Copyright law and photographs. Pitch in if you know a thing or two about them.

[Baitball Blogger]

Last edited Sat Dec 21, 2013, 11:34 AM - Edit history (1)

In October my husband and I were on a trip where I took a picture which I thought had commercial value. At the least, I plan to use it for a blog background. In early November I took it to a photo lab which I thought was top of the line. It's been an institution for as long as I've lived in Central Florida. My intent was to blow the photo up to poster size and give it to my husband for Christmas.

I paid $50.00 for the enlargement and I thought that was acceptable because the photo's colors came out better than expected. There were brilliant yellows, greens and a burgundy red. I remember the red because that's the matting color we selected. Well, when the picture frame guy put all the prices (frame, double matting) together I realized that I couldn't afford to purchase the finished framed product (additional for the glass) from that store. Instead of giving up, the frame guy insisted that he could do better for me and said that there was a frame back home he could use where he might be able to give me a better price. I asked him if I should take the photo home with me and he got possessive of it and said, "no!" I told him I was alright with that because it was a gift for my husband and it made sense that it was safer out of the house to keep from ruining the surprise--and maybe I could find more money to pay for the more expensive glass.

Well, a lot happened from November through December to keep me too busy or too sick to drive down to find out what happened to the photo. I finally called around the 18th of December. To make a long story short, the frame guy did shit-all nothing. The frame that he had in mind arrived damaged. Later he would say that it was actually a frame he had in his garage.

When I went to pick up my photo the thing that surprised me was that it didn't look at all like the photo I remembered. Something was very off about the picture and I told him that. He brought the processing guy over and I told him that the first photo I saw was just out of this world, but that the picture I was picking up was all off, but I couldn't put my finger on why.

They insisted it was the same picture.

So I went to another store to get it framed and found the exact same burgundy matting and put it up against the picture and I realized what was off. The reds were gone, and because the reds were gone the main feature in the photo looks dark, and without detail.

So I can't help thinking that the frame guy took a spectacularly processed picture and switched it with a poor reproduction that could have been scanned and reprinted. It would have been close to the original, but subtle differences would have cropped up. (God, there are so many machines that can do that--especially in a photo processing lab.)

To cut to the chase, I called the store back and told the frame guy that I intended to use the photo for commercial purposes. I hoped that this would have sent the message that there were copyright issues that were concerning me. The print guy is reprinting the photo based on a print I emailed to him. He claimed he only had a copy of the photo that he had doctored up with filters.

At a minimum, what I think happened to my original photo was that the frame guy had some spare framing that he put together to sell a finished picture to a client. Frames alone can run up to $600 so he could have picked up some nice spending money with little effort.

I intend to follow up with a letter to the owner of the place just to lay the foundation down, in case I see the photo again in someone's stock file, somewhere down the road.

Which also reminds me, does anyone know how to google images to see if there is something already on the net?

[mockmonkey]

1. This link explains how to google images

http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/images/searchbyimage.html

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Thanks.

[IrishAyes]

2. Sorry to hear about that. Stinks.

I have no doubt you were ripped off.

As recently as a few years ago, copyright law allowed non-commercial 'fair use' of an image, meaning a private citizen could make a single copy for his own domestic use. But I don't know if matters have changed lately or not. One thing for sure, it never did permit outright theft of an original as appears happened in your case.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. I had paid for the photo so it would have been theft.

That's a good point.

[IrishAyes]

5. It would've been theft regardless if they concealed what you left with them.

Daycare centers, however, need to watch out because copyright laws have never allowed them to play recorded media in the course of their business, because they're taking $ from clients. It gets done all the time, of course, but lawsuits have been brought against people who got ratted out by an angry client.

[martalcd]

6. I agree with the others here...

If you took the photo, it's yours and anyone else using it is theft. I can't count the number of my grave-site images I've found other people posting on Find-A-Grave, which originally came from my website. I just had to contact FAG a month or two ago, when I found a bunch of my photos posted by a Rose Mary Brown as if they were her own. I'd discovered the theft when a relative emailed me about the photo on my site, and I decided to search FAG to see if there were others out there for this person. There is no way I can police all the photos on our site.

I'd hire a lawyer, if you can afford it. Independent photo labs are struggling today, and this guy might have seen a chance to make a lot of money from your work. Omaha barely has one or two photo labs left, since most of them have gone out of business in this digital camera era. I haven't taken a photo anywhere to get it enlarged or copied, but if I do I'll remember to put a watermark on it in a lower corner, or across the back. They can still steal it, but at least you have a better footing for a lawsuit.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. Thanks for the information.

Everything will help with the next step. I'm still waiting for a call from the developing guy, because I talked to him a few hours ago and I feel like he's preparing for some push-back on the reprint, probably because of the back load before X-mas.

I don't think they'll like where I'm going next with this if I don't at least get a reprint, because all I can do after the reprint is document what happened in a letter to protect myself in case the other picture surfaces sometime in the future.

[Auggie]

7. I've found photos using tineye.com (reverse image search)

You'll need to upload an image in order for it to work. It's easy to use and works great.

[Baitball Blogger]

9. Thanks. I'll look at that next.

[Auggie]

10. About copyrights

you own that image and all files/negatives.

NO ONE has the right to duplicate it, alter it, post it, use it, or sell it WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

I've been purchasing commerical art for over 30 years.

[Baitball Blogger]

11. I can imagine the temptation when you're working in a digital lab.

All those files on the hard drive. But I think my mistake was leaving a great print in the frame department.

BTW, when I upload the frame for the search, the program doesn't keep a copy of the print, right?

[Auggie]

12. Don't know

Sorry

[martalcd]

13. Upload a very low quality copy of the photo...

that way, at least you're not uploading an original. Also, if you can, put a watermark on the bottom of the photo, or even just your name and the date.

[jmowreader]

14. How did you provide this image to the lab?

Did you supply the original whatever-was-in-the-camera - either a film negative or the original digital file? Or did you carry a print in and tell them to blow it up and make it 'just like this'?

I'm thinking about this...big enlargements are made on inkjet printers today. If the frame guy would have wanted to sell your print to a framing customer, he wouldn't have had to go to all the trouble and expense of the process you described; he'd just go to the computer where your picture is and hit "print." There is a really long list of things that can go wrong when enlarging from a print...cheap-ass scanner errors, profile mismatches, photoshopping it to death...

[Baitball Blogger]

15. I don't think the problem was the processor.

I think the problem happened in the custom framing department.