# Illegally copying from proofs - Poll result



## wildmaven (Nov 11, 2007)

The recent "watermark" thread got me wondering how the general public feels about seeing a copyright on a portrait proof site. I'm a member of a general forum, and I posted my question there, including a poll. Below, you'll see my question, and some of the answers. 95% said they would print it out themselves!

*Post by wildmaven on Jan 24, 1970, 3:27am*
*So, you go and get your picture taken for a "sitting fee" and the photographer presents you with a website containing your images so you can decide which ones you want to order. You take a look at the site and notice that the quality is good enough to print them out nicely at a 4"x5" size. There's a watermark in the bottom corner, easy to crop out on any home computer, as it doesn't cover anything major in the photo. Would you print out the images yourself? *

*Re: So, you go and get your picture taken...*


Yes, I would, I see no harm in that. It's not like It would hurt him if I printed a copy out to put it in an album, would it?
Well if the photographer did not do a full photo watermark then it is his mistake . I believe watermarks are placed to prevent the photo from being altered or used without the consent of the photographer . But I think for personal use it would not be illegal ( I may be wrong ) but I'm assuming it is like graphics , If it is watermarked or has a registration mark then you can use it as long as you do not alter it in any way . 
My dad used to do the same sort of thing with my school photos years ago, i dont think its that wrong 
One reason was because it was my cousin's senior pictures, and they could only afford the $200.00 package (Wich was not enough copies for immediate family, let alone friends and such!) I figured that we paid the photographer $200.00 + sitting fees to have pictures taken. I found one of their Non Seinor year flyers, and a simular package was only $75.00. So they were taking advantage of the fact that the school was sending everyone to them.
Here's how I look at it. Places that offer to take your picture should not own your face. It's your face, not theirs. Yes, they took the time and energy to take the picture, but to say that YOUR face is THIERS to copyright... well, I would punch them in THEIR face and say "copyright that, you losers" and then run away.
Seeing as how I've not gotten my picture taken by a studio in quite a long time, if I were to go in I would print off my picture in any size I could manage. I'd edit out any watermark and go from there. My face, my property, my will to do with as I want.
That places have the nerve to say that they own a picture of my face is wrong. 
But they do not own your face, they own that exact photo that they took. And you are susposed to go to them whenever you want more copies. (That is how they make money) However with high end digital cameras becomming more and more affordable, this is becoming less and less common. Many people are taking their own pictures. My aunt recently got a Digital Rebel camera. And she took my picture the other day, and it was soo good that it could have been taken at a professional studio.
yeah I would, I mean WATERMARK IT BETTER NEXT TIME LOL!
Sure, its ok...as long as they don't find out, right? 
If I had a photographer take a photo of me and for me, he or she would not watermark it. It's mine as I paid for the product and not just snapping the shot. 
My thoughts exactly! So, yeah, i'd print out the images myself though i'd be peeved about the watermark and having to act like a criminal.


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 11, 2007)

it is sad, but this is what I would have expected.


----------



## ilyfel (Nov 11, 2007)

GAYYY!! Nice thread tho. I offer to sell them a cd most of the time so they can print as many pics as they want, but make them sign that they won't claim it as their own. If they don't sign then I keep their money and their cd. Sucks for them. May be their face but I took it with MY property and its MY cd.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 11, 2007)

Three things that bother me if I am reading Marian's original post correctly.

1) The lack of respect people have of others work (not just photography, in general, period)

2) 1970

3) and the worst: 03:27 am


----------



## JIP (Nov 11, 2007)

kundalini said:


> Three things that bother me if I am reading Marian's original post correctly.
> 
> 1) The lack of respect people have of others work (not just photography, in general, period)
> 
> ...


 
That part is kind of funnybut the rest is disturbing.  As a former Ritz employee I know the amount of people in th general public either don't know or just don't care about photographers copywrights.  I can't even count the number of people who would come in and want to scan their professional portrits and just not understand why I would not copy them.


----------



## ilyfel (Nov 11, 2007)

JIP said:


> That part is kind of funnybut the rest is disturbing.  As a former Ritz employee I know the amount of people in th general public either don't know or just don't care about photographers copywrights.  I can't even count the number of people who would come in and want to scan their professional portrits and *just not understand why I would not copy them*.



Good for you! and I'm serious. I've had to deal w/ those type of ppl. It just pisses me off.



But one time I wanted to blow up a baby pic of me as a kid for a party. And it was a 20 year old pic. The biz is out of biz now and they *still* wouldn't copy it for me. I think there should be *some* exceptions to things.


----------



## jemmy (Nov 11, 2007)

I've been jipped in the past by friends! and now my clients come to me to view and order from their proofs.  No proofs leave the premesis - this makes any copying impossible x works well


----------



## kundalini (Nov 11, 2007)

JIP said:


> That part is kind of funnybut the rest is disturbing. As a former Ritz employee I know the amount of people in th general public either don't know or just don't care about photographers copywrights. I can't even count the number of people who would come in and want to scan their professional portrits and just not understand why I would not copy them.


 
I was having a laugh with 2) & 3), but was dead serious with 1).  The lack of respect the general public has for the amount of work and due diligence afforded by artist, craftmen, professionals and all the remaining unnamed trades-people (and laborers) is appalling. We (Americans) have become so accustomed to such a disposible society that it inevidably has leaked into the actual value of effort required by those that use manual practices to produce an item of beauty and craftsmanship.  Allbeit, for photographers to use digitial technologies to produce the final result, no one in this forum can argure that a great deal of manual labor is still required to get the customer what they want, and exceed expectations in a vast majority of situations.

And to add#*</@`ugh#@^%:...............sorry, I stepped off my soapbox.  Hopefully, point is made.


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 11, 2007)

OMG, I never noticed that date and time, LOL! I'll report it as a bug on that forum! 



kundalini said:


> I was having a laugh with 2) & 3), but was dead serious with 1). The lack of respect the general public has for the amount of work and due diligence afforded by artist, craftmen, professionals and all the remaining unnamed trades-people (and laborers) is appalling.


 
I was selling my prints at an art/craft fair and one of the other vendors came up to me with one of my greeting cards in her hand. She mentioned that she was buying it so that she could use the image on some of her crafts. I told her that I'd rather she didn't, as it was copyrighted by me. "Oh..." she said, "did YOU make it?" :er:


----------



## JIP (Nov 11, 2007)

ilyfel said:


> Good for you! and I'm serious. I've had to deal w/ those type of ppl. It just pisses me off.
> 
> 
> 
> But one time I wanted to blow up a baby pic of me as a kid for a party. And it was a 20 year old pic. The biz is out of biz now and they *still* wouldn't copy it for me. I think there should be *some* exceptions to things.


Well at the time I was a Ritz employee/wedding photographer so I was one of the few who understood.  But.... there are exceptions one being an age limit and the other being that you can prove the studio is out of business.  The former (age) would not work for you but the latter should have but you do need proof I would not be too upset at the dilligence of the person who denied you though it might have been your pocket someone was trying to take money from (not saying that was what _you_ were trying to do).


----------



## ilyfel (Nov 11, 2007)

they told me it was out of business... idk.. I'd love to get more of that pic.. but cant


----------



## dvduval (Nov 12, 2007)

I think you just have to use a watermark these days. You have to assume people may not play fair (or if even realize it).


----------



## phakimata (Nov 12, 2007)

I always charge a fee for a session that includes 2 or 3 prints and a CD with all their images, that they can print if they like. I always mention that my prints are superior to the prints they can make at the local store. The reason for the 2/3 included prints is that they can see the difference in quality when they order their own, most customers will return and ask for a few more prints.


----------



## ilyfel (Nov 12, 2007)

What equip do you need to print them yourself?


----------



## craig (Nov 12, 2007)

Yeah. Those replies are gnarly. Is the forum amateurswhohavenoclue.com. As photographers we have to educate the client on acceptable use of the images. Communication is the key.

Could you be more specific about a proof site. I mean if it is flckr or whatever the work is basically public domain. 

Love & Bass


----------



## NathanJK (Nov 13, 2007)

And this is EXACTLY why I'm taking print proofs out of the equation and restructuring the pricing.  My highest end package is the only one that will have real deal 4x6 proofs.  Portrait sessions will now get spiral bound proof books with each proof being 2.67x2.67 or something like that.  It's frustrating to me because I really WANT to give the customer tangible goods that look great and not just pictures on a computer.  However, if its what I have to do to protect my work then so be it!  I'm also adding a print credit so that they are more inclined to let me have the images printed for them.


----------



## phakimata (Nov 13, 2007)

ilyfel said:


> What equip do you need to print them yourself?



I don't print my prints myself yet. I use Winkflash.com for all my prints as they give extreme quality. If I'd get a printer I'd go with either an Epson or Canon Pro printers.


----------



## NJMAN (Nov 13, 2007)

If you want a great printer for doing nice prints at home, I suggest the Epson Stylus R1800. Its a wide format printer that prints up to 13x19, and does a very pro job for the money. Its kinda pricey though at $550 and it sucks ink pretty fast. But its good for small print jobs if you dont want to have a pro lab do it.

This is only in reference to printing for your clients so that they can see what kind of quality can be produced from your work.


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 13, 2007)

I have the Epson 4800 and just love it!


----------



## droyz2000 (Nov 13, 2007)

Its funny because I work at a small studio and when people are picking out their pictures, with me sitting right there, they will say, "just pick one I can print a bunch more from home." Then I have to tell them that it is illegal to do that. Most of them act as if they did not know that it was illegal to copy that type of thing. I am sure that even after I tell them that they stil go home and make copies. It has gotten to the point where the photographer is better off just giving the files of the pictures and and not the prints. At least this way the photographer is not losing money by actually printing anything.


----------



## nossie (Nov 13, 2007)

droyz2000 said:


> Its funny because I work at a small studio and when people are picking out their pictures, with me sitting right there, they will say, "just pick one I can print a bunch more from home." Then I have to tell them that it is illegal to do that. Most of them act as if they did not know that it was illegal to copy that type of thing. I am sure that even after I tell them that they stil go home and make copies. It has gotten to the point where the photographer is better off just giving the files of the pictures and and not the prints. At least this way the photographer is not losing money by actually printing anything.


 
what about putting a note in with the photographs that you give out "a word on reprints..."?

Anyway I saw a guy in Boots Pharmacy in Dublin being refused his request to have his Wedding Album copied by the lady at the reception.  I didn't get the impression that she was much into photography although what does a photographer look like? (see this thread haha) she was just following orders I'm sure.


----------



## m1a1fan (Nov 13, 2007)

It's sad that people are so cheap that instead of just ordering a small print they would actually try to print a copy of the proof.

The photographer who did my wedding had a website that people could login to and look at proofs and order prints. He had a watermark right across the picture.

It certainly keeps people from printing pictures right off of the website but the biggest complaint (that I had to hear about) was the fact that people felt that they couldn't make a decision on an image because the watermark was right across people's faces in some of the proofs. The watermark was semi-transparent but it didn't help the pictures any. But it did force people to buy the prints.

He also had a copywright notice printed on the back of every picture that was sold including the proofs that we later received. I found out later that a friend tried to have one of the prints scanned at Ritz and they refused to scan it.

Another thing that you could not do was right click on the image and print or save it to your hard drive.

No, I didn't try it...he showed me in his studio.

My thoughts are if I was a self-employed full time (or part-time) photographer (wedding or otherwise) I'd do my best to protect my work and make sure I'm getting properly paid for the services that were provided but there is a fine line between keeping customers happy and protecting your work. Make it to difficult and customers are going to be ticked off. Make it to easy and people (not all) are going to steal.


----------



## wildmaven (Nov 13, 2007)

m1a1fan said:


> Another thing that you could not do was right click on the image and print or save it to your hard drive.


 
Yes, but you can still use the Print Screen function and then paste it into a graphics program.  People will always find a way around restrictions. What gets me is that people think they are entitled to do so. 

:er:


----------



## redpoint (Nov 13, 2007)

All right, all right... before you guys get all high and mighty about how the poor photographers of the world are getting ripped off by ignorant people.  I'm sure I can round up just as many customers who have been ripped off by photographers.

Case in point.  My brother's wedding photographer held their wedding album hostage and would not send it to them until they paid an additional $200 above what was agreed to, and it was already a month late from when it should have been delivered.  The album didn't have all the photos from the proofs they had picked out.  They also paid for the negatives and she had 'x' through bunch of the photos, so they couldn't even print the ones they had originally asked her for.


----------



## nossie (Nov 13, 2007)

wildmaven said:


> Yes, but you can still use the Print Screen function and then paste it into a graphics program.  People will always find a way around restrictions. What gets me is that people think they are entitled to do so.
> 
> :er:


Or just use another browser that that right click blocking script doesn't work on.  All of this sort of thing make me reluctant to post images here for criticism even.



redpoint said:


> I'm sure I can round up just as many customers who have been ripped off by photographers...


 
Hi Redpoint, welcome to the forum. 
It's not for me to tell you what to post but... that's not what we're talking about in this thread.  Lots of space for a new thread though


----------



## MACollum (Nov 13, 2007)

I think that many people really aren't aware what copyright laws entail regarding photographs. I also think that some people really believe that THEY own any picture of themselves. However, I'm appalled at the attitude of some people who seem to be aware and blatantly admit that they would steal the picture anyway. 

While including some sort of insert about the basics of copyrights with packages would help educate some people (it sounds like a good idea), others would be undeterred. It also might not hurt to have them sign something to the effect that they understand that the photog owns the image. At least if a dispute ensued, they wouldn't be let off easy because they claimed they didn't know (as I'm sure they would if they got caught).

I applaud workers at labs who refuse to print obviously stolen images!


----------



## ilyfel (Nov 13, 2007)

People do it all the time. No matter how much we cry they are going to keep doing it.


----------



## JIP (Nov 13, 2007)

redpoint said:


> All right, all right... before you guys get all high and mighty about how the poor photographers of the world are getting ripped off by ignorant people. I'm sure I can round up just as many customers who have been ripped off by photographers.
> 
> Case in point. My brother's wedding photographer held their wedding album hostage and would not send it to them until they paid an additional $200 above what was agreed to, and it was already a month late from when it should have been delivered. The album didn't have all the photos from the proofs they had picked out. They also paid for the negatives and she had 'x' through bunch of the photos, so they couldn't even print the ones they had originally asked her for.


Um... I am going to leave that one alone but I would expect flames for that statement here.  It might have gotten by in the original forum the poll was posted but I would be surprised if it gets by here.  You cannot judge photographers by the idiot that shot for your brother though no matter how much you don't like your photographer though copying images is stealing.  And by the way I imagine there are 2 sides to that story.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 13, 2007)

JIP said:


> That part is kind of funnybut the rest is disturbing.  As a former Ritz employee I know the amount of people in th general public either don't know or just don't care about photographers copywrights.  I can't even count the number of people who would come in and want to scan their professional portrits and just not understand why I would not copy them.



What's funny is when I do headshots for people and I give them a copy-write release, and still some processors won't print the shots for them... they think the release is fake, even though it has my name, phone number, email, everything on it.


----------



## Rrr3319 (Nov 14, 2007)

i think a lot of the problem is that people don't understand (or maybe don't care) about the time and money that goes into getting their pictures.  i think there are a lot of people out there who see a photographer as someone who just shows up and hits a button and then BAM! pictures appear and it's over.  so they think it's a big rip-off when they have to pay for such "expensive" pictures.
i had a coworker at my last job who took her son to get pictures taken.  her mother-in-law paid for a small package, but she wanted more pictures. so all day at work she was trying to print off the studio's website.  finally she found one that she could right click on and just laughed and laughed that she had beaten the system.  she said she had the right because he was charging way too much for prints so she was getting ripped off.  again, i think she figures that he just walked in hit a button a few times and now wants to be paid for doing nothing.  i have a theory that everyone should have to work one day in some other jobs so they can understand them.  if you saw what it was like doing road construction, you'd slow down when you drove by.  if you knew what working at a busy restaurant was like, you'd be more patient.  and if you knew what it was like to make a living as a photographer, you'd pay for your prints.  that's my feeling anyway.


----------



## redpoint (Nov 15, 2007)

JIP said:


> Um... I am going to leave that one alone but I would expect flames for that statement here.  It might have gotten by in the original forum the poll was posted but I would be surprised if it gets by here.  You cannot judge photographers by the idiot that shot for your brother though no matter how much you don't like your photographer though copying images is stealing.  And by the way I imagine there are 2 sides to that story.


Go ahead and flame away.  I never said I condoned stealing.  It might have been my first post, but I've been reading these forums for a while, and I've been around photography long enough to see this topic come up time after time.  To me it's like listening to the music/movie industry whine... ok, maybe not that bad.  I just don't understand the business model a lot of people use.  It's time to adapt to the technology and what's available to the consumers.  Stop whining about it all the time.  No matter how much technology changes, one truth will always remain.  People will always steal.  I'm not saying it's right, but it happens... You might be a great photographer but if your business model, personality, etc stink it doesn't matter... if your customers like you and your work, they will support you, refer you to their friends, etc.


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 15, 2007)

redpoint said:


> To me it's like listening to the music/movie industry whine... ok, maybe not that bad.



While theft is theft in principle, I still feel more sympathy for the struggling wedding photographer who just about survives inbetween his investments and return of investments (often with a ridiculously low income per hour) ... than for a quite rich music and entertainment industry where lots of people earn much more money anyway.



> if your customers like you and your work, they will support you, refer you to their friends, etc.



wrong, those who steal, steal exactly the work they like! It is totally disconnected from the photographers personality.


----------



## redpoint (Nov 15, 2007)

Alex_B said:


> than for a quite rich music and entertainment industry where lots of people earn much more money anyway.


  I have couple of friends in the music industry.  Believe you me they are not rich.  I wonder how many photographers steal music.



Alex_B said:


> wrong, those who steal, steal exactly the work they like! It is totally disconnected from the photographers personality.


Ok, I never tried to make a living off my photography 100%.  So maybe I'm way off, but I never worried about people copying the proofs or running off and making their own prints.  They knew they would get the extra attention and personal touch by getting the package through me because majority of my customers were from referrals.  If they needed couple extra prints, I provided them at almost cost.  

My approach was that my pricing was for the service not the photo.  I didn't act like I owned the rights to their life.  Ok, I took the photos, but it's your memories!  Do you want me to take photos, bind it nicely, framed, and presentable or do you want to go to the convenience store and get sub-par prints and then frame it yourself?  I found that most people it was about the convenience and willing to pay for the service.  Seriously majority of the people rather have someone else with the skills to do it rather than run around themselves.  

Is it really about being cheap?  Some people spend more time and effort on circumventing the copyright protection rather than just buying it.  Is it really about the money or is it something else?  If people didn't get the sense that they were able to beat the system or getting screwed by the system, would they really go to that level of effort?

Remember people are coming to you because they seek a level of skill they don't have and willing to pay for.  They hire you to document their life and what's your response?  I own it, it's mine, I have copyright on your memory.  Is that all you do, push a button with some skill?  Do you provide a level of service that's convenient or better than what they can do themselves?  I don't think it's as much about people stealing copyright material as the approach people are taking.  

Movie industry fought bitterly against the VHS citing how easy it would be for people to steal movies.  It was one of their most profitable mediums.  Sure people made copies, but the companies made tons of money!


----------



## BlackDog's (Nov 16, 2007)

I think the biggest problem is the lack of knowledge the public has on copyright laws as they pertain to photographs.  A lot of people simply dont know its wrong to copy a picture taken by someone else without their permission.

I know the PPA (Professional Photographers of America) is trying to raise the publics awareness regarding copyright laws.  Any professional photographer can go to the PPA photographers registry website and sign up.  http://www.photographerregistry.com/  The thought behind this site is that if someone finds a photo they want to copy  it will be easier to search and find the photographer who took the photo and get permission.  Also, PPA does offer help to professionals regarding protecting copyrighted material.  http://www.ppa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=16


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 16, 2007)

redpoint said:


> I have couple of friends in the music industry.  Believe you me they are not rich.  I wonder how many photographers steal music.



OK, I sort of saw this reply coming, but then I tried not to complicate my post even further.

Of course you are right that in the music industry not every artist earns heaps of money. And if someone steals from those not richt, I bleed with them.



> Ok, I never tried to make a living off my photography 100%.  So maybe I'm way off,



OK, I'm not even good enough to sell images.
 So I was not speaking for myself here anyway. It is just that I know people who struggle, and for them every loss of income is a pain.

I agree, however, that there is also the other side to it, in particular what you said about memories.

If both sides stay sensitive and sensible  reasonable about it, things usually work out well. But what I do not like is this total unawareness of copyright issues.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 16, 2007)

I see this sooooo much. And no, the poll results didn't surprise me in the least.  The modern mindset is making this worse than ever before. And at least in the short term, I don't see this getting any better. There is legislation pending to loosen copyright laws here in the US to be more like the UN position on copyright. I don't have it at my fingertips, but I have received email notices from the PPA on the issue.


----------



## Sideburns (Nov 16, 2007)

Well...it's no surprise really...but I suppose photographer's business model and pricing schemes will have to adapt to the change.
ie - precharge for prints (like they do at high schools), or charge more per hour and just give them the digital files with rights to print....

Something will work out for us all...


----------



## astrostu (Nov 17, 2007)

Until about a year ago, I had the same mindset as most of the people polled.  Especially when it came to my high school senior photos:

The company basically had a monopoly at our school district.  They were hired for everything, and we were required to use them for everything (I'm guessing the school district had some sort of kick-back contract with them).  So I went to get my senior photos done, and for 30 minutes they charged $200.  Then, the cheapest package they had was $500 for the photos, though they sent one "free" one to the school for the yearbook.  Any small touch-ups were $10 a pop ... for 20 seconds in PhotoShop.

I thought it was a HUGE racket and so told my mom to just get the minimum package, my dad could scan the photos in, and we could re-print them if we needed.  We never ended up doing that, but that was my mentality.

Now-a-days, I still have something of the mentality that if the "evil photographers" have such a monopoly and over-charge people for things (since their regular fees were half that), then they "deserve" to be taken advantage of.  But on the other hand, now that I've actually sold a bit of stuff (just 3x), I would HATE to be taken advantage of like that.  However, I charged pretty much just 2x cost - $45 for three large prints and shipping - which I thought was extraordinarily reasonable.

Anyway, if you're following this stream-of-consciousness reasoning, I guess I'm still conflicted on my views here.  Yes, legally it is wrong.  But I think photographers need to adapt to the times, safe-guard their work appropriately, and ensure that their pricing isn't so unreasonable as to almost encourage people to try to illegally copy.  Even sitting down with the client for 2 minutes and explaining everything you do to actually make the finished product, including stuff like rent for your business, equipment, etc., I think would help.

As to the subject of, "I own my face, NOT the photographer," I also generally agree with that.  Which is why I think you also need to explain to the client - be it in a signed contract before the shoot or just verbally explaining it - that you're not saying you're copywriting their face, you're copywriting the photograph of the pose.  You are the artist who created the photograph, it just happened to be of their face, body, etc.  Photographers who shoot a cityscape own the photograph.  All because it's of a city doesn't mean that the city owns it and can claim rights to it.  Same goes with portraiture.

I hope you don't all flame me for this ...


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 18, 2007)

astrostu said:


> As to the subject of, "I own my face, NOT the photographer," I also generally agree with that.  Which is why I think you also need to explain to the client - be it in a signed contract before the shoot or just verbally explaining it - that you're not saying you're copywriting their face, you're copywriting the photograph of the pose.  You are the artist who created the photograph, it just happened to be of their face, body, etc.  Photographers who shoot a cityscape own the photograph.  All because it's of a city doesn't mean that the city owns it and can claim rights to it.  Same goes with portraiture.
> 
> I hope you don't all flame me for this ...



No, no flames, just that the whole "face is mine" concept is simply contrary to US law. At least for the moment. Explain to the client as you must, but duplication of © material is against the law. I fear that as we copy music and photos off the web with abandon, the laws will be as enforced as were the laws concerning CB radios. (ya, I know, I'm old and this is ancient history that most don't know/remember) CB radio operators were "supposed" to have a FCC ticket and use call signs when using a CD radio. They never did and the laws were never enforced. The FCC gave up on enforcement and changed the law. Copyright laws might soon follow that template as they aren't being enforced either.


----------



## astrostu (Nov 18, 2007)

jstuedle said:


> No, no flames, just that the whole "face is mine" concept is simply contrary to US law. At least for the moment. Explain to the client as you must, but duplication of © material is against the law.



I'm not saying that I don't realize that, I'm just saying that I don't think the client realizes you're not trying to claim copyright of their face.  It's a matter of semantics that lay people don't understand, and I think if the photographer were to explain it to them they'd be less inclined to get up in arms about it.

I know it's illegal, but I think consumer education would help a little.  I think I own my face and the rights to it.  But I understand that the photographer isn't ©ing my face, they're ©ing the "work of art" that my face happens to be in.  In high school I didn't understand the difference, and I'm willing to be that most people don't know the difference, either.


----------



## fido dog (Nov 18, 2007)

We have a saying............

"It's good enough for who it's for".

Many people just don't care. If it isn't going in a frame.....who cares? It's just for uncle Bob!

C'mon people......How many here download music to have on their computer to listen to? I do all the time, but don't use them for broadcast or share. It's the same thing. If not, then how many have copied a tape in the 80's or 90's? People can still enjoy an inferior product. Happens all the time. Remember when they tried to copy a car and ended up with the YUGO??

It doesn't matter if you have a big fat "PROOF" in pink across the front. People will copy and have since they could.

It's good enough for who it's for.


----------



## monkeykoder (Nov 21, 2007)

If you don't think it is worth it to pay a professional photographer you should get your portraits done at...  WAL-MART!  And on the music downloading issue I long ago realized that any band whose music I would let take up space on my hard drive was worth giving enough money to to buy a CD I just wish more of the money I spent would actually go to the artist.


----------

