Intresting (if not wierd) copywrite question

[obtr32]

I have a friend that has a question that I can't answer...

Let me first explain..that my friend is..well...a bit of a "high anxiety" person..

The story goes...

She had gone to a department store to have her photo taken (no.. I won't name the store..but...it's a department store that is n every town)...she had paid for the photos and has one of these photos hanging on her wall at home...

Well, one day, she had signed up for a internet dating service and scanned the photos that she had gotten taken from the department store and put the photo on her internet profile....

Now she is afraid that she is in copyright violation...

what do I tell her

[Gna]

Tell her she'll probabl get 20 to life.

[Pony]

She is in violation.
Have the photo removed from the site.
Get someone to photograph her who won't make an issue of copyright.

[brian.austin]

Technically she's probably in violation (but we don't KNOW without seeing a contract). The reality is that it's highly unlikely anyone would care. Personally, I'd leave it up and if someone sent a "cease and desist" letter/e-mail, apologize sincerely and correct it at that point.

I'd bet she would never see it.

[obtr32]

I don't know about you guys...but I find this kind of interesting. The thing is..the General public has no idea what the copywrite laws are...I've done a few portraits that I know have ended up on..well...other sights...for me..that's not a huge deal...like advertising for me...

But..as far as this case..well..i don't know

[KmH]

Scanning and using the image on the Internet without expressed written permission is copyright infringement, without a doubt.

Would the department store care? Probably not.

Any use the contract does not directly mention would be prohibited by the absence of mention.

[TimBlodgett]

It really comes down to a choice of morals. Its wrong but she probably will never be caught for it. Does she take it down or continue to break the law?

[Battou]

Yes it's a violation, tell her to take her digicam and put it on a tripod with the shutter delay engaged and get a snap of her self for that purpose and swap out the photos.

Chances are likely that the wal-mart (or what ever other department store) photog or administrative personalle will never see the violating use of the image, but better safe than sorry.

[Songman45]

Is it a violation? Yep. I have to wonder if your friend has ever driven 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, ever failed to fasten a seat belt, or removed the "Do No Remove by Peanalty of Law" tag on a peice of furniture. I'm not an advocate of piracy, don't get me wrong. There are way more serious infringments of copyright than what you've described here.

[korman]

Songman, there are people like this who consider any stupid rule as a law of nature that is inconceivable to break. They're rare, true, but they're totally infuriating and frustrating if you meet them.

Korman

[moxi1]

Hi there,

I strongly disagree with most of the above replies.
As she has purchased the photo of herself, she also has purchased all rights to do with this photo as she wishes (Unless there is a fingerprint in the sales contract saying otherwise)

Cheers Moxi1

[KmH]

Originally Posted by moxi1

Hi there,

I strongly disagree with most of the above replies.
As she has purchased the photo of herself, she also has purchased all rights to do with this photo as she wishes (Unless there is a fingerprint in the sales contract saying otherwise)

Cheers Moxi1

Like you say, it depends on the terms of the contract. Just because a person is in a photograph doesn't always mean they own all the rights to it.

You might want to check out Australian Copyright Law here and then peruse the Bourne Convention.

Have you heard of a now defunct online business called Napster?

[coalcliff]

Here is your answer....

YouTube - Steal from Wal Mart! They don't care.

YouTube - Steal from Wal Mart! They don't care.

[Mike_PEAT]

I *believe* that if you have paid for the photographer to take your picture (and have x number of prints made) you should have the right to do with those images (and negatives) as you please as you paid for them and the service of being photographed (that includes wedding photography), and you should not be held hostage by the photographer/videographer.

I know many "pros" out there will disagree with me, but can you think of any other industry where the customer is held hostage like that (besides computer software)?

In Canada for instance the automakers used to hold people hostage saying you couldn't go to independent mechanics within so many years of buying a new car or else you'll void the warranty, but even that policy is being frowned upon by the Government.

My attitude in business has always been that if the customer likes your product and service they'll come back to you...you treat the customer the way you want to be treated.

[roncgizmo]

Call the store. They may not care at all and it might be included in the Copyright release already. If not just take another shot of her.

[Dirk]

interesting story .

i'll guess that as long as i keep my nef (raw) files , even if i sell the jpeg , i still have all the rights because i can show that the picture or image was shot by me and nobody else and i could sue the person who without any permission changed, copied etc my creatve product?

[tekdiver500ft]

The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, that the CREATOR of an artistic work OWNS all rights to it. That person can sell certain USAGE rights, but you cannot sell "copyright." Copyright is the right to say, "I created this." The only exception to this is in a "work for hire" situation (which typically does not cover wedding or portrait photography, as these are "contractor" situations, not work for hire). If you go to a portrait photographer, get an image made, then scan the image and post it elsewhere, you are in direct violation of copyright law. However, without financial loss, there is no recovery in most cases; so the worst that can happen is that you will be forced to remove the image, unless they can show loss.

[KmH]

THE source for definitive info about US copyright law is: www.copyright.gov

Beware of IUL....Internet Urban Legend.

[jeff martin]

.the General public has no idea what the copywrite laws are

Apparently, neither do you. Or I, really. That's why there are lawyers

I *believe* that if you have paid for the photographer to take your picture (and have x number of prints made) you should have the right to do with those images

Thats what contracts are for. Nobody is holding anybody "hostage." Yopu bought the print. The print can be displayed. It's not an unlimited usage liscence.

As she has purchased the photo of herself, she also has purchased all rights to do with this photo as she wishes (Unless there is a fingerprint in the sales contract saying otherwise)

I don't know about Aussie law. US law doesn't transfer copyright unless it is specified.

[Songman45]

When I read legal advice and legal opinion on internet sites I am reminded why, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

Steve