's?

" then you wouldn't have to cling on to the negatives and force the person to return to you for copies."

Wow does that ever conjure up a cruel and unusual punishment image! Really, most of us that copyright our work are not vultures, we just like to be among the survivors. We spend good money to preserve our negatives and seldom "force" anyone to buy from us.

Getting down to technicalities, do you know the artist has the right to tell you how you can or cannot display their work? Now there is a real stopper!

There is another thread you might like to look into on this topic. In it I covered a lawsuit that I was involved in (13 portraits used by a shopping center for their own promotion) and also the fact that copying old family photos is not likely to get you in trouble simply because of the costs involved in taking up any legal action.

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.pwherehp?s=&threadid=2052

So I guess it's your call to copy what ever you want to copy but regardless of your opinion on fair or unfair, if someone does decide to go after you for a violation, be prepared to pay an attorney upwards of $7K to defend you and upwards of $30K if you lose.

Jim Conway

May I add a few comments from the viewpoint of a portrait studio owner?

Some time ago (long before I entered the profession) the business model for portrait studios was to charge a low sitting fee, coupled with a high charge for the prints. If customers did not buy a good number of prints, then the studio lost money on the deal. That became the norm and anyone who tried to change it was soon out of business as customers would not pay a high sitting fee if the other studio down the street charged a low sitting fee.

It was not a good way to do business, and did not make a lot of sense to most photographers. After all the work and skills are in doing the sitting, and that is what the photographer should be charging for and the customer paying for. Spending $50.00 for 2 or 3 hours of time and equipment usage is quite a bargin for the customer. But paying $50.00 or more for an 8x10 print is equally wrong in the other direction.

We were really looking at this when the digital stuff hit us. At my studio we implimented a complete change over of our business model when we changed from film to digital. We now charge up to several hundred $'s for the sitting fee, but our 8x10's are $15.00. Our idea is that the customer should pay for the work we do. If they want a long session, they can buy it, if they want a lot of computer enhancment, they can buy it, so when we get done with all that and they only want 1-8x10 print of all that time and work, they can buy it. When we get done I have been fairly compensated for my time and skills, and the customer has in their hand what they want. :)

But there are some problems with all this. Jakaleena's paragraph #4 explains quite well what I consider the worst problem. We have already had this happen to us and we really do not have any kind of practical answer other than going the copyright route and limiting the customers to only buying reprints from us. And if you think the quaility varies at commercial places, wait to you see what customers can do with a cheap scanner and injet printer in their home :depressed

Anyway, I hope that this adds to the thread, and I would invite anyone else to post their comments....

Mike

Mike describes what my thoughts are on the "how to".

The point is this - 10 years later and 5 states away, why should I have to try and locate the original photographer - who may or may not be around and who may or may not still have the negs - to get a copy of a photo of ME? The picture is of me - nobody is going to sell it as artwork - or at least they shouldn't be doing that - it is not a modeling job I did - there should be no reason that I should have to continue to pay for something I already paid for. I understand that there are costs involved in having a studio, but I also know there are other ways of making that money than keeping a hold on your clients like that. You can argue with me if you'd like, but it just isn't the way I do business. I find it less than honest. Especially since many people really don't understand this going in - they assume that when they buy something - it's theirs.

JimI tried to go to the thread you mentioned

is another thread you might like to look into on this topic. In it I covered a lawsuit that I was involved in (13 portraits used by a shopping center for their own promotion) and also the fact that copying old family photos is not likely to get you in trouble simply because of the costs involved in taking up any legal action.

http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/sh...=&threadid=2052

but it no longer exists.


Chiquita, I agree with you.


Jak, Thanks for illluminating me about WM policies. I did get the 1932 wedding photo printed after I signed a release (provided by WM). But they would not sell me the prints of the photo with the background which I would guess was taken in the 80's. It has no identifying marks on it. You can see it at this thread > (Don't know how to point you at it) In fact you gave me some help with it. A totally red photo. "Removing Red Cast" in "Help Requested " forum . I am not getting paid to do this for a friend.

I have learned so much about retouching and restoring photos from RetouchPRO and was going to tackle my wedding photos (33 years old) and a family photo taken about 1980 (as soon as I get better at colorizing) but now I don't know if I'll bother as I won't know where to get them printed.

Jak, Where do you print the photos you restore and retouch.?

Many of you sound like professionals. Is there a place on this forum where there is a list of people who do retouching . And their fee schedule????

Jak, Does this mean WM really only wants to print recent photos out of digi cams with their Fuji equipment????

Still think WM needs to post some very large signs explaining this. So a person like me won't feel like I've been accused of stealing or shoplifting or some such thing.

Jak, Does this mean WM really only wants to print recent photos out of digi cams with their Fuji equipment????

No, most of the prints we copy are family snapshots (the Fuji DPC and the Kodak Picture Maker both have scanners), while the next largest number of prints are from digital sources. There are a huge number of people (genealogists, scrap bookers) who make copies of other things besides studio prints.

I have my stuff printed at work, but if it is a professional photograph I either track down a release or ask the client to provide a release. The PPA is a good resource for information on obtaining releases. If you have an idea of aproximately what year the photograph was taken and aproximately what area it was taken in, they can do quite a lot to help track down the photographer or their heirs. Failing that, they may have some good advice for you on getting your restoration work printed. I always refer the people who's photos we decline to print because of copyright issues to the PPA. The phone number is 1-800-786-6277.

Also,
HERE (http://www.pmai.org/new_pma/business/pdf/1002_copyright_form.pdf) is a really good .pdf document on copyright with some forms you might find useful.

"Also,
HERE is a really good .pdf document on copyright with some forms you might find useful

Jak, Thanks for that helpful link.

With a page from that in hand I hope I can get my photos printed.
I will call the 800 # to see if PPA can track down my wedding photographer who does not appear in yellow pages.

I am now among the enlightened.

GO SPURS

I haven't been around for a couple of days, so I didn't have the chance to reply before. It is my opinion (and also the law) that professionally made portraits deserve to be protected by copyright law just as much as the work of an artist who paints beautiful landscapes. Most people who take professional photography courses in portraiture don't make it in a business of their own. There is more than one reason for this. The work is not over as soon as the shutter is snapped....that's for sure. A successful portrait business requires long working hours, equipment, and the ability to produce a portrait that evokes a certain feeling from the viewer. I think Jak was right on the money when she suggested that a poorly made reprint or copy could have a negative effect on the photographer. This negative effect is something that not many portrait photographers would want to contend with. That's money out of their pockets, not because of lost profit from the reprints, but because of business lost through poorly made copies. If it were so easy to make beautiful portraits, nobody would need a professional portriat photographer to begin with. These people learned their craft well, and they have mouths to feed just like the rest of us.

Even though I feel the way I do about the subject, I do understand why some people feel differently than I do. That's the reason we need laws.

Chiquitita does bring up some good points. If I had to make a restoration of an old portrait for someone, and I tried to find the holder of the copyright, and failed, I would get something in writing from the customer that would take me off the hook. Then I would do the restoration, and be able to sleep at night, thinking I did the ethical thing. I tried to get the proper release.

Ed

I will just say one last thing, in case I wasn't clear on this.

I don't mind that someone would want to hold onto a copyright for things that could be reproduced for commercial purposes - however, I think that if John Doe gets a print done of his family and 7 years later when the kids are grown and they want copies of that pic for their own homes, they should be able to go and get copies of the pic made without a hassle from anyone.

Now, if the picture was a really adorable photo of a baby done Anne Geddes style and John Doe wanted to sell it to a greeting card company - then I agree that would be a problem because he is trying to make a profit off of someone else's work.

I know I am a little late on this one but I wanted to chime in. My policy is that if the picture is an old professional portrait and every attempt to discover who the photographer is fails then I get a signed release from the picture owner and proceed with the restore. I am assuming that this resolves me from any liability.

Now I have been asked to re-print fairly new portraits that have no copyright imprint I have to refuse the work. For some reason Sears and a couple of local studios do not put their copyright signature on their work. I can't imagine why they don't sign their work, it makes my job harder. Customers don't understand the copyright laws. I make it a point to put my signature on any of my original work that goes on display. I think that that should be part of the law, photographers should always sign their work.

This thread is interesting in the fact that I do agree with both sides. But the major question I had was; "How do you guys/gals do restoration projects?" If someone wanted a photo of theirs restored how do you go about it if it was studio aquired so many years ago.
Please PM me and I will send my email because I do want to see a sample of a release statement and or a policy how this should be done legally.

Thanks;

The following, excerpted from Jakaleena's reply earlier in this thread answered your question, at least I believe it did if I understand all this copyright stuff correctly.

" if it is a professional photograph I either track down a release or ask the client to provide a release. The PPA is a good resource for information on obtaining releases. If you have an idea of aproximately what year the photograph was taken and aproximately what area it was taken in, they can do quite a lot to help track down the photographer or their heirs. Failing that, they may have some good advice for you on getting your restoration work printed. I always refer the people who's photos we decline to print because of copyright issues to the PPA. The phone number is 1-800-786-6277.

Also,
HERE is a really good .pdf document on copyright with some forms you might find useful"
Above Posted by JAK on this thread 6/14/03

If anyone knows of a better release form please share the source.
"

Jak,
If the owner of the red photo I restored,retouched fills out page 6 of the PMA document , checking the boxes to indicate she does not know the photographer of this church directory photo taken about 1977, will WM accept this release??? Or should I look for somewhere else that will accept it. If you do not wish to discuss this on the air please PM me.

Also , what is "fair use" (the third box)

God here I go raining on your parade again however, more facts are coming to light on the photo you are working with. If indeed it was from a photo made for a Church Directory there is a good chance that it holds several copyrights including the book publisher as well as the photographer!

Easy to run down - all you need to do is for you or your client to Email the church and ask - they will undoubtedly have a copy of the book and can tell you who published it as well as giving you the name of the photographer. If neither is any longer in business (or more likely one of the large organizations that specialized in church directories, never kept the negatives and could care less), you'll get your needed release with an e-mail or maybe a phone call..

If you determine who took the photo and ask for permission and they refuse to answer, you are home free but at least go to the trouble of asking even if you don't agree with me that it's an "earned" option by and for the creator! I also noted that you stated something about discussion "on air" and hope others here do pick up on that. If you openly advocate copyright violations in an open forum you better keep in mind that these forums are NOT private records and your posts concerning "sources" to try for someone willing to make an illegal copies may (at the least convenient moment) come back to haunt you! Lawyers love to name "multiple parties" to any action!

Jim Conway

"Fair use" is for educational purposes only - not anything that you can fall back on in a commercial venture where your intent is to make a financial gain.

If you were using the photo for a web site "explanation" and there were many others on the same site being used to illustrate various points (like this forum) coupled with the idea that there is no direct income involved, your use of a copyrighted photo would probably qualify under the fair use provisions of the law.

Glad to see you really digging in on this!

Jim Conway

Thanks Jim, Hope this is as easy as it sounds. Hope my friend knows what church her parents attended in a different city.!!!
Whew!!!

As to the "on air" I was afraid that Jak might get in trouble with WM . I am not asking for , nor do I want, any illegal advice.

You said "I am not asking for, nor do I want, any illegal advice."

You have made that obvious in your determination to follow up and look for answers and I applaud your effort. I just tossed that out here as a general reminder to everyone reading these posts.

In today's news re copyrights, Orin Hatch wants the legislators to put a clause in the law allowing the feds to destroy your computer if they find any unauthorized copyrighted material on it. Absurd in the extreme! Looking for common ground seems to be very difficult on this rather hot topic and it's not just on this forum!!

Jim Conway

Thanks for the laugh to end my day !!!

The only thing I can accept as permission to print a copy a professional photograph would be a signed release from the photographer. If someone brought me a filled out page 6, I'd have to check with my district manager to see if it would be acceptable. I have no idea what the Photo Center Manager at your local Wal-Mart would do, but I expect they'd either have to decline it or ask as well.

BTW, just as a side note - last night one of the girls who works for me was harrassed by someone who works at my WM (not in the Photo Center) because she declined to copy her prints. I had to step in and explain it, and the woman made it well known to me too that she was severely unhappy about it. Even our fellow employees (this woman was not the first one by any means) are often less than understanding about the position we have to take on this.....

This has been a very interesting and informative thread. Thanks for all the good information. I have a question that I think follows under the same lines and maybe one of you can answer it for me.
What do you do for a print service that says its a professional proof, and its really not. There are a lot of really high quality prosumer digital cameras out there today and add that to the magic that photoshop can perform, I would think someone could fool some people into think it was a professional job. For Example, I changed the background for my Aunt & Uncle who were dancing at their son's wedding. Somebody gave them the photo, it had a window in the background and was in front of a table with a bunch of empty glasses on the back of it. I painstakingly cloned the background from a very small portion of the wall until I was happy with the shot. My Aunt & Uncle were thrilled with it and said it looked like a professional photo. How would I prove that it wasn't and I manipulated it in order to get it printed?

-Lisa

Show them the original snapshot... :)

Hatch Takes Aim at Illegal Downloading
Tue Jun 17, 7:07 PM ET

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) said Tuesday he favors developing new technology to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Internet.

The surprise remarks by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, during a hearing on copyright abuses represent a dramatic escalation in the frustrating battle by industry executives and lawmakers in Washington against illegal music downloads....

...He said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights."

News item about copyright infringement - Congress investigation (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=495&ncid=495&e=2&u=/ap/20030617/ap_en_mu/downloading_music)

As there is no formal association of Retouching Professionals, perhaps this would be a good time for ALL of you to write to your Senators to express your views on this topic.

Laws that are being written for the business interests that are involved in music, movies and theme parks may swing the pendulum so far that they inadvertently take out the rights that now exist in other fields where copyright is also an important element in the mix. We can all lose when the law creates a Catch 22 and the need for a business policy like Jak's where you can't do anything without a documented release and the only party who could give you that release could quite possibly be long gone or who makes themselves "unavailable" waiting for an opportunity to catch some "deep pockets." like WalMart.

My opinion is that to keep a copyright valid, the owner should make an active effort to retain their interests on any unregistered or "automatic" copyrighted work. Maintaining a listing in the yellow pages in the town or city where the photo was made should be enough without further registrations, however, in the case of photos where the business no longer exists, a listing should be registered with the Secretary of State office just as you would for an assumed business name. The legislators should like that one, there are annual fees involved! :-)

Contact info for "Registered" copyright holders should be made available from a "dot.gov" Internet search. Their fees for granting copyrights are not cheap by any means so the added service should be a "given"!

The objective as I see this would be to require some positive effort on the part of the copyright owner rather than just specifying a given number of years. In our line of work it is not financially feasible to spend days or pay hundreds of dollars to search for someone who, in most cases really could care less about a fee that usually amount to $10 or less and who doesn't even have a system or schedule for collecting copyright fees. Yet, if you fail to make that search, it could cost you tens of thousands of dollars!

Although I have generally had a great deal of respect for Orrin Hatch, it seems that he has flipped and forgotten the principle of "due process" . He wants to zap out your machine by remote control. I find that childish and certainly hope something like that will never make it into the laws in this country! So do you care enough to do your bit to see that it doesn't? Write to your senator.

Jim Conway

I just got some new info on this issue yesterday.

Apparently, the PPA is the ultimate authority on what you can or can't copy at our company (WM).

IF the photo in question was taken before 1980, the Photo Center Manager or another member of management can call the PPA to request permission to copy the photograph. It MUST be the PCM or another member of management - an hourly associate can't make the call. If the PPA says it's ok to make the copy, the member of management must note the date, time and the person at the PPA that they talked to and keep it in the release file. At that point, the photo can be copied.

Hope this helps.

(BTW, I had to terminate someone just this week for violating the copyright policy - I hate when that happens...)

Very interesting. I wonder how the PPA could possibly be considered to have any legal standing in making such decisions? I would think their contribution would be an interpretation of the law much as we have been discussing here rather than any specific authorization as the "ultimate authority".

No doubt your Company has plenty of legal experts and have been through the system with everything necessary to protect the stores but I'm finding this perplexing. Your rules as you've stated them here would seem to imply membership in PPA could have something to do with copyright protection (I think that should be framed as a question!) ???

In the cases I've been involved in, the PPA both national and state were not able to offer much assistance in aiding enforcement (again other than guideline generalizations) so I have had some direct experience. If you want to try it out, I'll be glad to send you an "unidentified" (no copyright markings) portrait or two that has already been through the legal system and won substantial judgments based on access (how they were obtained) and end use (how they were displayed) - all evidence introduced in court and nothing that could have been known or verified in any way by PPA until it became part of the public record. The 1980 date is equally perplexing??

I know this has been a lot of work for you in responding to these posts so for one, I'd like to thank you. I'm sure a lot of professionals out there are very concerned over the policies of major chains and you have been very helpful in diminishing some of their fears! For that, I think the store owes you a big fat raise as a good will ambassador!

Jim Conway

I don't know if "ultimate authority" was really the best choice of words on my part or not. Of course the photographer has the ultimate authority on whether or not to copy their work.

Here is my gut feeling interpretation of what I've learned, not based on any real info and ONLY MY OPINION, so it may not be worth much.

If we contact the PPA, it would obviously be because we have a customer who's very upset about not being able to copy their photos. Most likely they will not know when, where or by whom the photo was taken. I assume that I would be expected to exhaust any possibility of tracking down the original photographer through extensive questioning of the customer. I would think that contacting the PPA would allow them to further question or investigate the possibility of tracking down the photographer. If finding the photographer through the PPA isn't possible, the effort would prove that we, and the customer, have made a good faith attempt to comply with copyright laws. I also think this is, in some fashion, the compromise that has been suggested for such situations.

Jak - I found the PPA letter that went out to the stores - but must have hit the wrong button here because it started another thread - not my intention but don't know how to undo it! :-)

In any event you have sumed it up very well here and we have all learned a lot! Thanks

Jim Conway

As a wedding photographer, most of my profit is from reprints or extra orders. Think about it...16 rolls of perfessional film, processing, batteries, assistant, and ect does not leave a great profit. Unfortanly, my prices are going to go up becase people scanning and getting their own prints leaving my pocket dry.

Question:
I can see more and more, that photographers must be losing money on reprints. Do you think it would be wise, in certain areas, to charge more for the initial sitting and less for reprints?

It seems to me, especially in the case of portrait photography, that the product you would want to sell is your expertise as a photographer, not your prints.

Vikki

I've been asked to reprint copyrighted portraits at least 3 times in the past several months. The customers were dissappointed when I turned them down. Most commented that the photographers wanted too much for reprints. They didn't seem aware that they were asking me to break the law. All they could think about was saving money. I can see where portrait photographers are losing money. There are so many people out there capable of printing their own or know someone who can. They aren't giving the copyright laws a second thought. But this is the generation that believe sharing music and programs online is OK. I think we have an uphill climb if we want to protect our work.

As the owner of a photo studio, charging more for the sitting, or in the case of a wedding, the labor, and less for the prints is exactly what we have done. We have lost some sales because the customers cannot see the whole picture (pun intended) when we talk about adding up the price for sitting and prints and finding out that we are just about the same as the traditional low ball sitting and high cost prints folks. We can overcome some of the high sitting fee resistance with the offer of money back if you are not satisfied when you finish the sitting. Thanks to digital and instant proofing on the moniter, we can get what it takes to satisfy the customer.
I think that those who choose to operate in the manner t_crisp outlines are going to lose out in todays market. We find that folks tend to buy extra prints from us because they are inexpensive and of good quaility. Why should they do all the work to end up with a low quaility print? People will pay a good amount for your skills and time, so charge accordingly.
Mike

I'd like to hear from the photographer's what they consider to be a reasonable fee for permission to have a photo retouched or restored? What kind of arrangements are usually worked out when permission is asked for?

Thanks,
Diane

Easy one - we charge a flat @$10.00 fee for "permissions" and send out a written release. I did a lot of checking before setting the price and found it's pretty close to standard for most studios and museums holding old studio negs.

We forego fees for others that offer us permissions without charge - and, in the event of known and/or repeat infringments, go for the legal filing fees plus $200 per copy in a "settlement". Court is a last resort but we are prepared to go all the way if it proves necessary.

Jim Conway

I've obtained several releases from Olan Mills for 10.00 each.

At my studio (and quite a few others that I know of), we try not to let anything out that still needs retouching. We also strive to keep files for everything we do, so copying is not needed, we can still pull the orginal files/negs.

When people call and inquire we usually just sell them another print for less than they can get a copy file/neg and print made.

So far I have not had to make a decision as to what to charge so that I could answer your question.

Mike

I just had to throw my 2 cents in on this one,
I too am a Wal Mart Photo Center employee. Jak said everything that I was going to post very well. it is FEDERAL LAW that everyone is asking us to break here. I understand that not only is my job on the line, but I am risking a 50,000 dollar fine! Yikes! I don't know about you all, but that's alot of money to me.
When people say " I bought the photo from the photographer, I own it!"I tell people this, think of it as a CD, you bought your copy, you do not however own the trademark or copyright on the music.
Most people are very understanding when I explain the law to them but there are a few that just don't get it.
Most portrait studios are generous with copyright releases if you just ask them, and if not you may sign a waiver, ( we keep a stack handy) this absolves me & Wal Mart from potential legal action.
I realize that in todays liberal atmosphere that absolves anyone of personal responsibility or consequences, people think that the law somehow does not apply to them , however, I think that you guys need to cut the " overzealous" photo center employees some slack here and take some responsibility for yourselves. We are just doing our job and complying with the law.
:bawling:

I'm curious about one thing: Catherine Zeta-Jones and Cameron Diaz both just won cases against paparazzi, on the basis that they own their likeness, not the photographer, and therefore only they could decide how an image could or could not be used. If I own my likeness, how can anyone own a photograph of me? And, if I own my likeness, how can anyone tell me whether I can copy and distribute it or not?

I'm not trying to stir fires here, just an interesting wrinkle on the copyright issue. There's another thread here somewhere on a similar subject, but from the opposite angle.

Also, do photographers have contracts that forbid copying of portraits? Like a reverse model release? Otherwise it would be "work for hire", in which case the work is owned by the "hire-er", not the "hired".

I'll answer my own questions (slow night) with a small quote from an excellent link:

"The law says the “author” is the owner of the copyright. The
author of a photo or image is usually the person who
snapped the shutter or created the image. If you took the
photo, you own the copyright. If a professional photographer
took the photo for you, then he or she owns the copyright. If
that photographer is an employee of a studio or other person
in the business of making photos, then his or her employer is
considered the author.

Prior to 1978, court cases said a customer who
commissioned a photo was the employer of the
photographer, so customers could get reprints made without
any problem. In 1989, the US Supreme Court said a1978
law made that no longer true. To be an employee, the court
said a person would have to be considered an employee
under the traditional tests such as are used to impose payroll
taxes, social security, and similar laws. That is not the usual
customer-photographer relationship."

From the Photo Marketing Association International Copyright Guide and copyright form (http://www.pmai.org/new_pma/business/pdf/1002_copyright_form.pdf), which is, of course, copyright © PMAI. It includes the forms I asked about.

I would think the difference in the celebrity cases is that the individuals did not commission the work. It would seem to me that the photographs in those cases should have to get a signed release, just as any other photographer would. But then again, I think there are a whole different set of rules for celebrities as they have put themselves in public domain.

Doug,

Thanks for posting the Copyright Guide with the sample forms. I was just going to ask about this.

I would be interested in seeing some of the form releases other people use as well.

Diane

A year or so ago I contacted Olan Mills to have a reprint made of photos taken 15 years ago. Was informed they only keep negatives for a few years(can't recall exact #) But they would provide a release for $10.00.
Why should I have to pay for a release when they are not able to make reprints for me???? This makes no sense to me.
Also what about the quality of many of the photos taken at Wal Mart, Kmart, etc. which are turning red in my albums as we chat. I seriously doubt they could make reprints and feel I should be able to try and correct these photos before they disappear altogether.
There are many sides to this problem.

If I own my likeness, how can anyone own a photograph of me? And, if I own my likeness, how can anyone tell me whether I can copy and distribute it or not?

It's actually two separate issues.

The photograph is a 'work of art', and, by default, is owned by the photographer. As such, nobody else has the right to copy it without permission.

The subject has rights to their likeness, and others may not have the right to USE that likeness in certain ways (varys from place to place, depending on that areas laws and precedents.)

If, for example, I took a photo of John Doe, I don't necessarily have the right to publish it--but neither would John have the right to copy it. Both require permission.

Note that there are sizable exclusions to the above--fair use, reportage, expectation of privacy, usage limitations, etc.--but that's the 'big picture' summary.

Hi Everyone,

So let's say there's a photo that was taken prior to 1932 or otherwise is in the "public domain" and I then professionally restore or retouch it. Do I not then own the copyright to that photo since I have "created a new image" even though I did not photograph anyone?

Assuming the answer to the above is yes, if I then make a CD of the photo and give it to a customer, am I impliedly then giving him all rights to do with the photo whatever he wants?

Thanks,
Diane

Hi Everyone,

So let's say there's a photo that was taken prior to 1932 or otherwise is in the "public domain" and I then professionally restore or retouch it. Do I not then own the copyright to that photo since I have "created a new image" even though I did not photograph anyone?

Assuming the answer to the above is yes, if I then make a CD of the photo and give it to a customer, am I impliedly then giving him all rights to do with the photo whatever he wants?

Thanks,
Diane

Diane, your first question isn't completely straightforward, and I know I don't know the detailed answer. But the second question, while also not straightforward, I can answer.

No....and yes.

You can't give your copyright away 'implicitly'. According to the US Copyright Office (check your specific country's laws if not in the USA), copyright transfers have to be in writing.

That, however, is merely the law. If you turn over a restored photograph, without any associated documentation explaining copyright, you may as well consider it 'given away', no matter what the law says--you won't recover anything (unless you register it and are willing to take a client to federal court), and it's a non-trivial hassle.

In other words, the onus is on you to explain it to your clients. Every bleeping time.

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your reply. I meant to say sell, not just give the CD away to a customer, but it sounds like the result would be the same...

Hmmm, do any of you out there give such copyright documentation to your customers in these situations?

I'd like to hear alot more about the 'No' answer to the first question. Does the law only protect photographers and not also professional retouchers/restorers?? If so, we should protest!

Diane

I didn't answer the first one. The no-and-yes is for the second question.

Technically, all art is covered: photography, paintings, sketches, songs, novels, etc. There are some precedents regarding retouching, but they're scattered, and inconsistent depending on the specifics of each case. And I'm NOT current with the case law, which is why I said "I dunno" to that part.

I've been in the reproduction business for quite a few years now, so I am talking with some experience. I photograph artwork for artists to be reproduced, either by me or by some other print house. The artwork is copyrighted, obviously. Once I photograph it, the image that I create is my work and is copyrighted under the U.S. Copyright Laws. However, the original image still belongs to the artist and I cannot do anything with my image without written permission from the artist. They cannot take the image I created and do anything with it without my WRITTEN permission. Another example is if you have an image of a Rembrandt that is in public domain, you may use the image to create prints for sale. However, if the image you are using was photographed by a photographer, you need his written permission. You cannot simply download an image off the internet and assume it is public domain, because it is a Rembrandt. As for retouching old photos, the image you create is your property under copyright laws. You do not need to register material to the copyright office to receive damages. This is some sort of internet rumor that has been going around for quite some time and is simply not true. However, if you want to register your work, I suggest that you create a CD with a thumbnail of all your work once a month (or whatever intervals you choose) and register that CD. Anything on the CD is covered under the copyright laws, if they are your creation. I have this straight from the copyright office that anything on the CD is officially copyrighted. This is my 2 1/2 cents worth. Remember, I have been doing this for 10 years and my rear has ben covered. Steve

I've posted some info on this before but just for the sake of clarification for some who have joined this forum since - keep in mind that your copyrights are something the OWNER has to enforce. The legal costs alone on the last copyright I took to court were in excess of $70,000. I won my case and a $6,500 award for the 3 yrs it took to get it to trial. Perhaps not worth the effort but the repro houses and volume finishers in this area were stealing a lot of my work and, because the one that did it had to pay the legal costs, the others stopped after that. That "message" is the reason for most suits that are actually filed.

As far as registering is concerned, if I take a pic it's mine - and the copyright is automatic - if I register the copyright I have "enhanced" that ownership. (kinda like a great retouching job!) The difference is in the amount of damages that I can collect. In the first instance, I believe the maximum (unless changed in the new Laws) was around $200. In the second over $100.k

Bottom line is that the legal costs are a far more important consideration than anything else if you want to steal someone's work or protect your own! First step check the hourly rate of your lawyer.

Jim Conway

So let's say there's a photo that was taken prior to 1932 or otherwise is in the "public domain"

Just thought I'd jump in to muddy the waters.

The above quote seems to suggest that the author thinks copyright extends for 70 years. Not so. Copyright for works created after 1978 extends for 70 years after the DEATH of the creator.

This Library of congress website (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc) explains it quite well.

Margaret

Jim's interpretation matches mine. When I said you wouldn't recover anything unless you registered it, I meant that the cost of attempting to recover damages would exceed the amount you would receive. If you register, however, legal costs can be awarded, making the violator pay for your having to go to court, reducing the burden on you, albeit only if-and-after you win.

The law is somewhat quirky in that regard. You are "protected" without registering, but the remedies provided for non-registered works are somewhat weak.

Well, I tried out the information I had about contacting the PPA for permission yesterday.

I had a customer come in who was extremely insistant that I copy her professionally shot picture (taken somewhere in the 1970's). When I called the PPA, the woman I spoke with asked me questions like, "is it marked or stamped in any way?" (no) , and "is it an original photo or a copy? (original)"

She then told me it was "probably" safe to copy it and that I "Probably" wouldn't get in trouble if I copied it, but she would not give me absolute permission to copy it. Without absolute permission, I obviously had to refuse to make the copy.

She also was not helpful in suggesting how to locate the photographer to get the permission needed.

So, contacting the PPA doesn't seem to be the answer after all.

Our system - If we have the studio name either from the photo or the mount, we do an online search by name. That is followed by a yellow page search of the state where the photo was made. We also call or e-mail the local historic societies. (We have found that many deceased photographers collections of negatives, particularly those who were in business in small towns for decades, have been donated to a museum that now holds all rights for reproduction.) As was brought up here earlier if the photo was published (a known church directory), we also check that source . Sounds like a lot more work than it is but it's a safe bet that no one can accuse you of not trying!

I don't know how it can be accomplished, but we need something in the law that offers a safe haven from "unregistered copy rights abandonment". If there is any such clause in the law, I haven't found it but would welcome hearing about anything someone may know about it.

Jim Conway

I deal with copyright all the time. Some of the views on here are way off and some are on point. I just want to say a couple of things. The person that takes the photo is the copyright holder for that particular photo. That person will always be the copyright holder of that photo. The only exception is if you sell that photo and give the client all rights to the photo. This must be in writing of course and goes without saying. Now if I submit a photo for restoration,unless the is a prior agreement in writing, I am still the copyright holder for that photo. The one doing the restoration has no rights to that photo what so ever. Some have said what is th big deal about getting some prints made at your local Wal Mart. The big deal is lets say that you sell your photos online. You want to make money at this just like any other business. Now someone comes along and copies the photo and goes to their local Wal-Mart to make a print for themselves. You usually charge someone for that particular photo and now this person has just got it for free. How would you feel? Would you say it's ok? Or would you feel like they stole from you? This is a blatant copyright violation and you can be sued in court for thousands of dollars, and believe me the person will win. The only catch is that you must have the particular photo, or group of photos, copyright on file at the US Copyright Office to be able to sue in court. If this is your business then it is a good idea to copyright your work. It only costs a couple of hundred bucks and then you have legal ground to stand on if your copyright has been violated. If you only deal with your own photos, then you will never have any problems concerning violating anyones copyright. The only ones that are usually concerned with violating someones copyright, are the ones that try to take what is not theirs to take. Oh, by the way, if Wal-Mart would have sold those copyrighted photos they would have been liable as well for violating someone copyright.

The person that takes the photo is the copyright holder for that particular photo. That person will always be the copyright holder of that photo.

99% correct in the USA. 90%+ INcorrect in Canada, the UK, and Australia. It's important to remember that this is not a US-only forum.

I thought I would muddy the water even more. Reading the Copyright Basic Circular 1, linked to by Margaret, I interpret that all works that were to be protected by the Copyright laws prior to 1989 were required to have the copyright notice on the work.

Also, "Before 1978, federal copyright was generally secured by the act of publication with notice of copyright, assuming compliance with all other relevant statutory conditions. U. S. works in the public domain on January 1, 1978, (for example, works published without satisfying all conditions for securing federal copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909) remain in the public domain under the 1976 Copyright Act."

In 1978 the works were automatically copyrighted when they were created. Before this date the copyright was obtained only by registering the work with the copyright office.

Does this say that any work created prior to 1978 that doesn't have a registered copyright certificate is in the public domain? How about work created after 1978 and prior to 1989 that doesn't contain a copyright notice? How are your supposed to determine the validity of a work that is old but unmarked?

Today I called PPA myself because I like to deal with facts. The PPA told me that photos taken before 1989 that has no name, address, phone number , or symbol of any kind from the photographers is fair game and can be copied. I was told by Walmart just yestreday that i can not copy a photo because of the copy right laws. Even through this picture is 60 years old with no photographers marks on it.