| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/17/2005 02:45:26 PM · #1 |
Saw this link on another site, thought it might be of interest - has anybody run into it? How to the wedding and other pro photographers among us feel - are unauthorized copies of their works getting to be a problem?
photo labs deny prints |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 02:52:33 PM · #2 |
I haven't had this problem myself but have been on the other side of the counter helping people that want pictures copied that appeared professional. We were told that if it said professional don't do it without a WRITTEN authorization from the photographer, perferrable on their letterhead. If it appeared to be professional (backdrop, nice lighting etc) than we had to assume it was and again get authorization.
I have shot photos for friends using backdrops and stuff and given them the files on CD, I print on letterhead a release authorizing them to do what they want (thats with full release) then I add it to the CD also in case they lose the paper.
I make sure phone numbers and email are on there so I can be contacted in a variety of ways.
There are way too many people out there that feel just cause you bought a single image you can do what you want with it and our advances in technology haven't helped either.
Message edited by author 2005-06-17 14:54:21.
|
|
|
|
06/17/2005 02:52:54 PM · #3 |
Scary stuff. Although you'd think that someone who buys an 8-megapixel Canon SLR will have the moeny to buy a photo printer for their own purposes rather than having to go to Wal-Mart to print their photos. Either way it's a tricky situation.
Lee |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 02:59:48 PM · #4 |
Might not be practical, but if someone anticipated a problem, they may save at least some of the images in their camera to show as proof that they are the photographer.
You could also show up in a professional looking shirt with your logo on it. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 03:28:17 PM · #5 |
I think a Sears/Target/etc photo lab is the biggest scam in the world.
Sure, they can take a good picture, but then they charge you $15/sheet to print the photos...sometimes this is after charging you a sitting fee. After you pay them $150, you still don't own the pictures that you paid for, you just own the prints that they printed for pennies and charged you $15/sheet for, and if you want more prints, it's still $15/sheet.
I don't believe in stealing someone else's copyrighted stuff by any means, but I DO think that if someone were to open a photo studio where you charge a $30-$50 flat fee for a one hour sitting, and then when the customer walks out of the store, they own the photos that you took and they can either go print them cheap at Wal-mart or you can send them to your lab to be printed with a little mark-up...you would make some good money if you could keep the line of people at the door small enough to keep them happy, because everyone would be knocking down your door for an appointment (if you took good photos that is).
What I'm saying is that I think $15-$18/sheet is ridiculous and someone with the know-how could change the way photo studios rip people off by opening their own shop...
|
|
|
|
06/17/2005 03:30:18 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Tranquil:
Scary stuff. Although you'd think that someone who buys an 8-megapixel Canon SLR will have the moeny to buy a photo printer for their own purposes rather than having to go to Wal-Mart to print their photos. Either way it's a tricky situation.
Lee |
Personally, I can't justify the expense of a Dye Sublimation printer for the single purpose that it would have. Some of the things I want to print, I want to print at 8x10 or greater as well and I definately can't justify a Dye Sublimation printer that can print greater then 8x10.
Even then, the consumer level Dye Sublimation printers aren't quite as good as you can obtain at some photo labs.
So, I take my prints to a local camera and development/print shop. I haven't had any problems yet and I don't believe that I will end up with problems. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 03:33:46 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Cooz:
I think a Sears/Target/etc photo lab is the biggest scam in the world.
Sure, they can take a good picture, but then they charge you $15/sheet to print the photos...sometimes this is after charging you a sitting fee. After you pay them $150, you still don't own the pictures that you paid for, you just own the prints that they printed for pennies and charged you $15/sheet for, and if you want more prints, it's still $15/sheet.
I don't believe in stealing someone else's copyrighted stuff by any means, but I DO think that if someone were to open a photo studio where you charge a $30-$50 flat fee for a one hour sitting, and then when the customer walks out of the store, they own the photos that you took and they can either go print them cheap at Wal-mart or you can send them to your lab to be printed with a little mark-up...you would make some good money if you could keep the line of people at the door small enough to keep them happy, because everyone would be knocking down your door for an appointment (if you took good photos that is).
What I'm saying is that I think $15-$18/sheet is ridiculous and someone with the know-how could change the way photo studios rip people off by opening their own shop... |
You wouldn't be in business for more then two months, if you charged only $30 to $50 for a one hour sitting. Even if you kept a long lengthy line at the door.
That simply isn't enough money to keep such a business going. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 03:34:29 PM · #8 |
I think it's important to develop a relationship with the lab personnel at the store(s) where you might frequently print. If you know the people there, you should have fewer (if any) problems. There's something to be said for interpersonal communication skills. Be proactive, anticipate problems, and introduce yourself and your work to them so they are not taken off-guard by something dropped of in the drop-off box. :o)
|
|
|
|
06/17/2005 03:38:59 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Cooz:
I think a Sears/Target/etc photo lab is the biggest scam in the world.
... |
Actually, Title Insurance is the biggest scam in the world.
Originally posted by Cooz:
Sure, they can take a good picture, but then they charge you $15/sheet to print the photos...sometimes this is after charging you a sitting fee. After you pay them $150, you still don't own the pictures that you paid for, you just own the prints that they printed for pennies and charged you $15/sheet for, and if you want more prints, it's still $15/sheet.
I don't believe in stealing someone else's copyrighted stuff by any means, but I DO think that if someone were to open a photo studio where you charge a $30-$50 flat fee for a one hour sitting, and then when the customer walks out of the store, they own the photos that you took and they can either go print them cheap at Wal-mart or you can send them to your lab to be printed with a little mark-up...you would make some good money if you could keep the line of people at the door small enough to keep them happy, because everyone would be knocking down your door for an appointment (if you took good photos that is).
What I'm saying is that I think $15-$18/sheet is ridiculous and someone with the know-how could change the way photo studios rip people off by opening their own shop... |
Like many of the "artistic" industries, like movies and music for example, photography has to deal with with the no-cost, perfect and nearly limiless copy capacity that digital media provides. In the case of weddings and portrait type work, I would expect to see more of the price getting rolled into the photographer's fee and prints getting cheaper - to the point of just paying for the physical materials. I believe that is a departure from the "traditional" method of a more nominal fee for taking the photos, but then charging a lot for prints.
But I'm not a pro - but I am curious as to how they are and will deal with the situation. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 04:10:02 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Tranquil:
Scary stuff. Although you'd think that someone who buys an 8-megapixel Canon SLR will have the moeny to buy a photo printer for their own purposes rather than having to go to Wal-Mart to print their photos. Either way it's a tricky situation.
Lee |
I don't have nor do I want to have a photo printer -- I much prefer the photographic prints from the Fuji/Noritsu machines -- although I use Costco mostly. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 04:27:32 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I think it's important to develop a relationship with the lab personnel at the store(s) where you might frequently print. If you know the people there, you should have fewer (if any) problems. There's something to be said for interpersonal communication skills. Be proactive, anticipate problems, and introduce yourself and your work to them so they are not taken off-guard by something dropped of in the drop-off box. :o) |
I agree 100%
one thing you can do is purposly do some bad editing to a photo, you know throw the colors all out of wack, mess up the cropping. and when you go to pic it up, ask them what happened to the photo and what to do to correct it. This will usually get the attention of several of the employees
People, by nature, tend to remember people with problems more than someone with out ANY problems (photo problems that is), this will help them identify you the next time.
James |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 04:32:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Tranquil:
Although you'd think that someone who buys an 8-megapixel Canon SLR will have the moeny to buy a photo printer for their own purposes rather than having to go to Wal-Mart to print their photos. |
I can afford the camera and printer but printing at a Costco/Wal-Mart is much cheaper than printing at home on an inkjet. The prints often have a higher quality and a longer life. Makes sense to me to print at one of these stores. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 04:39:23 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Tranquil:
Scary stuff. Although you'd think that someone who buys an 8-megapixel Canon SLR will have the moeny to buy a photo printer for their own purposes rather than having to go to Wal-Mart to print their photos. Either way it's a tricky situation.
Lee |
I outsource my printing because I just cannot afford a high-quality printer. I send my files to Adorama and am very pleased with the results.
I didn't even think of "releasing" a photo before. I have done pet shots for neighbors, but never signed them or anything. What is the proper way to handle that?
|
|
|
|
06/17/2005 04:39:36 PM · #14 |
I have a 16.7MP camera and I have volume print jobs done all the time via print houses...it's just massively cheaper than ink prints and you get UV protection!
I have had clients be refused prints and the print house asked for "proof of Copyrights" at least 3 times in early spring, I now provide them with one when I give them a Disk. I asked one of the print houses and they explained that High-res images (in my case, tiff) need to be accompanied with proof of ownwership to prevent fraud and copyright violation...
I'm all for that.
Message edited by author 2005-06-17 16:40:14. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 04:50:26 PM · #15 |
| When I sell my photo CD's I include documents on the permissions I am giving. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 05:45:31 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by joebok:
Saw this link on another site, thought it might be of interest - has anybody run into it? How to the wedding and other pro photographers among us feel - are unauthorized copies of their works getting to be a problem?
|
The article is about the guy who took his own photo to the lab to be printed.... not somebody else's lab to be printed. How do you prove to an employee that you own the copywrite of your own photo when they already don't believe you?
Signing your own letterhead wouldn't do it, I'd think...
|
|
|
|
06/17/2005 06:04:15 PM · #17 |
| Just one thought: Where is going to go this problem when paper will not be the most used support for images? Maybe it will happen in the next years, what are going to do those shops? |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 07:06:27 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by greslizzz:
Just one thought: Where is going to go this problem when paper will not be the most used support for images? Maybe it will happen in the next years, what are going to do those shops? |
Paper is certainly here for a long time, think about books...they're no where close to be upstaged by digital.
There is a special feel/vibe when looking at a printed picture, the physical contact perhaps. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 08:35:48 PM · #19 |
There is a very good reason Walmart, Ritz, Costco, Target, and Motophoto will not print anything that looks professional without a release. Companies like Glamour Shots, pro studios, cruise lines, and other large chains (think Olan Mills) send mystery shoppers into stores with one hour labs and actually try to get you to make prints. Then they slap you with lawsuits when you do. Wallyworld got hit hard in just such a lawsuit.
It's not a joke, people lose jobs for doing this. So cut your poor little old mini lab a break. :)
Like it or not, under US law the photographer owns the rights for the image for a very, very long time. Photo taken in 1939? Copyright is technically STILL ACTIVE.
If you take high quality prints, get to know your local minilab. Walk in, introduce yourself to the lab/store manager and let them know you are a pro photographer. Most of us are thrilled to have your business.
If you shoot images for friends, give them a typewritten release document. If they try to make prints from a print, they will run into trouble.
Digital files are a bit trickier. Not every company has a set standard. Right now in general, high res files are considered a negative. If you have either high res files, or a negative you have an implied release from the photographer.
Clara |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 09:23:50 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Like it or not, under US law the photographer owns the rights for the image for a very, very long time. |
From what I've heard, general copyrights are still active for something like 50 years after the artist/author's death. That might change for certain mediums though, I don't know. |
|
|
|
06/17/2005 09:38:52 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by greslizzz:
Just one thought: Where is going to go this problem when paper will not be the most used support for images? Maybe it will happen in the next years, what are going to do those shops? |
Paper is certainly here for a long time, think about books...they're no where close to be upstaged by digital.
There is a special feel/vibe when looking at a printed picture, the physical contact perhaps. |
Kodak announced yesterday(?) that they will be phasing out production of their B&W papers by the end of the year ... stock up now. |
|
|
|
06/18/2005 02:38:58 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Kodak announced yesterday(?) that they will be phasing out production of their B&W papers by the end of the year ... stock up now. |
They aren't the only paper game in town. Besides, many here no longer use film and I would imagine that even fewer print from film at home. |
|
|
|
06/18/2005 03:55:10 AM · #23 |
been using Ilford.... no worries as far as I'm concerned.
Now...if they stop producing D-76, Dektol, or TMAX Film....that's entirely different :) |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 12:38:53 PM · #24 |
As I know that photographic prints matter when you are making a professional painting or snapping a picture. Whenever I start making a picture then first I check for the prints which I am using.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 01:38:36 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jbeazell:
[quote=joebok] Saw this link on another site, thought it might be of interest - has anybody run into it? How to the wedding and other pro photographers among us feel - are unauthorized copies of their works getting to be a problem?
|
I've had a couple walmarts say they can't print my photos because they look professional, I just told them that I am the photographer and gave them my business card as well as signed a release form they provided, I think they keep that in their records because I haven't had a problem since... I think its great that they are looking out for this and I don't mind the extra inconvenience. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 02:14:06 AM EDT.
