Legalities of Printing Photographs

[jayne_cavallaro]

<p>I am a photographer, and I have a large format printer (the largest inkjet available) that I got for my own needs, and decided to offer the service to other photographers, to print their photographs on canvas or photo paper to virtually any size.<br /> <br /> Who is responsible for verifying copyright? Who is liable in the case of copyright infringement? Me as the one who printed the photo, or the person who advised me that they either owned the image or had a release?<br /> <br /> If someone says they own the copyright because they took the photo, is there any way to verify that? If not, who is liable if that turns out to be incorrect (either by misinformation or misrepresentation)? <br /> <br /> I've checked various sites online that print photos professionally, and the only indication I see is that their "Order" page has a checkbox saying something to the effect that the customer either owns the copyright or has a copyright release to reprint the photos. I do not see anything mentioning that they have to provide said release or proof of ownership.<br /> <br /> What about if I'm requested by someone other than the photographer to print their photos, do I need to have a release on file before printing? Or does the responsibility fall on the buyer to make sure they have the release in their possession?<br /> <br /> Thank you!<br /> ~Jayne</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>You, the owner of the printer would be the person a lawyer would go after for printing a un-authorized print of a copyrighted photo. To be safe, you should ask the client (who is paying you to print the image....) to have a signed copy of the release form giving the OK to make the print or x-number copies of the print. You would need to keep a file copy for your records. [i've seen in the local box store, people take the release form and sign it as the copyright holder -- on studio images. And once in awhile, the box store gets sued.]</p>

<p> </p>

[monika_epsefass]

<p>Sorry for asking, but in my understanding of legal issues I as a client have every right to have any photo printed for my own pleasure, and unless I plan to exhibit or sell a picture, nobody should even bother about whether I have the copyrights.<br>

Is this manner of asking for copyrights something common in the US, or does law really differ so much that it prohibits me to print someone else's pictures if I want to hang them on my kitchen wall? Just asking, as I hold an account with Zenfolio, where you can order my prints, and I wonder whether clients from the US would have to tick an option like that...</p>

[john_macpherson]

<blockquote>

<p>Monika</p>

<p>and unless I plan to exhibit or sell a picture, nobody should even bother about whether I have the copyrights.<br /> Is this manner of asking for copyrights something common in the US, or does law really differ so much that it prohibits me to print someone else's pictures if I want to hang them on my kitchen wall?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>'Unless I plan to exhibit...a picture" and "if I want to hang them on my kitchen wall" are the same thing.</p>

<p>You are using copyrighted material for personal 'gain' without the authors permission.</p>

 

[andy_wager1]

<blockquote>

<p>I as a client have every right to have any photo printed for my own pleasure,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong.<br>

This is from the UK copyright act, The US and most other countries are the same/similar</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—<br /><br />(a)to copy the work (see section 17);<br /><br />(b)to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);<br /><br />[F1(ba)to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);]<br /><br />©to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);<br /><br />[F2(d)to communicate the work to the public (see section 20);]<br /><br />(e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So making a copy of the work (printing it) is an infringement whether or not that is for commercial purposes or "public" display.</p>

<p>To the OP. YOU as the person printing the work are responsible to ensure that or take reasonable steps to ensure that the person has the right to have the image printed.<br>

This can be as simple as having them sign a form that they own the copyright of the image.</p>

 

[monika_epsefass]

<p>OK. Just wondering, as I've never seen a clause like that with printing companies here.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Claims against printers are rare but have happened. The cost effective response has been to require more proof of ownership or licensing when the photos appear to be professionally made. While there may be some loss of business from good photographers who can't or don't want to comply with those requirements, the odds of infringing are much less because those are the images more likely to be owned by someone else. Also, any infringement that occurs is less likely to be found as intentional. Others, due to other practicalities, require just some representation of ownership for similar the effect of the latter. There's more to it but this is an abridged version.</p>

<p>Some print labs require proof of ownership/licensing for images where they are very certain were taken by other pros not only for their own concerns but as a courtesy and out of respect for photographers in general.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>If the printer is concerned about frivolous retribution for practicing a legitimate business model, they'll include fine print on the order form stating that copyright verification is the customer's responsibility.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>If the printer is concerned about frivolous retribution for practicing a legitimate business model, they'll include fine print on the order form stating that copyright verification is the customer's responsibility.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If they are worried about non frivolous actions for not taking precautions where they should know its needed, they will do more than that.</p>

[scott_norville]

<p>"Good faith" goes a long way. Simply, as other printers do, require a signature stating the client is owner of the copyright or has permission. This would display your due diligence to any court, and passes the buck back to the person it should go to. And how would they get to you if they didn't already know about the client?</p>

<p>I'm not a lawyer, and most lawyers shouldn't be lawyers. I'm simply an advocate for common sense. Rules that don't make sense encourage people to break rule that do.</p>

[jayne_cavallaro]

<p>Thanks, everyone! I appreciate all the input, as it helps me to know what avenues I need to seriously research.<br>

(Sorry for the delay in my response, was not my intention to post and disappear; I got sick, then had to prepare for a hurricane that didn't end up anywhere near us, and had to choose between falling behind in work or going to forums <img title="Big Grin" src="http://nikonites.com/images/smilies/biggrin.png" border="0" alt="" width="16" height="16" />, and am just now able to get to respond!)<br /> <br /> ~Jayne</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>You, the owner of the printer would be the person a lawyer would go after for printing a un-authorized print of a copyrighted photo.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a photo minilab in my local superstore (as there are in many). They have a sign on view stating that it is the customer's responsibility to ensure that they have a right to get the pictures printed.<br>

<br />I believe that it is not the minilab/printer's responsibility as they are just a third party contracted to produce the prints. </p>