watermarked photo was still printed at lab help

<p>I am a new photography business owner. I don't know all the laws about copyrights. I will explain my situation and any advice would be much appreciated.<br /> I went to a photo lab at my local super center and I had a couple of my photos printed for personal use in my home. I sent them online and picked up and payed for them in the store. As I was looking at the photos later I noticed that I forgot to remove my photography business watermark across the bottom right side of the print. This means the photo lab printed and sold a copyrite photo to me with out a print release form. They never asked me for one and I never clicked any box saying they were my photos when I sent them online. Just wondering if I should contact a lawyer about copyright laws. In this situation I purchased the photo with the watermark, But this makes me wonder if anyone can go on my Facebook and download my watermarked photos and this photo lab will print and sell them? I want to contact a lawyer but my husband says that since we own the rights to the photo it doesn't matter. The photo lab doesn't know I own the rights to the photo and they sold me a clearly marked professional print. Any advice?</p>

<p><img src="http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h210/shanderelly/390320_2532559868325_1083366754_32267005_1639798955_n.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p>

<p>Odds are no human even looked at that photo before or after it was printed. Yes anyone in the world can download your pics and print them at most online labs or in the privacy of their own home/office or workplace. If you don't want them used or misused, don't post them online.<br>

I'd guess there are thousands of "pro" photographers around the world that have their photos printed via online labs.</p>

<p>Are your copyrights registered? go to http://www.copyright.gov if you live in the US to learn all you need about the laws in the US.</p>

 

Your husband is right, the lab did no wrong since you own

the copyright. Even if they just got lucky. Not sure what

lab you used but I know my lab always checked for

copyrights. But yes, it happens a lot now-a-days.

<p><em>"This means the photo lab printed and sold a copyrite photo to me with out a print release form."</em> - your interpretation here could be wrong.</p>

<p>You as the copyright owner of the phot, just asked them to print it.<br>

They sold to you their print service without taking any ownership of your photo.<br>

You would certainly do not want to send print release to places where you print.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I too concurr that chances are no human ever came into any kind of contact with your photos - that tends to be the case with consumer-level labs which offer web-enabled print services (professional labs are an entirely different story).</p>

<p>And yes, anyone and everyone in the world can download and print your images at will, ESPECIALLY from Facebook - hell, even Facebook can use them, even after you downloaded them, for their own purposes. And chances are no lab will ever think twice about printing them - and even if one does, the client can just as easily go to the one next door and get them printed.</p>

<p>I'm in England so it might be a bit different where you are, however, minilabs here usually have a sign something like this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Orders for reproduction of photographs etc., are accepted on the strict understanding that the customer holds the copyright. The customer must assume liability for any resulting action brought about by a third party.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this case, there was no infringement anyway as the images were yours.</p>

<p>Everything you need to know about copyright is here: <a href="http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/photos-of-copyrighted-works-do-you-need.html">http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/photos-of-copyrighted-works-do-you-need.html</a></p>

<p>No point wasting your money on a lawyer.</p>

<p>1. Get a REAL lab!</p>

<p>2. Grow a "set" and put your copyright through the middle of everything that goes on line, instead of over to the side. This image is still "good enough" for Grandma, so they don't have to buy it from you!</p>

<p>3. What you have in the photo above is advertising for your business, NOT a copyright! The word "Copyright" is nowhere to be seen! Not even a capital letter "C" with the year following it!</p>

<p>4. Your Husband is right! No harm, no foul! So NO case!</p>

<p>Your photo wasn't visible when I commented earlier, David is right, that is not a copyright mark it is advertising for what looks like an unincorporated business. Is your trading name registered?</p>

 

<p>Welcome to the world of trying to figure out "what if" in regards to a color lab copying (or not copying) photographs.</p>

<p>I, in person, have seen some folks fill out the copyright release form stating that they did have the written release (and they were not the photographer) and continue making-buying reprints. The store keeps the release (worthless....) on file should a studio appear and get into legal issues.</p>

<p>Before going to your lawyer, are you registering each and every image you take with the US Copyright Office? If not, your chances of getting any large amount of settlement are just about worth the sheet of paper you will be taking up your issue with when you ask the store manager what is going on.....</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want to contact a lawyer but my husband says that since we own the rights to the photo it doesn't matter. The photo lab doesn't know I own the rights to the photo and they sold me a clearly marked professional print. Any advice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Get a life.</p>

<p>OK, that's a bit harsh but, seriously, its an overexposed average appearing picture with a huge flare messing it up. Its like countless others they encounter and its questionable that the watermark was ever noticed or even seen. There was no infringement at all in this instance. Even if you merely pointed out the situation to whover in charge, they may ask you why the heck you are complaining since you brought it there and didn't say anything. Seeing a lawyer for this is ridiculous. Trust me, they don't want to be bothered by you over something like this.</p>

<p>A bit harsh? Yes, but also the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. What do I want for Christmas? Less victims! Everyone in America seems to see themselves as victims these days; good for lawyers but bad for society.</p>

<p>Did you put the copyright info in the metadata? You picture does not say anything about a copyright. You should have © your name, year, all rights reserved in your watermark.</p>

<p>I think that the lab DID make a mistake. The picture is better than your average snapshot. Furthermore, it has the name of what any reasonable person would assume was the name of a professional photographer's business. Whether you business is incorporated or not is irrelevant. They should have asked for a release or at least a statement by you that you are the copyright owner. They had no way of knowing that you are the copyright owner.</p>

<p>One time, a couple of years ago, my wife and I went on a cruise, along with my brother, sister and their spouses. Since we don't all get together often, we had the ship's photographer take a group photo of the six of us. For some reason, I didn't buy a print, but my brother did. A few months later, I had him scan the photo and email me the jpeg, which I uploaded to be printed at Costco. I got a call from them, saying that this looked like the work of a pro and asking if I had a release. In this case, I did. Carnival Cruise Lines will readily give you a release to have prints made after the cruise. In fact, they have the PDF file on their website.</p>

<p>My point is that Costco saw that it appeared to be a copyrighted work and asked for a release. I've heard that Walmart is very strict about this, as well. I don't believe that a printer is automatically free of liability for copyright infringement. That's why they ask for a release.</p>

<p>Some labs will ask; some won't. You, as the copyright owner, can't depend on labs taking any steps to protect your rights. Once someone downloads your image, they can get it printed. If one lab won't do it, ten others will. Or, they can print it themselves, if they have a decent inkjet printer.</p>

<p>Watermarks help, but someone skilled with photoshop can probably remove it. Only uploading low-resolution prints that are highly compressed jpegs will make it difficult for someone to print it at anything larger than 4 x 6, but it can also make the image look bad when viewed online.</p>

<p>In short, the web is a wonderful place for getting your work noticed. Unfortunately, it is also a wonderful place for pirates. I read a story of someone who uploaded a picture of her and her family to Facebook or one of the picture sharing sites. A few months later, a friend was travelling in Europe and saw the picture, blown up to poster size, being used to advertise some small shop in Poland (I think).</p>

<p>The ease of downloading pictures should also make parents hesitate before uploading pictures of their small children to sites like Facebook. There have also been stories of parents finding (innocent) pictures of their six year old daughters on pedophile sites. While the pictures were not lewd, just the thought of people like that leering at my daughter (if I had one) would give me the creeps.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> The picture is better than your average snapshot. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see how. As John says, poorly exposed and terrible flare. It's also soft.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>They should have asked for a release or at least a statement by you that you are the copyright owner. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it looked like a professional shot, maybe, if they saw it. I upload photos and have them printed at labs where I can see what they do. Nobody is looking at it. If they looked at each one, the price would go up, which would make customers unhappy enough that their competitors would benefit.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Watermarks help</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking as someone who shoots professionally, I never watermark photos that are sold. People don't pay for a photo with a watermark. The OP here implies that this was not a photo lifted off the web. BTW, some systems flag low res photos and that may trigger more observation.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the web is a wonderful place for getting your work noticed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What did this have to do with the web?</p>

Maybe the lab needs a lawyer and some protection against copyright fanatics.

<p>Was the lab wrong, yes, did you suffer any loss no, it's your image.<br>

If it was your image printed for someone else you still would need to register the image to have any chance of a lawyer showing interest in the case. Without punitive damages there is no money worth them showing interest.<br>

In short, I would focus on real problems that occur.</p>

<p>The most disturbing thing about this whole terrible incident is that you appear not to know your left hand from your right.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As I was looking at the photos later I noticed that I forgot to remove my photography business watermark across the bottom right side of the print.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>The picture is better than your average snapshot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps, but doesn't appear to be the kind of professionally created image which is often a customary trigger for many labs to make further inquiry. This isn't meant to dump on the image per se, its nice and all. Its just not likey to stand out among other images as professional work. As to the logo, it is easily missed, even if seen, since it blends in with the washed out portions. Especially, when viewed small which could have been the case if the image were seen.</p>

<p>If there is ongoing concern, a freindly chat with the lab management may be suitable. </p>

<p>If you want to get picky about US and other countries copyright laws, every OOF, off colour, over/under exposed, blurry snap shot is governed by the same copyright laws. So uploading grannie's snaps for printing is the same copyright violation unless you have written permission. No watermark or copyright info in the exif data required.<br>

I'd also guess that buried in the terms of use for most online printing sites is a blanket declaration that the user has a legal right to print any image they upload.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A company logo does not establish a copyright claim.</p>

<p>How is it the lab's responsibility ?</p>

<p>You made a mistake not removing your watermark.<br>

The lab don't know what that watermark is or means. What's to say you didn't want them to print it ?<br>

All they do is print images. They can't reasonably be expected to research every image that has some arbitrary watermark on it to find out if it's legal for the person who submitted them to print them. It's a print lab, not a detective bureau.</p>

<p>It's your job to ensure you have the right to print the images. The lab is entitled to assume you do. Even if this is not explicitly stated on their terms and conditions no reasonable court would impose the burden on the lab.</p>

<p>There is, by the way, no copyright mark on the image you showed us. Not being the copyright holder does not preclude you from printing an image quite legally, neither does a watermark. You really need to learn some copyright law for photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Had a look at both Kodak's gallery and Snapfish's TOS. As a user you declare you have the rights to post the images for others to view and any other use you may allow, and you will save them harmless from any actions arising out of you not having the rights to post any image or other item on their website.<br>

So there is no harm done by the printing service, even if you had a valid copyright notice all over the front of your image, which is not required anyways.</p>

<p>Now by posting in on Photobucket and linking to it from here, you have given everyone in the world the right to reproduce, use, print etc.</p>

<p>see: http://m.photobucket.com/terms</p>

<p>Maybe you might want to rethink posting any images on Photobucket.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Unless the image(s) are worth lots of money and you filed with the copyright office, it probably is not worth the aggravation or energy. Personally, I generate my full value during the shooting process and anything I might make on a print is gravy. I embed my copyright in each image and that is probably sufficient to stop someone from using the image, but without filing, I will never be able to collect damages.<br>

Life is too short. </p>

<p>Actually copyright law (and court cases/prosecutions) imposed the burden on labs, etc., to make a reasonable effort to determine if the image presented for printing, copying, etc., is done so with permission. Professionals and concerned amateurs do apply watermarks to protect their images and should expect professional labs, copy services, etc., to make an effort to determine that the images is presented with permission of the copyright holder.<br>

While it seems there is no real legal issue here as the owner of the copyrighted image is the one who requested the copy, there should be some concern that the copier/printer didn't react to the watermark.</p>

<p>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/doingMore/copyright.shtml</p>

<p>Nice set of guide lines from 19990101, but it is written in a manner of referring only to <strong>"professional"</strong> hardcopy prints submitted for copying, not digital imaging services. The flowchart about determining if it is ok to copy is not even close to the intent of the current US copyright law, being totally based on appearance of the image and it possibly being marked to indicate it is "professional" in origin.<br>

Overall a rather self serving document. My 5x7 and up prints are watermarked courtesy of Kodak's preprinted markings on the back of their cut sheet paper, but 4x6 machine prints of the same negatives don't qualify, nice.</p>

<p> </p>