help after scan old photos-how/where to print?
kfred
thru the years, etc., for use with a photo album online such as the Iomega
photo album program and scrapbooking. I have a flatbed scanner, scan to
floppy disk and then use the Iomega or PhotoDeluxe for editing to save files
to disk. Online images are no problem.
Now, I would like to print some of these, but I have a Canon injet 4100.
Considering the cost of photo paper and inks, plus my (not) state of art
printer, I'm thinking I'd like to use my scanned prints on floppy to have
selectively printed....somewhere.
But where? For example I have 7 'proof' prints of my children taken almost
15 years ago, studio in another state, if he even exists anymore. That's
the sort of thing. Another example would be Ward's package photos of when
they were babies, etc. So, if I scan, where can I get some of these printed
for family members/scrapbooks I'm creating?
I tried to take advantage of a coupon special at Walgreen's with the
reproductions, but when I tried to do two of a long-ago proof, the cashier
told me I couldn't copy those, even after I explained my dilemma about even
trying to locate the original studio.
Can anyone help me sort through this? It all started trying to organize old
stuff and create some online fun for those family members with 'puters, and
some prints for memories for those without 'puters. In over my head now...
Kate
MEN
I am a book publisher and I have never understood the copyright protection
afforded commercial photogs. When I ghost write or publish a book for
someone, it's work for hire and I don't hold the copyright. When I pay a
photog for photos, it's also work for hire and why the law allows them some
special status is beyond me.
When I prepare a strategic plan for a company, it's work for hire and I
don't own the copyright. When I prepare artwork for an advertiser, it's
work for hire and I don't own the artwork. Why does the photographer who is
charging $2500/day "own" his photos. That's just not right for the rest of
us.
Anyway,
If they were my photos, I'd use photoshop (or whatever program) and remove
the studio names from the prints and then it's happy copying at Walgreens or
wherever. In fact, maybe you should clean up your images and use
walmart.com and even get a good deal.
Obviously this is a 25 year sore point with me......
"kfred" <kxx...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:u294oip...@corp.supernews.com...
Ian Burley
shots (Pentax 6x7 - superb quality) offered us the copyright for a nominal
sum (I think from memory it was around £50 or about US$70). So I now have
the negatives and the proofs and I can do what I like with them. It might be
worth enquiring about buying the copyright in other cases.
Ian
Digital Photography Now
www.dp-now.com
"MEN" <menelso...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B0V7.764$zr7.22...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Bob Hatch
> I don't want to walk into a firestorm, but,
You just did.
>
> I am a book publisher and I have never understood the copyright protection
> afforded commercial photogs. When I ghost write or publish a book for
> someone, it's work for hire and I don't hold the copyright. When I pay a
> photog for photos, it's also work for hire and why the law allows them
some
> special status is beyond me.
If you are a book publisher and you could only print one copy of the book,
and then sell it to me, and I can make all the copies I want and give them
away, how long will you stay in business. If you look at all book on the
shelf in the library, you will indeed see that they all have a copyright
notice.
As a ghost writer you are in a different category than an author like
Stephen King. I dare you to go out and make a whole bunch of copies of his
books and sell, or give them away and get caught at it. You will indeed find
out that his copyright is valid and not beyond that of the photographer.
>
> When I prepare a strategic plan for a company, it's work for hire and I
> don't own the copyright. When I prepare artwork for an advertiser, it's
> work for hire and I don't own the artwork.
Again, different. You in fact do own the artwork until you release it to the
person who hired you. Unless you give them exclusive rights to the product
you can sell it over and over.
>Why does the photographer who is
> charging $2500/day "own" his photos. That's just not right for the rest
of
> us.
Lets see. The guy said he had "proofs" of his kids, from a photographer in
another town. I'll bet he paid more like $50.00 or less for the session, not
$2500.00.
>
> Anyway,
>
> If they were my photos, I'd use photoshop (or whatever program) and remove
> the studio names from the prints and then it's happy copying at Walgreens
or
> wherever. In fact, maybe you should clean up your images and use
> walmart.com and even get a good deal.
So, being a thief would not bother you and advising others to be a thief
would not bother you. With your attitude on this subject my guess is that
"borrowing" software for your computer, or copying friends music CDs is OK
in your mind as well.
--
bobh...@go.com is a throw away email address
I do not check for messages there and do not
respond to messages sent.
kay
those images, your more restricted by the agreement you signed when you
contracted for the pics. Make a good faith search to locate the studio, and
if they no longer have the negs or are out of business and no successor can
be located, consider the images to be in the public domain. I'm sure you
can find someone with a scanner who can get the proof out.
"kfred" <kxx...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:u294oip...@corp.supernews.com...
Bob Hatch
news:Jw5V7.81032$Wd.23...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> The portraits arent copyrighted if the studio never filed for protection
on
> those images, your more restricted by the agreement you signed when you
> contracted for the pics. Make a good faith search to locate the studio,
and
> if they no longer have the negs or are out of business and no successor
can
> be located, consider the images to be in the public domain. I'm sure you
> can find someone with a scanner who can get the proof out.
>
Wrong Kay. The images are protected by copyright law from the second the
shutter release was pushed. The only thing that filing for protection will
do is allow for larger penalties. From the PPA Copyright information page:
Copyright is a property right. Under the Federal Copyright Act of 1976
(effective January 1, 1978 and amended when the USA joined the Berne
Convention in 1989), photographs are protected by copyright from the moment
of creation. Assisting members; educating the public; and acting to protect
the rights of photographers in the industry, government and legal forums are
top priorities for PPA.
If you copy proofs, or professional images for any reason, by any means
without the express permission of the person who created the image you are
stealing.
Check here for a little more information.
http://www.ppa.com/public/articles/index.cfm?cat=75
P Bingham
cant locate each other who's going to know or care?
"Bob Hatch" <bobh...@go.com> wrote in message
news:a03d11$j04df$1...@ID-85448.news.dfncis.de...
Bob Hatch
> You sound like an ambulance chasing lawyer, if the studio and the customer
> cant locate each other who's going to know or care?
>
If that is true then you are correct, however advising people that "The
portraits arent copyrighted if the studio never filed for protection on
those images," as Kay did is wrong.
If you know where the studio is and who the photographer is and you copy his
or her work without permission and without compensation you are a thief. You
are taking their income and means of support and are no better than a
burglar, shoplifter, or forger.
kfred
contact photographer. Montgomery Wards is long out of business, but even
so, they had a contractor come in and do the photo specials they were
renowned for. The other studio is now defunct, at least under the name I
have. I understand the importance of people getting paid, and credit for
their work. Just seems quite unreasonable for a consumer, who has paid for
the work, having to go thru all of this after so many years. There perhaps
should be a time limit or statute of limitations of some sort. I paid good
value for these items-probably far more than it was actually worth. When
your children are small, sentimentality plays big time and I found I always
ordered tons more than I ever used.
I appreciate the help and apologize for the touchy subject. I didn't
realize that, of course.
Kate
"P Bingham" <tea...@whs.com> wrote in message
news:hgfV7.81252$Wd.23...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
David C. Ramey
takes the photo, even if it is not registered. Registration provides for
more damages in a lawsuit. The rest of what you say is correct.
David C. Ramey
David Ramey Photography
kay <k...@kay.com> wrote in message
news:Jw5V7.81032$Wd.23...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
David C. Ramey
Since you made a good effort to find and locate the photographer, then I
would go ahead and make a copy and get it printed. There is a finite life
to copyright but that is 50 years after death of the photographer. If the
photographer or his heirs can not be located, I do not know if it would be
public domain or not. But most studios I know of, throws away the negs
after 2 to 5 years anyway and it is common for them to give permission to
copy after the negs are destroyed.
David C. Ramey
David Ramey Photography
kfred <kxx...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:u2bln2...@corp.supernews.com...