Carnival Logo on Scanned Prints ? [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Radtech1

12th of June 2005 (Sun), 12:37

How would you feel if you sold a picture and someone made 20 copies for their family instead of paying you for them?

Hmmmm.....

Interesting question. Although photography is not my bread and butter profession, I have sold some of my work. (The "work" being that of owning the camera, knowing how to use the aperture, shutter speed and iso to achieve the desired exposure and dof, proofing x number of shots and deciding on which one is the most aesthetically pleasing, and knowledge of PhotoShop to make the final tweaks in sharpness, contrast, density and color.)

"Work" is not pressing the "print" button 19 more times. That is “trained monkey at Costco” kind of work. Once I deliver the CD with the .tiff on it, my "work" is done. Sounds like Carnival is making up a cheap excuse to pick their customers' pockets one last time before they disembark.

If I found that the images that I bought and paid for were sabotaged, as described here, "pissed" wouldn't even begin to cover it.

Rad

PS - But I admit that I am the kind of guy who loaded Photoshop on my Desktop at home AND on my laptop for the road rather than paying a second 750 bones so I wouldn't be... unlawfully infringe on their copyright.

Bruce Hamilton

12th of June 2005 (Sun), 13:43

We put our copyright logo on our images we sell, why shouldn't Carnival? Only difference is the buyer sees ours from the get go, Carnival's only shows up when their rights are infringed.

scottbergerphoto

12th of June 2005 (Sun), 15:19

We put our copyright logo on our images we sell, why shouldn't Carnival? Only difference is the buyer sees ours from the get go, Carnival's only shows up when their rights are infringed.
The Carnival prints that I have seen are marked on the paper backing that they are copy protected.

scottbergerphoto

12th of June 2005 (Sun), 15:29

Is this paper available to the general public, Scott?
I have seen it on photographic paper. I don't know if it is available on inkjet paper.

Curtis N

12th of June 2005 (Sun), 15:48

Sounds like Carnival is making up a cheap excuse to pick their customers' pockets one last time before they disembark.No. Carnival is attempting to earn a legitimate profit the same way most professional photographers do. You can choose to buy the prints. Or not. It's your call. If you think their prices are unreasonable, then take your own darn pictures instead!

I understand that we instinctively think we should have the right to make copies of something we bought and paid for. But copyright laws have been on the books all over the world for a long time. They are designed to protect the income of artists in every conceivable medium.

Mernya

21st of June 2005 (Tue), 14:08

PS - But I admit that I am the kind of guy who loaded Photoshop on my Desktop at home AND on my laptop for the road rather than paying a second 750 bones so I wouldn't be...

That's not a problem.

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/main.html
Section 2.4 of the EULA says

"Portable or Home Computer Use. The primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may install a second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provide the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the same time as the Software on the primary Computer."

MCB

21st of June 2005 (Tue), 14:29

No. Carnival is attempting to earn a legitimate profit the same way most professional photographers do. You can choose to buy the prints. Or not. It's your call. If you think their prices are unreasonable, then take your own darn pictures instead!

I understand that we instinctively think we should have the right to make copies of something we bought and paid for. But copyright laws have been on the books all over the world for a long time. They are designed to protect the income of artists in every conceivable medium.

I'm not a professional photographer, so I am not as well versed in this area of the law as some of you may be. But my understanding is that unless there is a contract specifically transferring ownership of the copyright to the photographer, that the copyright belongs to the person that paid for the photograph to be taken. That's called a "work for hire." The photographer was hired to take the picture and the copyright is owned by the person that commissioned the work.

So if I pay you to take my picture, and I don't sign any wavers, I own the copyright on that image. At least that's how I've heard American copyright law explained. I have heard there are significant differences in other countries. (for example, you implicitly hold the copyright on any picture you appear in, whether you paid for it or not)

Where was the Carnival photo taken? International waters? US coastal waters? Mexico? What version of copyright law applies? Was a waver signed to transfer the copyright to Carnival?

I understand that photographers need to make a living, and that charging a little extra for prints is part of that process. But I don't think it's as simple as saying 'I took the picture, so I own it.' But maybe I'm wrong. Any lawyer/photographers here? :)

BrandonSi

21st of June 2005 (Tue), 14:57

Lets get down to the real root issue here. Your friend should've gone on Royal Caribbean, it's a better cruise line and they don't do that to their photographs. :)

Curtis N

21st of June 2005 (Tue), 15:43

So if I pay you to take my picture, and I don't sign any wavers, I own the copyright on that image. "Work for hire" generally applies to employees taking pictures within the scope of their employment. For example, a newspaper would own the copyrights to photos taken by someone on its staff. Or in this case, Carnival owns the copyrights of photos taken by their staff photog. They are selling prints. They are not selling the copyright.

Simply paying someone to take a picture does not transfer copyright. For example, wedding photogs own the copyrights to their pictures unless they specifically transfer them via signed contract.

MCB

21st of June 2005 (Tue), 17:44

"Work for hire" generally applies to employees taking pictures within the scope of their employment. For example, a newspaper would own the copyrights to photos taken by someone on its staff. Or in this case, Carnival owns the copyrights of photos taken by their staff photog. They are selling prints. They are not selling the copyright.

Simply paying someone to take a picture does not transfer copyright. For example, wedding photogs own the copyrights to their pictures unless they specifically transfer them via signed contract.

Right, I've heard that is the argument wedding photographers often make (mine did, too). But I've also heard that there is no basis to support that argument in the applicable laws in the United States. It's clear that most people go along with this, but that doesn't mean it's really the law. The photographer saying it is the law will be enough to convince most people. The rest will quickly realize that a lawyer is far more expensive than the photographer. So attempting legal action wouldn't help (assuming the law was on the side of the client, not the photographer).

So just because it's commonly done a particular way doesn't mean it's actually the law. But I don't know the law well enough to say. I've just heard people who claim to know what they're talking about say that the "I shot it so I own it" argument isn't supported by the law. What exactly is and what isn't a "work for hire" is widely debated in many fields.

You say that the employee of the cruise ship company is performing a work for hire on behalf of the company. And as such, the company owns the copyright to the work. Okay, that sounds reasonable. But you are paying a wedding photographer specifically to take pictures of you, as well. That sounds an awful lot like a work for hire. What's the difference between the cruise line owning the copyright (because they paid the photographer to take it) and a bride/groom owning the copyright (because they paid the photographer to take it)? Doesn't seem so clear-cut to me.

And saying that the cruise line owns the copyright implies that they can do whatever they want with your image. I mean, the picture of the passengers. So if they want to stick your face in a magazine ad, they can? They don't need a release from the models? Or is that seperate? Is there joint ownership of the copyright, then? They own the copyright, but can't use the image?

How long does Carnival keep the negatives or digital files? 1 year? 3? maybe 5? Then what? The client is out of luck because the only existing copy is on paper that can't be scanned? If my grandparents had pictures like that I'd be totally out of luck. We all would. There could never be new copies of old pictures. Who owns our history?

Curtis N

21st of June 2005 (Tue), 20:50

It's clear that most people go along with this, but that doesn't mean it's really the law. K-Mart found out the hard way, after being sued for duplicating customers' copyrighted images and settling for big $$$, that it IS the law. Enough print labs have been sued by enough photographers (and lost) that some retail labs are refusing to print images that "look too professional." It's becoming a real pain for serious amateurs.

See these threads:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78170&highlight=print
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=79825&highlight=print

For info on copyright law in the US, here's a good resource:
http://copyright.gov/

As for the completely separate subject of model and property releases, there's an excellent "sticky" thread in the "cornering the pros" section:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=73103

lostdoggy

21st of June 2005 (Tue), 22:10

MCB

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 06:02

K-Mart found out the hard way, after being sued for duplicating customers' copyrighted images and settling for big $$$, that it IS the law. Enough print labs have been sued by enough photographers (and lost) that some retail labs are refusing to print images that "look too professional." It's becoming a real pain for serious amateurs.

Right, I've heard about this happening at Walmart, too. So I'm sure these issues have been to court. And like you said, the default assumption is that if it looks good, you must not own the copyright.

Even if you assume that regardless of any contracts or any situations surrounding the creation of the photograph that the image belongs to the photographer (or at least, never to the subject of the photo), does that justify a total ban on reproduction of the image?

Copyright law includes fair use, too. And copyrights are not (yet) perpetual. So every copyrighted work will eventually pass into the public domain. In the original post (that i've diverged from so much, sorry) the question was about a watermark that makes it impossible to copy the image. How can that even be legal?

They are totally depriving the client of the ability to EVER make a copy. Fair use allows anyone to make copies of copyrighted works under certain conditions. And using that paper deprives the customer of the ability to make a copy once the image is public domain. I have lots of pictures of grandparents and great grandparents that were made from digitally restored copies of old photos. That's my right under copyright law. But will our children and grandchildren be able to exercise their rights? Not if Carnival and others that use that paper have their way. They assume we're all criminals and take the law into their own hands to deprive us and our descendants of their legal rights.

Oh, well. By the time the images are public domain, some new technology will allow us to circumvent their attempt to prevent us from reproducing our pictures.

MCB

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 06:13

I might be wrong, but you are only hiring the wedding photographer's service to take the pictures and any agreed upon number of printed pictures included in the contract. All other prints are additional to the initial service. The obilgation of the photographer is to take the pictures. There is no expectation of the photographer, excepted other then the fact that he acted professionally. I believe that the intellectual property is at rule here.

You're probably right. But that's my question. Where is the line between a work for hire and the more common situation where the photographer would retain the rights to the image? I understand that in most cases the photographer holds the copyright. And that's as it should be. But the work for hire thing is a bit confusing. I just wasn't sure where that line is. In one case a client pays for something, and as a result they own it (work for hire). In another case, they pay for it but don't own it.

In most cases I'm sure there is some contract clearly spelling out the details of the wedding photographer's role. In my case, the photographer was a friend so it never came up. But I've heard of people shopping around to find a photographer that would agree to giving up the negatives and copyright. Apparently some wedding photographers agree to that. So my original confusion is just about what the default would be in the absence of any contract. Work for hire? Not? I'll read some of the other threads posted and google it a bit. It would be good to know this stuff ahead of time. :)

Curtis N

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 07:52

the question was about a watermark that makes it impossible to copy the image. How can that even be legal? They are totally depriving the client of the ability to EVER make a copy. No, they're selling a print with a watermark that shows up on whatever copies are made. They are offering these prints for sale. No one is forced to buy them, as far as I know.

But maybe you're right. Maybe it should be illegal. Maybe our government should dictate what kind of paper a photographer can print on. Maybe paper manufacturers should be required to produce only products that can be easily duplicated with any scanner. And all the efforts by the film and music industries to create DVD formats that are hard to copy should be immediately brought to a halt.

After all, the ability to buy artistic works that are easy to copy is our God-given right. Or at least it's in the constitution, I think. It's gotta be in there somewhere.

I think I'll call my congressman.

jimsolt

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 08:37

We're all missing the point here. You pay me a fair price for taking your picture and supplying you a good print. Now, for the rest of eternity, you can make all the copies of that print you want. You make them on paper someone sells to you for a profit. You have that developed or printed by someone who makes a profit doing that. You distribute them to whomever you wish or you can sell them for a profit.

I don't ever get to make anymore profit. I've been paid in full.

What could be more fair than that?

Jim

MCB

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 08:39

I'm not trying to say that piracy should be made legal. There's a big difference between copying a 50 year old photograph of my grandmother and copying a DVD. I can go buy a new DVD any time. I can even wait a couple of years and buy an HD-DVD. 10 years after that I'll be able to buy a super-duper-HD-DVD. But I can never again get that photo of my grandmother. Not from you or any other photographer. Preventing me from making a copy of an orphaned work (which may have already entered the public domain) may not be illegal, but to me seems unethical.

The same copyright laws that protect artists also protect the general public. That's what Fair Use is all about. That's why copyrights expire. The same laws that grant artists the right to make a living at their work (which we all agree is reasonable and good) also allow everyone else to use that work within certain limits.

The copy protection on DVDs and CDs is so weak that it is in no real sense a bar to fair use. I read an interview with a federal lawyer who specialized in prosecuting copyright violations. He pointed out that although it is illegal under the DMCA to create or possess software to circumvent copy protection, it is not against the law to possess the self-made copy. Distributing such a copy does not fall within fair use, and would be a violation of federal law. Making a backup copy of music/software is your right as a consumer. No federal law currently in existence diminishes that. But manufacturers would like to limit your ability to exercise your right to fair use. Similarly, this watermark removes your ability to make fair use of that work.

You're right; Carnival is selling a picture, not a copyright. And no one is forcing anyone to buy the picture. Just like no one forces you to buy wedding photos or pictures of your kids. But when you choose to buy that photo, you have certain rights that are protect by law. Fair use is one of them. The expectation that you will be able to pass that photo on to your children is quite reasonable. You're saying that if it gets stained or torn, that's just too bad. You never owned the picture anyway, you were just renting it. The consumer should have no expectation that they can repair that image or make copies for grandkids (20 years from now)?

The kind of pictures we're talking about are little more than snapshots. The odds that they will become a treasured heirloom is quite small. They are far from fine art. Nobody is going to make big money making reproductions of this copyrighted work. All I'm saying is that the possibility exists that someday someone might want a copy (12 hypothetical grandkids), but thanks to a photographer trying to make an extra $20 off a vacation snapshot, that can't happen.

We all deserve to make a living. You deserve to be fairly compensated for your work. But you can't ignore the parts of the law (fair use, expiration of copyrights) that aren't advantageous to your own personal circumstances. Carnival and anyone who's using that paper are doing just that. You assume I'm a criminal so you do your best to abridge my rights while shouting about your own rights. You’ll be dead before my grandkids are old enough to consider making this hypothetical copy. You can never profit from their desire to obtain a copy. Why are you trying to hurt their feelings? Won’t somebody please think of the children?! ;)

jimsolt

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 08:48

The same copyright laws that protect artists also protect the general public. That's what Fair Use is all about. That's why copyrights expire. The same laws that grant artists the right to make a living at their work (which we all agree is reasonable and good) also allow everyone else to use that work within certain limits. . . . Distributing such a copy does not fall within fair use, and would be a violation of federal law. Making a backup copy of music/software is your right as a consumer. No federal law currently in existence diminishes that. But manufacturers would like to limit your ability to exercise your right to fair use. Similarly, this watermark removes your ability to make fair use of that work.

You're right; Carnival is selling a picture, not a copyright. And no one is forcing anyone to buy the picture. Just like no one forces you to buy wedding photos or pictures of your kids. But when you choose to buy that photo, you have certain rights that are protect by law. Fair use is one of them. The expectation that you will be able to pass that photo on to your children is quite reasonable. You're saying that if it gets stained or torn, that's just too bad. You never owned the picture anyway, you were just renting it. The consumer should have no expectation that they can repair that image or make copies for grandkids (20 years from now)?

The kind of pictures we're talking about are little more than snapshots. The odds that they will become a treasured heirloom is quite small. They are far from fine art. Nobody is going to make big money making reproductions of this copyrighted work. All I'm saying is that the possibility exists that someday someone might want a copy (12 hypothetical grandkids), but thanks to a photographer trying to make an extra $20 off a vacation snapshot, that can't happen.

We all deserve to make a living. You deserve to be fairly compensated for your work. But you can't ignore the parts of the law (fair use, expiration of copyrights) that aren't advantageous to your own personal circumstances. Carnival and anyone who's using that paper are doing just that. You assume I'm a criminal so you do your best to abridge my rights while shouting about your own rights. You’ll be dead before my grandkids are old enough to consider making this hypothetical copy. You can never profit from their desire to obtain a copy. Why are you trying to hurt their feelings? Won’t somebody please think of the children?! ;)

Who is thinking about Carnival's children or the children of the photographer who made the photo for Carnival?

Carnival has sold you a picture that when duplicated comes out with Carnival on it. I don't think they are limiting your "fair use" of that picture (snapshot, you judge) at all. You can duplicate it and use it fairly to your heart's content.

Jim

Baadil

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 09:11

If it is legal for you and you cannot scan it, post it on the wall, set good soft lighting, use good camera and take snapshot at the highest quality/resolution.

blue_max

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 09:11

I might be tempted to take a photo of the photo with my digital camera for safe keeping. I'm assuming the quality won't suffer too much as I doubt it was a particularly accomplished photo in the first place (making assumptions here). And guessing it woudn't show on a pic.

Did you explicitely give your permission for the photo to be taken in the first place? They may be breaking a law by photographing you without consent initially.

I paid for a photographer to take my wedding photos. They then try to mark up the prints considerably and tell me they own the copyright. I feel like I am paying twice for the same thing. I know what's fair –*and what is not.

I am a graphic designer, if I design a logo, do I expect to get a cut everytime that logo is used – do I heck. Get real. Why can't it be upfront – a fair price for the time taken to do the job and reprints at cost or slight mark-up or take the negs (or equivalent) away. Hiding the charges and hoping to hold someone to ransom after the event is underhand. And I only had one set :lol:

Graham

Curtis N

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 09:14

I don't ever get to make anymore profit. I've been paid in full. What could be more fair than that?That model is becoming more common in certain types of commercial photography but it has serious drawbacks from an artistic perspective. The artist loses control over how his work is portrayed. He cannot control the quality of the copies or the possibility of his images being altered. He risks being judged according to what other people produce.

The ability to perpetually sell prints provides an additional incentive for the photographer to produce better pictures, and an additional reward when he is successful in that goal. Still, the customer remains in control. He can see what he is buying and can choose to buy it, or not. It's free enterprise at work.

MCB

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 09:20

Who is thinking about Carnival's children or the children of the photographer who made the photo for Carnival?
Jim

The photographer was paid a fair price for his work and Carnival took at least their fair share. Their children are in no position to ever profit from collecting money in exchange for providing an additional print of the photograph. It is quite probable that the children of the photographer or the Carnival corporation are in no position to ever provide copies as a result of not retaining the negatives in perpetuity.

I have no idea who took my senior portrait in high school. That photographer owns the copyright to all of my graduation pictures. But I can never get a release to make my own copies, nor can he provide me with copies. Neither he nor his children can possibly profit from me ever again.

But you're saying that the few pictures I have will have to last my family forever. How is that reasonable? (I say that rhetorically. Don't both answering. Clearly we won't be convincing each other of anything.)

I know photographers often have a hard time making a living. So go ahead and focus on the small additional short-term profit you think you can make by using this kind of paper. Keep thinking that anyone who would ever copy a picture is an unethical, immoral criminal. I'll keep thinking that the long-term consequences of those watermarks make you a jerk. Fair enough?

jimsolt

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 09:22

MCB

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 09:26

That model is becoming more common in certain types of commercial photography but it has serious drawbacks from an artistic perspective. The artist loses control over how his work is portrayed. He cannot control the quality of the copies or the possibility of his images being altered. He risks being judged according to what other people produce.

The ability to perpetually sell prints provides an additional incentive for the photographer to produce better pictures, and an additional reward when he is successful in that goal. Still, the customer remains in control. He can see what he is buying and can choose to buy it, or not. It's free enterprise at work.

I totally agree with this. If you are selling commercial art, then you have a reputation and deserve to have some quality control. But where I think this falls apart is that cruise ship photo. unless somebody tries to use it in a magazine ad, are you (as the photographer) really losing anything? How much would you charge for 3 or 4 8x10's of an old high school photo or wedding picture? What happens to your reputation when people discover this watermark? Maybe they want another photographer next time.

jimsolt

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 09:29

The photographer was paid a fair price for his work and Carnival took at least their fair share. Their children are in no position to ever profit from collecting money in exchange for providing an additional print of the photograph. It is quite probable that the children of the photographer or the Carnival corporation are in no position to ever provide copies as a result of not retaining the negatives in perpetuity.

I have no idea who took my senior portrait in high school. That photographer owns the copyright to all of my graduation pictures. But I can never get a release to make my own copies, nor can he provide me with copies. Neither he nor his children can possibly profit from me ever again.

But you're saying that the few pictures I have will have to last my family forever. How is that reasonable? (I say that rhetorically. Don't both answering. Clearly we won't be convincing each other of anything.)

I know photographers often have a hard time making a living. So go ahead and focus on the small additional short-term profit you think you can make by using this kind of paper. Keep thinking that anyone who would ever copy a picture is an unethical, immoral criminal. I'll keep thinking that the long-term consequences of those watermarks make you a jerk. Fair enough?

I don't know, of course, but I would think if you wanted additional prints, it would be possible to get them or get someone's permission to make them. I would also advocate the photographer offering an additional option for the purchaser to make more prints for limited uses for additional costs.

The object of any legislation like this is NOT to deprive anyone of a valuable asset, but to protect the interests of the original artist. I doubt your school would have granted permission to a photographer who did not intend to make his photos available. I also doubt the school or photographer intended their uses to include unlimited duplication.

Jim

Curtis N

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 09:53

Curtis, please don't misunderstand me. I wrote "tongue in cheek". I agree with you.Understood. The reason I took you seriously is because there are many situations where it is more practical for a photographer to transfer copyright to his customer. This is generally spelled out in contracts and mutually understood by all parties involved.

MCB, I understand your arguments, and I would agree that Carnival is being a bit opportunistic and perhaps greedy in this case. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think it warrants legislative action. I suppose if I don't like the way a cruise line does business, I can express my objections to the management and take my business elsewhere.

MCB

22nd of June 2005 (Wed), 10:23

MCB, I understand your arguments, and I would agree that Carnival is being a bit opportunistic and perhaps greedy in this case. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think it warrants legislative action. I suppose if I don't like the way a cruise line does business, I can express my objections to the management and take my business elsewhere.

Whew. We agree. :) I'm not proposing any kind of legislation at all. Clearly there is nothing against the law about making this kind of watermarked paper, and I'm not saying there should be. But like you said, in a free market people can vote with their money. The only way anyone would accept these pictures is if they didn't know about the watermark until it was too late.

I am sure that for some period of time it would be possible to buy reprints from Carnival, or any other photographer. But how long do you think they archive those negatives? Maybe I can get copies a year or two from now, but what about in 10 years? That's where my concern is. :evil: If I want more copies next week, I should pay for them. But in 10 years, if that single print is the only copy left in the world... i'm screwed. That paper makes sure I'll never get copies.

In other cases, like my highschool pictures, I might not be able to get copies simply because I have no idea who the photographer was. If the school has no record of who the photographer was, then I can't get prints regardless of that photographers policy on reprints. (there's no markings on the back to let me know any name/contact info) But those pictures are only 15 years old. Clearly still copyrighted by the photographer. If he had used that watermarked paper, I would never be able to get reprints.

So, yeah, in the short term the artist deserves to profit and have control of his/her work. But in the long term they are not the only person that has rights that need to be considered. So I think it's a bit selfish to use that paper unless you can guarantee that you'll be able to provide reprints forever.

But like other people have said, I've seen some reasonably good copies made by taking pictures of a picture. Nothing you'll blow up to a wall-sized poster, but I don't think anyone really wants that anyway.

mdm

6th of July 2005 (Wed), 11:10

Wejust got back from a Royal Caribbean cruise. The photos from the cruise ship were great. I believe we bought 90% of our pictures. The staff was pretty cool to let me snap some shots of the kids while in their different portable studio.It was like I had my own studio. We bought most of those shots. I did scan those for backup on my external hard drive.

Longwatcher

6th of July 2005 (Wed), 12:59

I'm not trying to say that piracy should be made legal. There's a big difference between copying a 50 year old photograph of my grandmother and copying a DVD. I can go buy a new DVD any time. I can even wait a couple of years and buy an HD-DVD. 10 years after that I'll be able to buy a super-duper-HD-DVD. But I can never again get that photo of my grandmother. Not from you or any other photographer. Preventing me from making a copy of an orphaned work (which may have already entered the public domain) may not be illegal, but to me seems unethical.

Actually from my experience, the odds are pretty poor that you can get a DVD of some of the more obscure VHS titles and several lesser known movies are no longer available by any means (as an example I am still waiting for the DVD version of Dean Martin's Matt Helm movies (1 of 4 is out and it has been awhile)). In some cases eye-teeth had to be pulled to get some companies to release a few TV shows on DVD. Lastly if not for the fact that a lot of people had personal copies of silent era movies, even more of them would be lost forever, because the studios felt no need to keep a copy in good condition (if they kept a copy at all). My pet peave in this era are the films of Theda Bara, most copies of which got destroyed by evil people in the name of protecting our morals from ourselves.

I am someone who believes very stongly in reasonable copyright protections, but at the same time feel that I as consumer have an inherent right to upgrade my own copy of the artistic endevour I bought to maintain a copy. I have purchased the right to possess a copy of work for my and my household's use, I have not purchased a VHS or DVD, but a copy of the work. How I maintain (not sell, not distribute) that copy is up to me.

There are people that believe that we will eventually go to all electronic copies of movies and music. The problem with this is one good EMP blast and all of the artwork goes bye-bye.

I will slow down now, I recognised I was starting to foam at the mouth. I hate censorship and the resulting loss of outstanding works of art and I hate having to wait for large corporations to decide what I want to buy. The only similiarity with Photography is that what Carnival is doing is basically preventing long-term archival of that piece of history by putting the hidden logo into it.

I should mention I have a sentence on my copyright and fair use notes that people can make copies as needed for the purpose of archival to a newer medium because I recognize this as a long term problem.

Just my ranting and raving,