Difference between this and everything else: I have a legal option...
I can write the photographer and request permission to "put a permanent backup of this photo on file just in case something happens to the printed copy" - once they say yes (they always do) then I can put it on my computer and print it off all I like.
You really need to get a copyright release. But even with out one there really is no way to enforce copyright with all the billions of images out there.
Exactly - there should be legal options which people shoudl be encouraged to follow in order to gain more control of the copyright . . and that which they have purchased.
and there's no way to enforce copyrights with all the billions of images out there . . . which isi why I feel it's a waste of time.
Yep it is a waste of time any many photographers have closed up shop.
Point taken.
Is not the tangible product the song itself. Which is generally copywrited
It is the song itself that the artist created, and uses to make money
GM produces a car and makes multiple copies of it to make money, it is illegal for Ford to copy the design of a GM car and produce it. GM lost no tangible object but what Ford did is illegal and it would be punished for it
As such making copies of a song, and giving it out to other people is infringing on the artists rights to that song.
In my opinion
Making copies for personal use is fine, making copies to distribute to potentially thousands of other people is in effect theft
Yet I don't think copyright issues are really *the* reason.
This is likely because more and more people can take their own *very* professional looking photos - something I've been doing for years. It's a fraction of the cost and my backdrops are much more surreal (like the Grand Canyon and the Pacific Ocean)
Reprints are the bread and butter of the portrait biz.
Yeah that has had an effect too.
Fallacy, then, of the business - it's unsustainable.
Instead of embracing advances in technology and marketing on it to survive with it - they tried to exist with it and that just doesn't work when a technology which outdates your abilities becomes more affordable.
People breaking copyright laws is a fallacy of the business? Hmm I guess stealing is okay then too.
I can't justify spending money on something that I have no clue as to, whether or not, I will like it.
If I like the movie I'll buy it, if not, they didn't earn my money.
You don't own a book's content even if you've bought it :shrug:
If you *lose* a book - like - it gets blown into the water at a lake - you have to go and buy another copy :shrug:
When you buy something you buy *that one* of it - there - that one is yours. . . a book, someone's art - all these things are still under copyright laws. :shrug:
Your issue isn't with that, then, because a variety of things fall under that - and these other things don't seem to bother you.
Your issue is with the companies - stuffing the prices and charging too much. (I agree here)
Your issue is with the government - getting involved more and more. (I agree here)
Your issue is with the copyright laws as they exist now - which defined how much is *yours* and how much still belongs to another person. (I agree here)
The only thing we're not agree on is what is acceptable for you or me to do in response to these three issues.
Like I said before - I think the government needs to tend to the kitchen where it has bigger fish to fry. . . I think that focusing on this is stupid and won't do anything. . . but I understand why they're going for it - even though it's a waste of time and there's no point.
The only thing I have strong issues with is when the photographer comes to my children's school - takes pictures of my children - prints them off off and sends them home - and then charges me an arm and a leg for pictures of my children and then claims copyright over those photos. . . which makes it illegal for me to make my own personal copies even if I buy 1 or 10.
Difference between this and everything else: I have a legal option...
I can write the photographer and request permission to "put a permanent backup of this photo on file just in case something happens to the printed copy" - once they say yes (they always do) then I can put it on my computer and print it off all I like.
So - I think options like this should be available to all other copyrighted items. . . I feel you should be able to make copies of something you purchase - sure - as long as you don't intend on selling it and as long as you've legally purchased the original.
Whats' wrong with that? Don't know - but some people have a serious issue with that proposal (like the companies, for one)
I think you're doing a lot of self-justification right now, frankly. Just because you can view/hear/enjoy the entire content of digital/electronic entertainment without paying for that pleasure, doesn't mean you should.
Is this the way you operate in the real world, too?
Tell me this, when you go to a restaurant and order something that tastes good but isn't quite as yummy as you believed it would be, do you refuse to pay?
When you go to the movies, and the film is ok, but not quite as exciting and entertaining as you believed it would be, do you demand a refund?
BTW, I don't have a dog in this race. I'm not into owning a digital media library; I don't own an ipod or any similar device. If I want to watch a movie, I either rent it or buy the DVD; I've never DL'd a movie for free or made a copy of a friend's. If an artist I like has released a new album, I buy it; I've never DL'd a song/album or made a copy of a friend's.
This is a simple moral issue for me. In life, I makes my bets and takes my chances. Sometimes I win and sometimes I lose. That's just how life works and there are no guarantees. I just don't believe in taking what isn't mine or that which I haven't paid for (well, except for dumpster diving! HA!). And if I'm not completely and irrevocably 100% thrilled with my purchases, I live with it. It's just not in me to insist that my complete and total satisfaction must be met before I'll pay for anything (digital or not), nor to refuse to pay for it after I've used it.
:shrug:
That's wrong, they snapped a picture, your kid did all the work.
They shouldn't be able to claim control over your child's image, their image is their property.
You have the option of not giving a crap about their so called IP and copy the pictures as you wish, you paid for them.
Actually it is a two street. The photographer is not allowed to publish the image for profit nor or the parents allowed to reproduce the image.
It's their kids though.
.Not to piss on all photographers but school pictures are hardly "art" and the image is that of their child
That is why IP law is crazy dumb.
Difference between this and everything else: I have a legal option...
I can write the photographer and request permission to "put a permanent backup of this photo on file just in case something happens to the printed copy" - once they say yes (they always do) then I can put it on my computer and print it off all I like.
maybe they can have metallica sue 12 year old girls again.
… I think you should question the moral reasoning behind the movie cartel and why they resist allowing you to own you property how you want it. …
So, it is photographers equipment.
No kidding, and it is crappy job to do as well.
W/O copyright people will not being doing the gig
I think you should question your own moral reasoning which allows you to negate centuries old copyright law.
You may think your victims are the movie houses, the music labels, the video game producers, but the real victims are your law abiding neighbors either through higher prices or greater inconveniences.
Thanks, Harry Guerrilla.
Where, oh where, will we find a person with a camera and set of crappy backgrounds with neon lasers flying around.....
A rare breed I'm sure.
Believe it or not the crap sells not everyone is interested in Irving Penn, Robert Mapplethorp, or Sally Mann's sophisticated abilities in visualization.
Gawd I hate those babies in the flower pots images. But hey it can pay the bills.
Don't get me wrong, I like the work I have seen you do and I think you should own it.
Just not as long as the law allows.
People like you though are the ones that get caught in the crossfire, most of my beef is with the MPAA and DRM.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?