Printing from a photo cd - is it illegal?

Richie-from-the-Boro

NickMidgley wrote: »

He isn't saying that the CD will be useless, just that the images on it will be suitable for viewing (on a PC etc.) only, NOT for making printed hard copies.

If the customer has a basic knowledge of photographic copyright, or has had this explained to them, there's no reason why they shouldn't be happy. I don't see the contradiction.

H/She is saying they are useless, watermarking makes them gloriously useless !

lucylucky

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

H/She is saying they are useless, watermarking makes them gloriously useless !

It doesn't but you for some reason you seem to believe that it does.

The issue mentioned in relation to the OP has been done to death and fully explained, but for some reason, that I cannot fathom, you seem unwilling to let it go.

Richie-from-the-Boro

lucylucky wrote: »

It doesn't but you for some reason you seem to believe that it does.

The issue mentioned in relation to the OP has been done to death and fully explained, but for some reason, that I cannot fathom, you seem unwilling to let it go.

.1. It does, Lirin her/himself clearly stated in #25 it does, are you saying s/he is wrong / mistaken / or just confused ?

.2. I did let it go at thread #61 where Lirin said ""Final word on the subject"", but Lirin continues to post, so do I !

.3. As long as the practice of wedding photographers giving useless CD's to brides and grooms is written to these threads which are read by millions of hits I will continue in the hope that a proportion of future happy couples will treat their wedding photographer / studio with a great deal more caution.

.4. See #107 Checksumming, watermarking etc is legal, and should be displayed in T&C's. Great, thanks Lirin, you took my £2000 and gave me a useless CD, but that's ok because its legal

.5. Lirin dies / emigrates / sells up / goes bust and I had a fire at my house and the prints were destroyed. If Lirin had given me a usable CD I could have had them reprinted, but no just low res rubbish !

Thankyou lucylucky for your response, much appreciated.

lucylucky

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

.1. It does, Lirin her/himself clearly stated in #25 it does, are you saying s/he is wrong / mistaken / or just confused ?

.2. I did let it go at thread #61 where Lirin said ""Final word on the subject"", but Lirin continues to post, so do I !

.3. As long as the practice of wedding photographers giving useless CD's to brides and grooms is written to these threads which are read by millions of hits I will continue in the hope that a proportion of future happy couples will treat their wedding photographer / studio with a great deal more caution.

.4. See #107 Checksumming, watermarking etc is legal, and should be displayed in T&C's. Great, thanks Lirin, you took my £2000 and gave me a useless CD, but that's ok because its legal

.5. Lirin dies / emigrates / sells up / goes bust and I had a fire at my house and the prints were destroyed. If Lirin had given me a usable CD I could have had them reprinted, but no just low res rubbish !

Thankyou lucylucky for your response, much appreciated.

"As long as the practice of wedding photographers giving useless CD's"

The CDs are useless?

How?

Q - Can you view them on a PC
A - Yes.

Q - Are they therefore useless?
A - No

You are very fond of quoting previous posts so could you answer the question I posed in #101 and #104?

fitshase

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

.
.5. Lirin dies / emigrates / sells up / goes bust and I had a fire at my house and the prints were destroyed. If Lirin had given me a usable CD I could have had them reprinted, but no just low res rubbish !

And the CD survives the fire?

tronator

fitshase wrote: »

And the CD survives the fire?

Did you hear of the concept of backups?

Richie-from-the-Boro

fitshase wrote: »

And the CD survives the fire?

Thank god I gave one to tronator just in case :T of that eventuality

Richie-from-the-Boro

lucylucky wrote: »

"As long as the practice of wedding photographers giving useless CD's"

The CDs are useless?

How?

Q - Can you view them on a PC
A - Yes.

yes - but the CD is useless Lirin said so, low res only & watermarked

Q - Are they therefore useless?
A - No

- yes they are- because the CD is useless Lirin said so, low res only & watermarked

You are very fond of quoting previous posts so could you answer the question I posed in #101 and #104?

No thanks, questions I'm happy with, obtuse trolling as beguiling as your post was I generally try to avoid, thanks for throwing me a badly baited hook though ! You have a very conjured estimate of my intellect if you thought I'd fall for that silly schoolyard ploy. The question, if you read the threads was eventually answered in full by Lirin, most of her answers are constantly mutating versions of his / her original answers we will see if that one changes over time Now would you like me to help and give you the hash number, I'm happy to do that for you.

fitshase

tronator wrote: »

Did you hear of the concept of backups?

Yes, and most people store those backups at home (since the main reason for backing up data is in case of problems with a computer not a house fire!). And I won't even get started on the shelf life of CDs because no doubt Richie would then say it is unethical for a photographer to use a cheap unbranded CD for the photos which have perished sat on a shelf for 5 years.

I'm now going to leave this thread alone. No matter what anyone says, Richie will not believe that any photographer is decent and ethical. Even ones which make it clear up front what their terms are and people accept them and pay the money, Richie will attack.

He doesn't seem to get that if you ask and pay for high res images on a CD with printing rights, a photographer will give them to you.

He doesn't get that most wedding photographers offer a simple images on a disc package for a lot cheaper price than an album. Most of the time they are low res for printing anything bigger than 7" x 5" (which is what most people print in their homes for photos) but high enough res for displaying on computers and digital photo frames (which is what a lot of people use nowadays). Again, most photographers will state this in their terms and conditions which are given on first consultation. However, in Richie's eyes, all photographers are bad and he insists on trying to get into an argument over random bits of legislation.

He also doesn't seem to get that the £2000 (which has already been said is not the norm and is the top end of the market) is not for a CD with photos on it. It is for the skill, professionalism, creativity (yes, creativity in an artistic not mechanical manner) and services of a professional photographer out to make a living in a competitive industry, not some happy snapping friend/relative with a point and shoot camera.

He has seemingly missed the rather good comparison to a band playing at a wedding and what the copyright status is of that because it does not suit his argument that all photographers are evil unethical people who grab your money, spend a few hours snapping a couple of photos and give you a "useless" CD.

He also seems to miss the point of people saying that a photographer has the right to set their own terms and conditions. Yes, you can ask for them to be changed but the photographer has a right to refuse. Or, if they accept, to change their prices accordingly. Is it unethical? Of course not.

Frankly, I'm getting bored with the whole thing.

I suggest that if any photographer comes across Richie wanting some photos taken, steer well clear. It's just not worth the hassle.

PasturesNew

mrbg07546 wrote: »

I bought a photo CD from a family photographer.

i suggested i may get them printed when i met him later...he responded...

I was advised that you will be taking our photos to have printed into
an album. I must highlight this as being illegal as the
copyright is with the photographer and unless given permission, any
reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.

is this true?

Yes it is true if he said it - and if that's in his T&Cs, which it usually is.

When a photographer is booked to take photos, the contract will state how those images are to be used/re-used. A photographer always retains copyright of photos he's taken, unless you have specifically paid for ownership of the copyright (very rare).

If it's wedding photos though and you just do it, he'd never know.

But, if you created a facebook page of the wedding and invited people to buy the photos through you etc etc then he'd probably find out.

Photographers make their money from:
- taking the photos
- reselling the images, in the printed form
- selling licenses to use the photos

It'd be a bit like you creating a masterpiece in oils, then selling it to me for £200 ... and I rush off down the printers and have 200 printed off as "limited edition prints" and sell them. In creating that painting and selling it to me for £200, it'd be for non-commercial use and so you'd only have bought the rights to hang it on your wall and look at it.

Or, like a musician who sells you their single... you can't then take that and mix it up with other artists and release your own album and cut your own CDs of it.