Copyright Issue

Lunajen wrote in post #11423428
I worked in a commercial lab and would have several customers try and use copyright material for their cards. I would inform them that we can't do that as it is against the law. Period. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

We would even check uploaded material and not print it if it was questionable.

So, in other words...it is illegal and both the person printing it for personal use and the printer ( ie wal mart etc.) are responsible.

As a side note... i've had a place tell me I can't print my own photos.

They said, "these are professional photos and we need a release to print them." I respond "okay, I release myself to print them." Didn't go over so well with them. Thought I was just being a smart azz... which I was... but still, was the truth.

Really kinda t'd me off!

Lunajen wrote in post #11423428
I worked in a commercial lab and would have several customers try and use copyright material for their cards. I would inform them that we can't do that as it is against the law. Period. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

We would even check uploaded material and not print it if it was questionable.

So, in other words...it is illegal and both the person printing it for personal use and the printer ( ie wal mart etc.) are responsible.

yes, lunajen, you and your employer are being careful, erring on the side of caution, too cautious for my tastes. there is no case law that supports places like walmart refusing to reprint pictures they believe might be a copyright violation.

there are some precedents that are similar, but none, as far as i know, that actually address this kind of usage.

incidentally, snapfish says they are not responsible at all for any copyright violations:

"All Content (whether private or public) that is Processed on the Site is the sole responsibility of the person who submitted it. Thus, you are responsible for your Content." http://www.snapfish.co​m/snapfish/termsAndCon​ditions

Issues with some major photofinishing retailers--specifically Walmart and Wallgreen--have been dealt with by settlements out of court spearheaded by the PPA. Other retailers have paid attention. Those that haven't are on a hitlist, and their turn is coming.

RDKirk wrote in post #11423559
Issues with some major photofinishing retailers--specifically Walmart and Wallgreen--have been dealt with by settlements out of court spearheaded by the PPA. Other retailers have paid attention. Those that haven't are on a hitlist, and their turn is coming.

When the PPA gets that settlement... why is not distributed amoung it's members...

Jimbers,
After reading through your posts here it occurs to me that most of them where you make a point (and some of them don't) it begins with something akin to "I feel" or "I believe." Unfortunately what you believe isnt the law. You personally don't get to interpret fair use, and you don't get to set the standard for what constitutes a copyright violation, no matter how strongly you feel about it. The point is the OP is within her rights to protest the violation of her copyright.

gonzogolf wrote in post #11423616
Jimbers,
After reading through your posts here it occurs to me that most of them where you make a point (and some of them don't) it begins with something akin to "I feel" or "I believe." Unfortunately what you believe isnt the law. You personally don't get to interpret fair use, and you don't get to set the standard for what constitutes a copyright violation, no matter how strongly you feel about it. The point is the OP is within her rights to protest the violation of her copyright.

copyright laws are not set in stone--and, legally speaking, they are a relatively new area of law--which is why you have advocacy groups on both sides asking for loosening and tightening of copyright restrictions. the aforementioned ppa is one of those groups.

for the purpose of the discussion brought about on this site, i can certainly say or believe anything i want based upon my knowledge and experience.

gonzogolf wrote in post #11423616
You personally don't get to interpret fair use, and you don't get to set the standard for what constitutes a copyright violation, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

You noticed that too eh?

Jimbers wrote in post #11423651
copyright laws are not set in stone--and, legally speaking, they are a relatively new area of law--which is why you have advocacy groups on both sides asking for loosening and tightening of copyright restrictions. the aforementioned ppa is one of those groups.

for the purpose of the discussion brought about on this site, i can certainly say or believe anything i want based upon my knowledge and experience.

You can certainly give your opinions, but you cant mascaraed them as facts. Some of your points are simply dead wrong, and what you believe or feel has no bearing on the reality of established law. Copyright law isnt really a new area, it goes back over a hundred years and while I agree that the law evolves, it doesnt do so on the basis of what Jimbers believes.

gonzogolf wrote in post #11423689
You can certainly give your opinions, but you cant mascaraed them as facts. Some of your points are simply dead wrong, and what you believe or feel has no bearing on the reality of established law. Copyright law isnt really a new area, it goes back over a hundred years and while I agree that the law evolves, it doesnt do so on the basis of what Jimbers believes.

legally speaking, a few hundred years isn't that much really, and new technologies will always bring about new discussions and ideas about copyright restrictions. again, that's my opinion; it may be a fact. i don't really care. i'm not going to preface any of my basically anonymous comments in open forum as being facts or opinions. you can choose to do what you want with them.

Since this thread has deteriorated to constant personal attacks without constructive content I have closed it.
If this fight gets continued in other threads, time outs will be issued.