Scribe of Souls wrote:
I was just wondering how people obtained Stacey Bradford's or AOL's permission to copy his article and distribute it online?  Isn't that intellectual property (if you could call the stupid article he wrote supporting copyright infringement intellectual) safegaurded under similar copright laws.  Two wrongs don't make a right, but in todays sophisticated electronic immediate gratification world it is unfortunately a fact of life.  If we don't want to be eaten, chewed up, and spit out we will adapt to the new "ways of doing business" in our modern society.  If you feel the need, protect your photos with electronic copyrights, change the ways you distribute photos, do whatever you deem resonable to protect your livelyhood.

Madcrow Studios wrote:
This is just lame. When people pay to have their picture taken, they really ought to be able to share it with relatives without being accused of copyright infringement. Is is technically infringement, yes. Is it worth getting bent out of shape over, no. People have paid for these photos and they should be able to share pictures of THEIR OWN FRIGGIN KIDS without getting thrown in jail or sued or something.

I understand your point, but AOL is basically telling people they are wasting money by BUYING photos that instead they should buy the MINIMUM and then scan/print all they want.

Let me ask you this...would AOL advocate that with the pending release of Windows Vista that you buy ONE copy and then install it on all your family member's computers?  How likely is Grandma gonna buy her own copy?  So Microsoft really isn't losing any money by you installing it for her.

We ALL know this DOES happen.  And I'm sure we all have various justifications for it too (though probably still illegal).  But to have AOL publish a story suggesting that that is what people SHOULD do?

bang bang photo wrote:
Well, the exact quote from the article suggests you should buy the cheapest package, instead of the next one up, which is nearly twice as much money in their example. So if every client of that studio followed this advice, their revenue would be cut in half. That's not minimal.

I disagree with your assertion that the studio makes all it's money long before they sell the prints. It's usually just the opposite with the school photography mills. Typically, they shoot for free. Whether or not you buy a package, little Johnny or Jill get shot. They make no money UNTIL you buy a package. The bottom line is -- the article tells people to buy fewer prints and then just scan the ones they buy. I don't see how that's not stealing.

Your argument is akin to suggesting that there's nothing wrong with stealing gum or other items less than say, a dollar from the corner store. I just don't see the justice in this argument.

Now from a practical point of view, I would agree with you that companies who depend on the age-old business model of giving away sittings and charging a lot for the prints are just asking for trouble -- technology is rendering that model obsolete and untenable. But that doesn't make it right to steal from the studio.

I am an officer in my son's school PTO. We co-ordinate the Photo Fundraiser. now it may be different elsewhere, but the Business model the studio uses with us is a one time fee to the photographer, then a small percentage per package ordered. the rest of the money from the packages goes to our PTO (the fund raising part)

But even still.
Assuming the other business model, it is not like the parent is going to spend the extra $25 for a step up in package just so she can send a Photo to Grandma.

I do not disagree that the concept is wrong.
I truly think you should pay for all the photos you intend to send out.
BUT, I also do not believe it crosses the threshhold of Copyright infringment that is tortable.

As for the Stealing gum reference, Slightly different animal.
More along the lines of using Budweiser's formula to home brew beer.

Theft without stealing versus theft of a product.
Bootlegging......

hallopino wrote:
So if they think it's ok to break copywrite laws on a small scale, then I must be able to asume that they are ok with people making copies of the AOL Time Warner movies and music for their friends and relatives.

Or copying the AOL Time Warner music for themselves on to their own computer and sending the original to grandma (as A Hamilton suggested)... I'm sure they'd be plenty happy with that too.

Z_Photo wrote:
i passed the link to the attorney I have mentioned here in the past.  she specializes in photography legal work.  she's already written to the author of the article.  she suggested the author do an article on copyright infingement.  said if there is no response she'll take more aggressive action.  i await seeing the result of that exchange.

Awesome!  Please keep us posted!

November 30, 2006

Dear PPA Member,

Did you hear the one about the reporter who advocated copyright infringement? And did you hear how PPA responded?

The saga started a few weeks ago when a story from SmartMoney.com advocated scanning photographs and sending them to relatives instead of buying additional prints. Worse yet, the story was featured on AOL’s news page.

But PPA members banded together. And who did the photographers contact to address this wrong and lead the fight? PPA.

PPA sprang into action by contacting the author and the SmartMoney.com editorial staff. When that did not produce the desired results, PPA then took their concerns straight to SmartMoney’s corporate attorneys.

At the same time, the PPA-operated forum, www.OurPPA.com, became the information hub for photographers who were pushing AOL and SmartMoney to remove the story. Photographers of all types shared information, sample letters, and updates on the situation.

As a result, AOL quickly removed the entire article from its website. And while SmartMoney.com’s editorial staff defiantly vowed to “stand by their story,” the online magazine made it impossible to find on their website or in their archives.

Removing the suggestion that consumers violate copyright is an important victory in the battle for photographer rights. It also spotlights one of the things that makes PPA unique: No other photography organization can claim the combination of professional staff and dedicated members that PPA possesses.

Because everyone involved lends a hand and bands together, PPA accomplishes things that others simply cannot do. As a result, our actions speak even louder than our words. And that is part of the value of PPA membership.

Many thanks to all the Members who helped spot and address this problem.

Sincerely,

Al Hopper

Director of Membership, Copyright and Government Affairs Professional Photographers of America

Madcrow Studios wrote:
This is just lame. When people pay to have their picture taken, they really ought to be able to share it with relatives without being accused of copyright infringement. Is is technically infringement, yes. Is it worth getting bent out of shape over, no. People have paid for these photos and they should be able to share pictures of THEIR OWN FRIGGIN KIDS without getting thrown in jail or sued or something.

I'm not sure how long you have been in the business of photograpy but more money is made on re-order than on the original sitting because your costs are lower since the product is already in existence.

Having someone copy that work reduces your profit not to mention disregards the time and work spent on making the original.

I take a dim view of someone copying my work without having paid for the ownership rights first. As should any working professional. Theft is theft no matter what color paint you put on it.

PPRO Analyst wrote:
There are too many people with too much free time on their hands.  I asked an IP attorney her opinion on this issue, which she was willing to provide since she is my sister. 

In her opinion the issue falls under "fair use."  The scanning of the photo has little or no effect "upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted photo." The party(s) making up 100% of the potential market have already purchased the photo in question. 

The second point being the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that copyright infrigment is not theft if the infriged materials were "not stolen, converted or taken by fraud." Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).

Hard to argue with an IP attorney and the SCOTUS, but that just goes to show how screwed up the legal system is - if I shoot a portrait session of you or your kid, the fee includes my time and a certain amount of prints (copies / reproductions of original) . If you then take a print that you already bought from me and make more copies, your are violating  my right to control the making of copies - copyright, reproduction rights, etc. You didnt purchase the "photo", only copies of it and should not be able to make additional copies of it without compensation to me. My "I'm not a lawyer opinion"

Michael Newbern wrote:
Stacy Bradford of SmartMoney.com wrote the article.  IT's also published on SmartMoney.com at http://www.smartmoney.com/top5/index.cfm?story=20061108 .  Here's the author's email -> [email protected]

Yeah I heard of that on smart money too... apparently they just moved it... shameless bastards...

Hey, maybe they should advocate pirating movies and music? It saves more money

DigitalCMH wrote:

I understand your point, but AOL is basically telling people they are wasting money by BUYING photos that instead they should buy the MINIMUM and then scan/print all they want.

Let me ask you this...would AOL advocate that with the pending release of Windows Vista that you buy ONE copy and then install it on all your family member's computers?  How likely is Grandma gonna buy her own copy?  So Microsoft really isn't losing any money by you installing it for her.

We ALL know this DOES happen.  And I'm sure we all have various justifications for it too (though probably still illegal).  But to have AOL publish a story suggesting that that is what people SHOULD do?

Ohhh... so what you're saying is that AOL and others don't have a right to voice and or print their opinion?  Whether its in regard to legal activity or not, eh, don't we have a right to express our opinion?  (and of course you do to)

AOL, expressing their opinion, doesn't make them "wrong".

((chuckle))

Sounds like you advocating democracy and freedoms as long as it fits what YOU want. 

http://www.pbase.com/teiladay/image/70336105

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
...
We think charging people to death for photos and prints is a rip off.  Our business model xnsfers full rights with the photo set.  Whether it be a simple portrait or an industrial shoot.
It doesn't surprise me that there is a growing trend for businesses and non profit groups to not hire photographers who don't transfer rights. As a photographer and business major... I feel that businesses are on the right track.

As a photographer, your opinion will probably differ.  But in the U.S., anyway, thats whats so wonderful, is that we can have varied opinions and still respect each other..

I feel that you don't have the high regard for intellectual property as the rest of us.
In my opinion, I also feel that photographic businesses such as yours that “transfer full rights” hurt our industry (Unless of course you charge extra for those rights which by the tone of your comments leads me to believe that you don’t).

I am unfamiliar with [most of] your views as well as your business model but if it is as I suspect, I hope that I do not compete with you commercially (Which, by viewing your work, doesn’t appear to be the case).

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
...
AOL, expressing their opinion, doesn't make them "wrong".

((chuckle))

Sounds like you advocating democracy and freedoms as long as it fits what YOU want. 
…

I have no problem with people who drive 1 or 5 miles over the speed limit. I do however have a problem with large influential corporations telling people to drive ANY speed over the speed limit.
I personally think it falls within fair use when a mother to e-mail a photo to grandma without buying any electronic rights to the image, but I will not propagate its act.

The argument here is over large corporations telling people that copyright infringement (No matter how slight) is acceptable, which it is not.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

Ohhh... so what you're saying is that AOL and others don't have a right to voice and or print their opinion?  Whether its in regard to legal activity or not, eh, don't we have a right to express our opinion?  (and of course you do to)

AOL, expressing their opinion, doesn't make them "wrong".

((chuckle))

Sounds like you advocating democracy and freedoms as long as it fits what YOU want. 

http://www.pbase.com/teiladay/image/70336105

Freedom of speech does give you the right to advocate breaking the law.  EVER!  In case you're curious, neither does freedom of the press.

Luminos wrote:
Six months ago I paid for my daughter's senior pictures.  The package included a CD of the pictures "for sharing with relatives or on the family web site."

It appears most of the school photo companies do this now.

It is a simple recognition of the truth of the marketplace.  If you can't stop it, charge for it up front and then it is a non-issue (as you have at lease seen some profit from it.)

I used the files the company provided to create a photomontage of all of the poses, then printed it and framed it.

It is inevitable that photographers will have to charge a fair hourly or flat rate and then give the customer unlimited usage rights of the images.

Disclaimer: At the present time I don't make money from photography. My income-producing job pays me an hourly rate, and my clients have unlimited usage of what I produce for them.

FKVPhotoGraphics wrote:
Having someone copy that work reduces your profit not to mention disregards the time and work spent on making the original.

This could be viewed as "loss leader" selling: Get the public in with a low price, with the hopes that they'll buy high profit items as well. A good example is a movie theatre in which most profit is made from concessions, not ticket sales.

The solution, as others have also said, is to charge for the costs up front. It is understood that the public would have to be 're-educated" to accept this.

rp_photo wrote:
It is inevitable that photographers will have to charge a fair hourly or flat rate and then give the customer unlimited usage rights of the images.

Disclaimer: At the present time I don't make money from photography. My income-producing job pays me an hourly rate, and my clients have unlimited usage of what I produce for them.

…Only if they’re employees of the company that they’re producing images for.
...Or if every [professional] photographer suddenly adopts a stupid business model where they limit their own profit and only try to get by instead of becoming successful.

So does your disclaimer mean that because your employer currently takes possession of the work you produce for them you feel that this should afflict everyone in the photographic industry/community?