Explaining copyright to customers, no wonder they don't get it!

[socialgiraffe]

Drew, you accused me of being a keyboard warrior and then expect me to be nice, get real.

And now we see why you are so bent on spreading false information, you are a photographer so its in your interest to spread incorrect advice. My comment about Disney is not to impress, those that know me on this site know what brands I work for so I have no need to inflate my already rather large ego (LOL!!!), I mentioned Disney because they are one of the most aggressive companies when it comes to protecting their brand. The will issue cease and desist notices even if they think the company in question is marginal. They could be considered bullies, but then it is one of the most protected and respected brands in the world.

As you are a photographer then I would expect your information to be biased, what I do not expect is for you to not read what I have put and then try and twist it to your own (not so hidden) agenda.

Lastly, what is inferred when you say "people like me", what have I done except given advice based on real experience based on my professional career?

If you want to get into a discussion about ethics or morals then fine, lets go. However if you want to talk law you need to concede that a printing service does not impede copyright by printing an image that is not owned by them, or the individual that is requesting the print (assuming the print service does now know its copied). That is the LAW, Tesco shop keeper advice or not...

[socialgiraffe]

The shop assistant then probably presumed that the copyright of these images remained with the photographer

PROBABLY and PRESUMED are not legal terms and is why, in your scenario, the shopkeeper was wrong. Perhaps they got lucky and the images were under copyright, but it is not the job of the printing service to police copyright. This is something you do not seem to grasp.

the shop contacts the copyright holder (photographer)

100% Impractical

If you're someone who only cares about the money in the till, then you'll copy them. There will always be people like this.

No, you are implying that the print service is doing something wrong, they are not. Again, its part of your hidden agenda

[GoonerGary]

"Copyright protects your work and stops others from using it without your permission."

"copying your work
distributing copies of it, whether free of charge or for sale
renting or lending copies of your work
performing, showing or playing your work in public
making an adaptation of your work
putting it on the internet"

https://www.gov.uk/copyright/overview

The law is very clear social.

[socialgiraffe]

The law is very clear social.

The law is very clear, but what you have quoted bears no relevance mate.

If you offer a PRINTING SERVICE and state that the purchaser must conform to Copyright law then it is down to the purchaser to make sure they have the correct permission and not the person who is actually doing the print. This thread is not actually about copyright, its about who should be the person responsible for obtaining copyright.

If you think it is the print company then that is wrong, it is actually the person who is paying for that service, regardless of what they will ultimately be using the copied item for.

Trust me, I currently work on both sides of the fence with this. I print official merchandise for some very large music clients and I also have a D2C website for a consumer product. I know the law on copyright and if you offer a print service you can print anything, as long as you make it clear that the purchaser assumes copyright permission.

I CAN NOT advertise a Chelsea mug for sale
I CAN print one for GoonerGary who pops in an pays me £15.99 as long as I have either told him (or advertised somewhere) that Copyright is his responsibility.

Where it gets really dirty is that I could post YOUR mug on my Facebook site saying look what we have printed for Gary (generally speaking that is).... Personally I think that takes it too far.

Why a Gooner would want a Chelsea mug is beyond me though

[Andrew]

"Copyright protects your work and stops others from using it without your permission."

"copying your work
distributing copies of it, whether free of charge or for sale
renting or lending copies of your work
performing, showing or playing your work in public
making an adaptation of your work
putting it on the internet"

https://www.gov.uk/copyright/overview

The law is very clear social.

Not sure if you have read through the posts but the link doesn't clarify who would be in the wrong on what is being discussed. I, like Social have been led to believe that the onus is not on the printer if someone confirms they have the right to print an image. It's not the legal postition for the printer to decide who can and can't print something. It is the person requesting the print where the onus lies on whether they can or can't have an image printed. This now seems to be a tested scenario.

[GoonerGary]

The eBay and Amazon cases of not being liable aren't exactly reliable cases. I've read a few court cases where copyright owners tried to directly blame Amazon etc of infringement but judges ruled in favour of Amazon/ ebay. However once informed of the infringement and in Amazon's case, presented with further evidence, they were bound to remove infringements, they wouldn't be able to carry on offering a service to sell infringing material.

You can't assume that indirect infringement is a waiver. If I haven't given my permission, you can't print it, distribute it, or put it on the internet as that overview stated, you are earning money from my work.

I doubt there is anything in the detailed law to say that a printing service is exempt from infringement as something like that would have to be tested in a court case IMHO. The original Napster and PirateBay all got shut down for distributing/ offering a service to obtain infringing material. My mate got done for playing music without a licence/ permission...he was playing the radio in his shop. These are examples where you cannot say I'm exempt because I'm only offering a service.

[socialgiraffe]

Your first paragraph supports my point. They were only bound to remove the infringement once it was established there was one by the actual seller. Amazon were not in trouble, they were just asked to remove it. And as stated, there is no assumption if you ask the purchaser.

Let me give you an example....

I set up a company this afternoon called One Direction Official Merchandising Limited cost for that and a domain £50
I then contact Andrew and ask him to print 5000 mugs for me
Andrew does not know me from Adam and I will be on Pro Forma
He prints them and I pay

I then start knocking them out down the local Sunday market and get caught

You are saying Andrew is at fault, he is not.

I realise that it is an emotive subject, particularly for photographers, and like I say, if you want a discussion on ethics or morals then fine. But this is a conversation about the legal aspect, if you have asked the customer or stated that copyright permission is assumed then you are not doing anything wrong. If you subsequently find out that there is a copyright infringement but you continue to print then you are breaking the law.

Both Napster and Piratebay were caught by the film industry though (with huge financial backing from the rest). Every single film clearly states no copyiing/distribution etc etc and that wee technical point is where they got caught. That is a really basic overview....

[Andrew]

Gooner - copywrite covers all sorts of people at all levels. How could any printer therefore know what artwork they are using and whether the person requesting the print has the right to do so. We can all assume the Chelsea design is not theirs but when they pull some other design that looks like a 4 year old has drawn it, how can then someone be sure that they have the right to print that? Basically, a printer would only ever be safe printing only what they have created themselves. That is supposedly the actual legal position and it made sense after it was explained to me.

[arthur.daley]

just a small question

Why would a professional tog supply their copyright images on a memory stick (with or without the togs branding all over the stick) to a client if not for the client to print/use as they wish. If they were images for approval they ought to be suitably watermarked or screen resolution at best.


Arthur

[GoonerGary]

Andrew, the printer needs permission especially if it looks like a commercial/ professional image. Joe blogs walking in with their holiday snaps have no commercial value, that's where you draw the line.

This copy shop was sued for $ 1.9 million for printing and selling infringing material without the owner's permission, they have since tightened up what they can print as long as they have written permission.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-22/ ... ermissions

Andrew (sorry to drag you into this) printing off thousands of counterfeit mugs will get his factory raided and shut down just like any other counterfeit factory. I, as the One Direction official photographer didn't give any of you written permission to reproduce the image. Which one of you actually has written permission or a licence? I'll sue both of you if you don't pay up! You can sue each other afterwards and fight over some made up waiver you both signed...I don't care.

Here is another example where a frame shop earned money from someone's art without permission. The other example was a TV company who displayed a painting without permission which goes back to the overview I linked to earlier. You don't need a sticker on a CD to say you can't copy it, copyright is automatic and the law is already in place on what you can and can't do.

The bottom line is that nobody can earn money from my professional images without paying their dues or receiving my permission. I feel like Pauly from Goodfellas!
http://www.artbusiness.com/reprosuit.html