Explaining copyright to customers, no wonder they don't get it!

[JMugs]

jonna... Yes, which was rather odd as my mugs were more expensive anyway! I just sent back ".........?..........."

[Deano82]

Can I just say that IF the customer provides you with the artwork then I am pretty sure you are not breaking copyright law by printing it. Even if its a copyrighted image. You are offering a printing service, you are not selling a printed mug with a set design on it. So in this instance you can print it without copyright infringement. You may want to ask them to sign a copyright waiver form or simply point out to them that as a business you assume that the purchaser has copyright

I'm not sure how that would stand up as my cousin brought cd of photos from a photographer and took to 2 large named company's that refused to print as had photographers name and details on cd but didn't mention copyright on there

And I brought a memory stick of photos from bounty of my daughter when she was born and Tesco refused to print them as has bounty printed on memory stick yet I brought copyright by buying the stick for £150 for 12 pics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[socialgiraffe]

I'm not sure how that would stand up as my cousin brought cd of photos from a photographer and took to 2 large named company's that refused to print as had photographers name and details on cd but didn't mention copyright on there

And I brought a memory stick of photos from bounty of my daughter when she was born and Tesco refused to print them as has bounty printed on memory stick yet I brought copyright by buying the stick for £150 for 12 pics

They were wrong to refuse you. My website has been checked by specialist copyright legal experts (global experts) and because it is related to a Disney product it has even been checked by them. Disney are one of the toughest company's in the world when it comes to protecting their copyright and images. If they say what I am doing is fine and legal experts have also said so then its a fair assumption that a shop keeper from Tesco is wrong.

The problem is that a lot of companies do not understand what copyright is or how it works.

Like I say, if you are a printing service and are not creating artwork yourself then you can pretty much print anything a customer asks.

[Drew]

Here goes with the first post, and I have broad shoulders

They were wrong to refuse you.

No, they were not. Especially here in the UK. What they did was right, correct and legal.

The instant a photographer takes a picture, the copyright of that image is with the photographer. Just because someone buys a *copy* of that image (either as print or digital) does NOT pass the copyright over to that person. The only person who can pass on the copyright, is the copyright owner (the photographer).

If you want prints from a pro photographers images, then ask them for a letter, stating that you can make prints from the digital files they have given you. Many will refuse, legally so.

The problem is alot of forum keyboard warriors *think* they know the law as this bloke said this, or someone form Disney said that, and that now makes me right and proper to profess all to anyone who will listen.

At the end of the day, if the person presenting the image don't own the copyright, don't reproduce it. By the logic presented here in this thread so far, I brought Spectre on DVD so that means I can make as many copies as I like????? No, course it don't.

If in doubt, get legal help, not forum help.

[Drew]

k yet I brought copyright by buying the stick for £150 for 12 pics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you buy the copyright to those images, or just copies of them on disc? There is a big difference.

[socialgiraffe]

The problem is alot of forum keyboard warriors *think* they know the law as this bloke said this, or someone form Disney said that, and that now makes me right and proper to profess all to anyone who will listen.

No need to get offensive, particularly when you are not actually reading what I have said.

You are the keyboard warrior who has not got a scooby doo on what I said. If you do not understand then perhaps its all a bit too complicated for you. If that is the case then move on without commenting. My comments are correct and I am sure the Disney legal team will be flattered by your "some bloke" comment, particularly coming from you....

By the logic presented here in this thread so far, I brought Spectre on DVD so that means I can make as many copies as I like????? No, course it don't.

And that comment shows your ignorance to what I said.

Go away Junior....!

[Drew]

You are the keyboard warrior who has not got a scooby doo on what I said. If you do not understand then perhaps its all a bit too complicated for you. If that is the case then move on without commenting. My comments are correct and I am sure the Disney legal team will be flattered by your "some bloke" comment, particularly coming from you....

What a nice welcome to the forum. Its comments like that make forums great places to be, for new members You act as if you know me, yet I believe we have never met.

I'm not going into what anyone at Disney may or may not have said (i'm not looking on in amazement just because you mention Disney), as I am not privy to all the details or licenses, and haven't looked at your website.

However YOU did say:

They were wrong to refuse you.

And no, they were not. That is just showing YOUR ignorance. To think that just because has a digital copy of an image or whatever means that it can be reproduced many times is preposterous. Giving advice like that out on forums ends up in people getting in trouble.

Go away Junior....!

Again, such a nice welcome. You may *think* you are correct saying what you did about Tesco, because some bloke at Disney said this or that or whatever, but you're wrong. I'm not the sort of person to stand by and see things like this happen. First post or not, I will stand up to people like you. I've spent the last 15 years working as a professional photographer, so do know a little bit about this.

[Andrew]

What Simon is saying appears to be correct as I have been informed of the same. I didn't previously think that was true but and the grey areas continue to grow. Basically, it would be the person asking to have it printed doing wrong rather than the printer. If they sign a disclaimer are confirm in someway they are allowed to print something then you can believe them.

At the end of the day this is how ebay and Amazon are still around. They are not deemed liable for all the dodgy stuff as they are offering a basic sales platform and not selling copyright items themselves.

[Andrew]

Drew - I was previously of the same opinion but it seems from what I have been told recently and companies backing it up that is an assumption and not law. At the end of the day, how can someone who is printing an image onto an item know if that image is copyright or not. I am not talking taking an educated guess if it is copyright but know to the letter of the law. Much is personal opinion or company policy but letter of the law I have been informed not. As I said, eBay are a prime example. They get all the wording in place for the seller to say they areare allowed to sell what they are listinglisting and they are then free of wrongdoing when their customer starts selling Chelsea fc mugs.

[Drew]

Drew - I was previously of the same opinion but it seems from what I have been told recently and companies backing it up that is an assumption and not law. At the end of the day, how can someone who is printing an image onto an item know if that image is copyright or not. I am not talking taking an educated guess if it is copyright but know to the letter of the law. Much is personal opinion or company policy but letter of the law I have been informed not. As I said, eBay are a prime example. They get all the wording in place for the seller to say they areare allowed to sell what they are listinglisting and they are then free of wrongdoing when their customer starts selling Chelsea fc mugs.

I get what your saying, and understand that part of it with no issue at all. For printers yes, its ok, but for ditributors, no.

However in #13 Socialgiraffe (is it Simon as you mention above) said that printing companies were wrong to refuse to print images that were marked with photographers details. This is my big issue. Whoever it was, was not wrong to refuse here. They had (probably) been presented with a professional CD or stick, from a professional photographer. The shop assistant then probably presumed that the copyright of these images remained with the photographer, and the person presenting them for copies didn't have the copyright to reproduce as much they wanted to. Refusal probably offended, and the person presenting the images probably thought they had every right to copy the images. So the people in the shop were not wrong.

If you're someone who only cares about the money in the till, then you'll copy them. There will always be people like this.

2 better outcomes should have happened. 1 being that the shop contacts the copyright holder (photographer), and checks, or the person presenting the images has a letter detailing that they have copyright. Both these are quite common.

It happens all to often that someone comes in for a shoot, pays for 5 digital only images, then thinks Tesco will blow them up to 46" wide canvas's with no issue. Then you have people saying how wrong they were to refuse......