Printing from a photo cd - is it illegal?

Trinitrotoluene

Whatever you do don't tell him you won't print them and then print them anyway, that would be immoral!

Aiadi

Trinitrotoluene wrote: »

Whatever you do don't tell him you won't print them and then print them anyway, that would be immoral!

Immoral??? murderers are roaming the streets free and you call this immoral!!!

It is the op's family and their pictures (that they also incidentally paid for) for god's sake.

weegie.geek

You even quoted the wink, !!!!!!?

moonrakerz

It is not illegal - however it MAY be unlawful.

Trinitrotoluene

Aiadi wrote: »

Immoral??? murderers are roaming the streets free and you call this immoral!!!

It is the op's family and their pictures (that they also incidentally paid for) for god's sake.

Sarcasm is lost on your good sir.

Aiadi

Trinitrotoluene wrote: »

Sarcasm is lost on your good sir.

Well, you don't think that was funny, do you??

fitshase

This is where a lot of people see photos as just photos and not the work of a photographer. If you paid for a collection of photos on a CD (remember you are also paying for the photographer's time and skill in taking them, not just the photos on a CD), you have got what you paid for. If you signed anything, check the small print and you will probably see that you don't have rights to reproduce the images.

Most photographers will not sign over the copyright to their images unless specifically asked for (and paid more for). Chances are you've paid to have the photos taken and put on a CD to view on a computer or digital photo frame. The photos are probably not of substantial quality (in terms of resolution) to print any bigger than 7" x 5" in any case.

I always look at it the same as CDs and DVDs. You pay for the media and the right to view/listen to the contents. You don't have the rights to copy the contents in the same way as you don't have the rights to make copies of the contents of the photo CD.

Just remember, before the digital age when film cameras were around, photographers wouldn't give you the negatives after a photo shoot unless specifically asked and paid for. Just because it is now digital and easier to scan/print images, people get complacent and believe a CD full of photos from a photographer is theirs to do with as they please.

TwistedPsycho

We had this issue as well with our wedding photographs.
They were taken by a member of my family and it was his wedding gift to us, they were put on a CD and he printed 30 off and put them in an album for us. He specifically stated verbally that if we want to print any off ourself, feel free.

So we took the CD to a large green supermarket who took the images, processed them and then at 3pm Christmas Eve with us and our instore bought frames in hand (they were presents for our parents), they showed us the pictures, said "they were taken by a professional, where is your copy of the copyright notice?" and when we said the pictures were a gift from a member of my family, the woman replied "that's not good enough" and ripped them up in front of us.

Straight back to customer services - we wanted a refund on the £60 of frames we just bought, the manager tried to say they were not doing refunds on Christmas Eve!

Moral of the story? We went to a different supermarket and they said "Do you own the copyright?" We said yes and thats all they needed!

mod81

Sound like the photographer is being a bit of a jobs worth if they are just family photos and you have paid for them on CD. Or he wants to squeeze some more money out of you by charging you over the odds to print them out for you.
I can understand that he wouldn't want you to use them for any commerical use but not allowing you to print off a copy to put in your family album is ridiculous.
Id say name and shame the photographer so anyone else can steer clear of him.

dave2

fitshase wrote: »

Just because it is now digital and easier to scan/print images, people get complacent and believe a CD full of photos from a photographer is theirs to do with as they please.

The other perspective is that most people believe they are buying the entire rights over the photos, and the photographer is often well aware of this.

Yet many photographers happily agree to take money and allow their customer to continue in this belief until the event is over and the customer now has no negotiating power.

Not knowing the law is no defence and the photographer's copyright stands, but had it been provable that the photographer knew of the customer's belief it would likely be held quasi-contract that he'd agreed to hand over copyright. That isn't really the point though: in my book it's just wrong to allow someone to continue with a mistaken belief.

(To be fair, this is hardly unique to photographers, try getting a quote for anything and see who reminds you of the hidden costs)

When my friend was organising the photographer for his wedding he rang round, checked websites etc and dismissed out of hand any who were not being up front and clear about this (he considered it a moral point). He said he was thinking he'd have to drop this because they were running out of options when they found their guy who was making a unique selling point of always turning over copyright.