Copyright And "Professional" Photographs
We had my in-laws over the weekend and went around town snapping some photos. My wife wanted to give her parents some photos of the visit. We were tight for time so instead of having prints made through the mail I went to a local photo lab. On the counter, I saw a brochure (a similar online version here) explaining the copyright policy.
The first section is standard:
In our continuing compliance effort with the Federal Copyright Law, Wal-Mart Photo Centers will not copy a photograph that is signed, stamped or otherwise identified by any photographer or studio unless we are presented with a signed Copyright Release from the photographer or studio.
They are just covering themselves to avoid being liable in a possible copyright violation.
The next section is where it gets more interesting:
In addition, we will not copy a photography that appears to have been taken by a professional photographer or studio, even if it is not marked with any sort of copyright, unless we are presented with a signed Copyright Release from the photographer or studio.
Copyrights are granted automatically and works do not require a stamp or other feature. Thus, even if photos are not professional-looking, the owner of the copyright still has the legal right to that work. And though the policy seems to recognize that (since they have to follow the law anyway), preference could be given to the snapshot photograph instead of the advanced amateur, for example.
Indeed, with very little money anyone with enough determination can make photos look much more professional. If I were to bring in a set of nicely lit family shots taken in my home "studio," built with used and cheap equipment from online auction sites, my photos would not bear any studio stamp or signature yet they might be considered "to have been taken by a professional photographer." (To be fair, professional photographers make their own prints or have them printed in professional labs, where the assumption is that the person doing the uploading has the right to those images).
To me, copyright law (along with the rest of IP, especially patents), flies in the face of modern technology and modern distribution channels. "Professional" quality video, still photography, digital animation and music, just to name a few--all these things can and are created at low cost. What used to require a team of hundreds to do, can now be done by a teenager.
This all is another way that IP harms its owner--good amateurs are presumed to be pirates.
Comments (14)
Silas Barta
This is different from the measures pawn shops take to make sure you're not fencing stolen goods because _____.
I guess property is evil because when you want to go pawn something they assume you're a thief.
I guess it's evil for them to refuse to buy something if it looks like you stole it.
Published: April 27, 2009 5:13 PM
Curt Howland
In a recent online argument about copyright, sadly removed from the site because it got into an actual argument ABOUT copyright, and not just on the topic of the article involved which was referring to the ENFORCEMENT of copyright, I and a couple of others realized that no one had ever presented a principled support for copyright itself.
The reason for copyright/patent in the US Constitution is entirely utilitarian in basis, a merchantilist assertion that creation is fostered with a monopoly grant to exploitation of that creation.
Yet the article under discussion was about the abuses to which enforcement of that monopoly has become commonplace. Specifically, the appointment of RIAA and MPAA insiders to the copyright enforcement arm of the Federal "Justice" department.
So if the "utilitarian" argument of the benefits is countered by the absurdities and abuses that the insane extensions of copyright and patent have led, what's left?
Has anyone heard of the idea that without copyright's limitations, an author somehow would retain ownership of their ideas in perpetuity, instead? I read someone assert this once, a long time ago, but have not seen it discussed since.
Published: April 27, 2009 5:16 PM
Silas Barta
In a recent online argument about property, sadly removed from the site because it got into an actual argument ABOUT property, and not just on the topic of the article involved which was referring to the ENFORCEMENT of property, I and a couple of others realized that no one had ever presented a principled support for property itself.
The reason for property in US law is entirely Lockean in basis, a 17th-century assertion that mixing labor with some object justifies a monopoly grant to exploitation of that object.
Yet the article under discussion was about the abuses to which enforcement of that monopoly has become commonplace. Specifically, the appointment of property-owning insiders to the property enforcement arm of the Federal "Justice" department.
So if the Lockean argument about the justice of owning something you've worked is countered by the absurdities and abuses that the insane applications of property have led, what's left?
Has anyone heard of the idea that without Locke's proviso, an author somehow would retain ownership of their property in perpetuity, instead? I read someone assert this once, a long time ago, but have not seen it discussed since.
Published: April 27, 2009 5:25 PM
Ron
Oh, lovely...once again we're treated to the patented (no doubt) "Silas Barta Mad Libs" method of argument. By substituting a few words it is possible to turn any argument on its head and fling it back upon its originator, thereby refuting it entirely.
For instance, I happen to think guacamole is wonderful stuff, but a few simple substitutions to a typical recipe will prove that guacamole is actually evil incarnate! Observe...
The normal recipe:
3 large, ripe avocados, peeled and smashed
1 medium red onion, diced
2 ripe plum tomatoes, cored and diced
1 tablespoon minced fresh cilantro leaves
1 clove garlic, minced
1 jalapeno, finely diced
2 teaspoons ground cumin
1 teaspoon chili powder
Salt and Pepper to taste
And the evil recipe:
3 large, ripe babies, peeled and smashed
1 medium kitten, diced
2 ripe puppies, cored and diced
1 tablespoon minced fluffy bunnies
1 U.S. Constitution, minced
1 American Flag, finely diced
2 teaspoons ground Lincoln's Ashes
1 teaspoon Giant Panda powder
Salt and Pepper to taste
You see...all that is necessary to refute a well thought-out guacamole recipe is to substitute a few of the key ingredients. We can now easily see that anyone who likes quacamole hates America, Liberty, and The Earth. Fight the guac, Silas!
Published: April 27, 2009 5:56 PM
jc butte
Silas, I'm having a Firesign Theatre moment...you know, as in "everything you know...is wrong."
So property exists in US law because of some Lockean construct? I had thought all these years that property exists because prior to the revolution it all belonged to the King and ceded it to the people, rather than the US government after the Treaty of Paris because they understood that All Rights derive from Property.
Silly me.
Published: April 27, 2009 6:02 PM
matskralc
1 U.S. Constitution, minced
I can find shredded ones pretty easily, but minced will be tough.
Published: April 27, 2009 6:34 PM
Silas Barta
@Ron & jc_butte: I think I hear a "whoosh" sound somewhere.
My point in the Mad Lib was to expose Curt_Howland's fallacies by presenting them in a context in which they'd be more obvious. Here his errors were:
1) Acting like one specific argument is the only relevant one that's ever been made for the other side.
2) Equating abuses of a principle with the invalidity of the principle.
And you can see them several times in his comment.
Cheers!
Published: April 27, 2009 7:15 PM
newson
if copying is theft of property, as silas maintains, how to justify "fair use"? is even minimal tolerance of theft not an abomination?
isn't there an argument to be made that small crimes unpunished encourage the commission of larger crimes?
Published: April 27, 2009 8:24 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Silas:
"I guess it's evil for them to refuse to buy something if it looks like you stole it."
It doesn't "look like" you pirated a picture, just because it's a good one. this is just print-shops afraid of legal consequences, trying to show that they are trying to abide by the law. The victims?--regular people.
"Has anyone heard of the idea that without Locke's proviso, an author somehow would retain ownership of their property in perpetuity, instead? I read someone assert this once, a long time ago, but have not seen it discussed since."
Of course not, because IP ownership doesn't flow from Locke's ideas in the first place. Jefferson explicitly recognized when copyright and patent were provided for in the Constitution that it is not a natural right, but merely a temporary civil right granted for utilitarian purposes.
Published: April 28, 2009 12:51 AM
Silas Barta
It doesn't "look like" you pirated a picture, just because it's a good one.
And it doesn't "look like" I stole a $100,000 watch, jsut because I'm dirt poor and trying to pawn it.
Of course not, because IP ownership doesn't flow from Locke's ideas in the first place.
And it doesn't flow from the US Constitution either. It flows from normal, well-adjusted people recognizing its moral and utilitarian legitimacy.
(Btw, you really missed the analogy there. It was IP:US Constitution::property:Locke, not IP:US Constitution::IP:Locke.)
Published: April 28, 2009 8:54 AM
Ohhh Henry
The victims?--regular people.
Not all regular people. Only the competent, independent and self-motivated ones who can do various things for themselves with workmanlike or professional competence.
Which illustrates that government intervention is not simply intended to straightforwardly transfer money to insiders and cronies from the public, but also to nudge the public into greater and greater incompetency and dependence so that further predations will become possible over time.
Published: April 28, 2009 12:35 PM
Peter Surda
In this blog entry, I have to side with Silas. The argument is invalid, it is a fallacy of composition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
That of course doesn't validate IP, it just invalides an argument. There are many proper arguments against IP. One was mentioned by newson: fair use. A proponent of "natural IP rights" needs to clarify whether fair use is a violation of IP or not, and in both cases define it in a clear way. Why in both?
If it is a violation, a lot of things that are normal now would become illegal in the world of "natural IP", so we need to hear how our lives would be restricted.
If it isn't, then the world of "natural IP" would probably be closer to what we have now. But where do we get the "natural" definition of fair use from? US Copyright Act 1976? Berne three step test? Somewhere else? I guess we'll never know.
Some other arguments that I consider worthy of invalidating "natural IP" (i.e. there is no "natural" answer for any of them, they can only be answered from a utilitarian perspective):
I believe that if one genuinly thinks about any of the points above, one must logically arrive at the conclusion that there is no "natural IP".
Cheers,
Peter
Published: April 28, 2009 5:55 PM
Peter Surda
I see the website decided to beautify my post beyond recognition. I just used ul and li tags. It looked fine in the preview. Not my fault! :-)
Published: April 28, 2009 6:00 PM
AC
To Manuel Lora and other readers,
I too am very much an amateur when it comes to photography. However, I have taken some pretty good still shots before. While Walmart is trying to protect itself from legal ramifications, you could try a few "solutions" to being labeled a copyright violater, even though you took the pictures.
(tongue in cheek moment)
1. Videotape yourself taking the fine pictures, and present it to the photo lab processors as proof.
2. Make up your own "professional" name and company and then type up a letter releasing copyright to your own photos.
3. About #2, make sure you don't use your own name for the "professional" name. And don't use someone else's name either, it could be copyright.
On another tongue in cheek note, I'd like to add another question to Peter's list.
1. If a security camera in an art museum takes a picture of a copyrighted work of art, has the museum violated copyright?
Published: April 29, 2009 4:23 PM