Jun
18
2005

photo printing made not-so-easy

So much for technology making things easier. AP reports that some amateur photographers are being turned away from photo printing labs because their photos are too good. The problem:

Copyright law requires photo labs to be on the lookout for portraits and other professional work that should not be duplicated without a photographer’s permission. In the old days, questions about an image’s provenance could be settled with a negative. If you had it, you probably had the right to reproduce it.

Now, when images are submitted on CDs or memory cards or over the Web, photofinishers often have to guess whether a picture was truly taken by the customer — or whether it was scanned into a computer or pilfered off the Internet.

That leads to some awkward moments at photo desks when customers’ images get barred for essentially looking too good.

(AP/Yahoo! News: “Copyright-Worried Photo Labs Spurn Jobs” - 06/17/05)

I understand the issue — the photo labs’ fears of litigation and photographers’ desire for control over how their photos are reproduced — but what a hassle. What’s a photographer that’s caught in the middle — not a professional, but really good nonetheless — supposed to do when their photos are turned away by the very companies that are trying to embrace the amateur digital photography market? If I take a photo and want it printed, I want to be able to print it and not get hassled about it. Since there are no negatives, If I was ever in that situation, I’m not even sure how I’d prove that a given photo was mine. Maybe show them the other photos from that outing in iPhoto? It’s not really any of the photo tech’s business.

Then again, these stories of photo printing overzealousness mostly seem centered around Wal-Mart. Maybe the photographers need to find another printer that caters more to photo hobbyists — and will probably deliver better prints anyway. I’ve had good luck with RitzPix (although the online interface is terrible) and Shutterfly.

Related story:
• San Diego Union-Tribune: “Digital photos can look great, but some labs won’t print those that appear too professional” (05/30/05)

(Link found via Slashdot.)

Posted at 4:12 PM in design, oddities, technology

Previous entry: hail to the king, baby (books & literature) | Next entry: wikitorial (online news)

Comments

Related story:
• Christian Science Monitor: “A photo too good to be yours?” (06/20/05)

One way to avoid trouble is to bring in written permission from the owner of the photo. But where copyright law currently falls down is with “orphan works” - photos whose owner is unknown or can’t be located. If you can’t track down the photographer, there is no exemption under the law to make a copy. The US Copyright Office is seeking comments about how to solve this problem…

Photographers are responding by changing the way they charge for work, Morris adds. Instead of charging the traditional low upfront fee and making money on the prints, many have shifted to loading the costs up at the front end, offering package pricing, or simply working for hire and releasing the copyright altogether.

Posted by alykat on June 21, 2005 9:14 AM

Post a comment

As a spam-control measure, your comment may require my approval before it will appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting. To avoid the moderation delay, consider filling in your e-mail address. It won't appear on the site, but I use it to whitelist frequent commenters so their comments appear automatically.


The following HTML tags are permitted (if you want to use them):
p, br, a href, b, strong, u, i, em, ol, ul, li, cite, blockquote