Some shops won't print your digital photos!?!?!?

[Guzzler]

Oh, this is interesting. Apparently, some printers won't print your digital photos.... Because they are TO good!!!

Copyright-Worried Photo Labs Spurn Jobs (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20050617/ap_on_hi_te/photo_printing_frustration)

Digital photos can look great, but some labs won't print those that appear too professional (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html)

So I guess some of you that are really, really good, better get ready!

[DavidTO]

Oh, this is interesting. Apparently, some printers won't print your digital photos.... Because they are TO good!!!

Copyright-Worried Photo Labs Spurn Jobs (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20050617/ap_on_hi_te/photo_printing_frustration)

Digital photos can look great, but some labs won't print those that appear too professional (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html)

So I guess some of you that are really, really good, better get ready!


Unfortunately, I've never had that problem...

[mercphoto]

Oh, this is interesting. Apparently, some printers won't print your digital photos.... Because they are TO good!!!

Its legal CYA. They don't want to get sued, which happens way too ofen in our society.

While I understand the reason labs are doing this, and in some respect I'm glad someone is looking out for the rule of law, having the labs be a policing agent is the wrong thing to do. They probably don't want to have happen to them what can happen to a bar if it serves alcohol to a person already intoxicated. Don't blame the individual doing the actual drinking, no, blame the provider. Ditto with the photos now.

I'm not sure how to enforce copyright law in an age where an entire generation of yound adults and young people see no problem with stealing music, videos and other digital content. :shrug But turning the lab into the police department is probably not the right way to do it. Its not addressing the actual root cause of the problem.

[Khaos]

One shop wouldn't print my pics because they said it would of been a waste of good phot paper.:uhoh

[Harryb]

Now we will get upset if they print our pics. What a blow to the ego. :D

[Baldy]

Now we will get upset if they print our pics. What a blow to the ego. :D:yikes Imagine if EZ Prints tried to do that with prints from smugmug. Many of them have copyright symbols from pros but are purchased by someone else.

[colourbox]

I haven't run into this yet, but if it comes up I would be highly tempted to say "So basically, what you're telling me is that your business only prints crappy pictures."

[ian408]

:yikes Imagine if EZ Prints tried to do that with prints from smugmug. Many of them have copyright symbols from pros but are purchased by someone else.
Don't you think the relationship between the photographer, smugmug and
ez-prints make the transaction a bit safer than say the average joe walking
into the shop with the same digital file?

In film days, I guess possesion of the negative was good enough proof of
ownership?

Ian

[Baldy]

Yes, but we see a lot of people try to print copyrighted images that they uploladed to their galleries. It's a very tough thing to police.

For example, we received this pleasant letter from a law firm:

We are writing to you on behalf of our client, the Indianapolis Colts Inc, with respect to your use of our client's trademarks on images on (partial list of galleries of Colts fans who had taken shots at their games).

Our client owns numerous registered marks, including both "Colts" (list of marks) and the horseshoe logo. Your prominent use of those marks by posting, or permitting (smugmug customers) to post, photographs apparently taken during Colts games (blah blah blah) constitute trademark infringement.

In addition, both 'Colts' and the horsehow logo constitute famous marks and the structure of your website provides ample basis for false association claims under Sec. 43(a) and (c) of Lanham Act. Our client has not licensed your use of their marks.

Moreover, we have a good faith belief that your use of the images of Colts employees, players, and representatives is not authorized by any of them, by the Colts, its agents, or the law.

Unless you cease and desist, by no later than the close of business on Friday, March 26, 2004, from infringing upon our client's trademarks and falsely holding yourself out as being associated with our client, you will leave us no alternative but to explore the legal and equitable remedies available to our client.

If you or your counsel have any questions or comments with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Daniel C. Emerson
Bose, McKinney & Evans LLP
(317) 684-5126
demerson4@comcast.net
DEmerson@boselaw.com

---------------------------------------------------

To keep the Colts from suing their fans and us, we had to write our customers and tell them to become fans of some other team or at least stop taking pictures of the games — and themselves with players and showing them to people.

[asd]

Yes, but we see a lot of people try to print copyrighted images that they uploladed to their galleries. It's a very tough thing to police.

For example, we received this pleasant letter from a law firm:

..snipped lawyerese..
---------------------------------------------------

To keep the Colts from suing their fans and us, we had to write our customers and tell them to become fans of some other team or at least stop taking pictures of the games — and themselves with players and showing them to people.
WOW, what jerks.

[luckyrwe]

If the Colts wrote me a letter like that I'd replace the horseshoe logo with another bit of material having to do with a horse's bodily function, and then hav a cut and paste party.

[ian408]

The thing about this sort of letter is that it causes two things to happen.
Everyone drops what they're doing to respond (and responses mean
finding/taking 'action'/search for more/check again) and some kind of legal
review. And while everyone's focused on dealing with this, nothing else gets
done.

In the end, it's my opinion that the lawyers and FedEx are the only winners
in this game. The lawyers for writing the letters and FedEx for delivering them :D

Ian

P.S. It's the person posting the image that should be getting the letter but the
perception is that smugmug have more money--hence they get the letter.

[flyingpylon]

It's unfortunate that everyone is copyright and lawsuit-happy these days. It's interesting that Baldy used the Indianapolis Colts as an example since I live just outside of Indy. I don't get to many Colts games but I do go to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway a lot. If you read the fine print on their tickets, you'll see that you have practically no rights to reproduce anything you might see, hear, smell, taste or touch. I would imagine that similar language appears on the Colts tickets.

I can understand their perspective when it comes to using the photos for high-dollar commercial purposes, but the problem is that it gets in the way of people doing simple things like sharing experiences and documenting history.

Also, the relationship between photographer and Smugmug is such that Smugmug probably should get a letter in addition to the photographer getting one. I don't think it's just because Smugmug has more money, it's because the sale of the print occurs between Smugmug and the customer, not between the customer and the photographer.

[mercphoto]

All this, especially the bit about the Colts (from my hometown), just reaffirms my belief that we, as a society, are constantly putting the wrong people in charge of and responsible for the behaviors of others. Don't blame the person who is too irresponsible to stop drinking, blame the bartender. Obviously its his fault that someone else drinks too much. Don't blame the customer who is trying to break copyright law, blame the photo lab. Don't blame the person trying to steal music, blame the internet service provider.

Personal responsibility is gone from this country. We blame everyone except those who are actually doing the bad behavior.

[ian408]

FP, the purpose of the letter is to make the behavior stop. The reference to
money is not just dollars but "more to lose" as well. I'm sure that the choice
between removing an image and possibly losing your business (or suffering a
severe setback) is an easy one.

Just my $2.

Ian

[Khaos]

All this, especially the bit about the Colts (from my hometown), just reaffirms my belief that we, as a society, are constantly putting the wrong people in charge of and responsible for the behaviors of others. Don't blame the person who is too irresponsible to stop drinking, blame the bartender. Obviously its his fault that someone else drinks too much. Don't blame the customer who is trying to break copyright law, blame the photo lab. Don't blame the person trying to steal music, blame the internet service provider.

Personal responsibility is gone from this country. We blame everyone except those who are actually doing the bad behavior.
Quit stealing my thoughts. Now I have to start wearing an aluminum foil helmet.:D

I couldn't agree with you more.

[luckyrwe]

I have the rigfht to take pictures. If you don't want your copyrighted mark in my picture, then don't put it on your jersey or show it in public!