copyright laws

[Jim Conway]

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

[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

[cinderella]

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

[cinderella]

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.

[Jim Conway]

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

[cinderella]

Thanks for the laugh to end my day !!!

[Jakaleena]

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.....

[spinnnz]

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

[Jakaleena]

Show them the original snapshot...

[CJ Swartz]

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

[Jim Conway]

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

[Jakaleena]

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...)

[Jim Conway]

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

[Jakaleena]

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.

[Jim Conway]

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