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

[GoonerGary]

just a small question

Why would a professional tog supply their copyright images on a memory stick (with or without the togs branding all over the stick) to a client if not for the client to print/use as they wish. If they were images for approval they ought to be suitably watermarked or screen resolution at best.


Arthur

There would be a licence on the memory stick to allow the client to print off the images.

[Andrew]

Andrew, the printer needs permission especially if it looks like a commercial/ professional image. Joe blogs walking in with their holiday snaps have no commercial value, that's where you draw the line.

From reading about copyright both above examples have copyright. If a person comes in and says can you stick this print on a mug as I have permission to do so and I am not breaking any laws then you are allowed to do so without wrong doing. If you decide that it is unlikely he does really have permission for one but think that what looks like he holiday snap he might have permission then that would be upto you. However you would have no real evidence other than assumption. He might not have permission for either or hehe might actually have it for both. The law cannot expect you to know. This has now supposedly been tested and agreed on. It does seem a grey area. The printer is not judge, jury and executioner on a simple one off print. As has been earlier mentioned, if he comes to an agreement with the same person to sell the same design from his shop then he would be wrong if there was copyright on the image and no permission.

[GoonerGary]

Not sure if you have read through the posts but the link doesn't clarify who would be in the wrong on what is being discussed.

"Copyright protects your work and stops others from using it without your permission." Anyone using the image without your permission is in the wrong.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyr ... permission

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyr ... _of_others

In "Fair Dealing" which I reckon copy shops would try to exploit:

"In cases that have come to trial what is clear is that it is the perceived importance of the copied content rather than simply the quantity that counts. Judges hearing such cases often have to make an objective decision on whether the use is justified or excessive."

Restricted acts:

It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:
Copy the work.
Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
Adapt the work.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyr ... yright_law

I don't think "but he said it was ok" would stand up in court.

[socialgiraffe]

Gary

You keep quoting Copyright law and neither Andrew or I are in dispute about what the law says.

What we are saying is that as a printing service you are not required to obtain information regarding who owns the copyright of anything you print. The onus of making sure the correct permissions in place is the person who is requesting the service (assuming the printer has done due diligence (i.e. asking and possibly signing a waiver form))

This has been tested and agreed.

Statements like

I don't think "but he said it was ok" would stand up in court.

Are not helpful because that is not what either of us have suggested. We are saying that in the eyes of the law, printers are not the copyright police. The is a huge difference between printing in good faith versus knowingly printing something that breaches any kind of law. It is a fine line I agree and perhaps one that should be cleared up, but printers no matter how big or small can not be held responsible for copyright permission on behalf of a third party. It is down to the copyright holder to protect the image well enough to ensure it does not happen.

If someone came to you with a half decent shot from a wedding you would not be able to tell if it was shot by a keen (and very good) amateur photographer versus a professional. You an not ask them to provide evidence of the source, its not practical.

[Drew]

......(assuming the printer has done due diligence.....

The is a huge difference between printing in good faith versus knowingly printing something that breaches any kind of law.

So are we agreed then, with what I have quoted you saying above, a printer would NOT be wrong to refuse to print images that are presented to them on a CD / Stick from a professional photographer, if the person presenting them cannot provide proof of copyright as part of the printers 'due diligence'?

Or

Should the printer just print them anyway and do / say nothing about copyright, and be wrong to refuse?

This has been tested and agreed.

Any links for this? So far I can't find anything that says that (not saying its not there, just that I can't find it, and would be interested to see its wording).

You an not ask them to provide evidence of the source, its not practical.

Genuinely a curious question here;
I embedded copyright details into the meta data of all images, as do virtually photographers I know. When I load images, the meta data also pops up. Do you ever check for this? << I have asked this presuming you print images, but have no idea if you do or don't

[socialgiraffe]

a printer would NOT be wrong to refuse to print images that are presented to them on a CD / Stick from a professional photographer, if the person presenting them cannot provide proof of copyright as part of the printers 'due diligence'?

I suppose we are going to disagree on what is due diligence. For me personally I think asking the customer if they have copyright and pointing out that the purchaser assumes all copyright responsibility is enough, anymore than that becomes impractical to police

Should the printer just print them anyway and do / say nothing about copyright, and be wrong to refuse?

I am not suggesting that, but I do think they are wrong to refuse. Again I think it is something we are going to have to disagree on.

Any links for this?

I will try and dig this out over the weekend. No promises though as I can not remember exactly where it was I read it. I think it may have been a merchandising trade magazine (I work on both sides of the fence )

Genuinely a curious question here; I embedded copyright details into the meta data of all images, as do virtually photographers I know. When I load images, the meta data also pops up. Do you ever check for this? << I have asked this presuming you print images, but have no idea if you do or don't

To be honest its not something I deal with so the following answer is hypothetical.... No I would not check. My due diligence would go as far as pointing out copyright infringement but that is it. My website that is D2C will not copy over any meta data transfer so there is no hope for that being passed on. However I think what you have pointed out has mileage. As an example, if the copyright peeps suggested ALL photographs must carry the meta data etc etc as you do then I would be willing to hold my hands up on any copyright infringement if I was guilty. That would put the responsibility of copyright back to the owner of the photograph to protect.

As a general point, I (and I suspect Andrew) are not saying that the copying of peoples work without permission is OK, in fact far from it. I know you do not know Andrew's or my background but we are friendly competitors in official merchandise. We understand knock offs and copies more than a lot of people. What we are saying is that as a printing service it is not our job to police copyright. That does not mean we condone it, but it does mean that should we involuntary print something we shouldn't, then as a print service we should not be held accountable.

[pisquee]

This is a really interesting thread!

Legallly, are you saying then that legally, the law sees a company that print for other businesses as different to one that prints for an end customer in terms of copyright?

As far as I can see, in a literal sense at least, both are printing and selling an image to a customer, just one happens to then be selling it on to another person afterwards?

I am not saying you are wrong - I am certainly intrigued, and would love to see more official documentation, legal wording etc to clarify the difference in how copyright law views the two different business models.

I would have thought, if your work was being printed 'illegally' and you had a good enough lawyer (and better than the other parties too) then you would be able to sue the print company as well as their customer who was selling it to the public... unless this has already being attempted and shown to not be an acceptable way to proceed - which, if this is the case, the court case documents would be available

Not at all saying anyone here is wrong, just, as I said, I am intrigued, and also wanting to know what the either the law states specifically, or what has been tried/tested in UK courts of law/legal proceedings - which I think is also very important, especially seeing as this forum does work as a repository of information, that is open to all through Google, as well as to members, so I see it as important to make sure the truth/details are represented/documented... we've all seen the people on here and Ebay who think it's OK to print something they found on Google images onto a mug, so would rather not have a thread here they could misconstrue in any way!

[socialgiraffe]

Fair points there Pisquee and I will try to answer

As far as I can see, in a literal sense at least, both are printing and selling an image to a customer, just one happens to then be selling it on to another person afterwards?

Not how I see it at all. One is selling an image to a customer (does not matter who the customer is) and the other is printing the customers image on to their chosen substrate. They are not selling an image, they are selling a service. Its a small difference, but an extremely important one.

would have thought, if your work was being printed 'illegally' and you had a good enough lawyer (and better than the other parties too) then you would be able to sue the print company as well as their customer who was selling it to the public

Unfortunately its all about deep pockets these days. A better lawyer tends to cost more money, its all about who has the deepest pockets when it comes to corporate law sadly. I have even had recent experience of this. A very very well known machine manufacture and I are in dispute. Their lawyer said well unfortunately XXX LTD has very deep pockets and could effectively buy their their win against you.

Not at all saying anyone here is wrong, just, as I said, I am intrigued, and also wanting to know what the either the law states specifically, or what has been tried/tested in UK courts of law/legal proceedings - which I think is also very important, especially seeing as this forum does work as a repository of information, that is open to all through Google, as well as to members, so I see it as important to make sure the truth/details are represented/documented... we've all seen the people on here and Ebay who think it's OK to print something they found on Google images onto a mug, so would rather not have a thread here they could misconstrue in any way!

I agree and will try to find the source, perhaps Andrew might be able to lay his hands on it quicker... With regards to anyone misinterpreting what I (or anyone else is saying) then sadly there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. If you are going to copy someone else's work, then you are not going to search the internet looking for clarification on copyright. You are just going to copy it anyway, it is fraud no matter what.

And yes it is a very interesting thread and why this forum is so good.

[arthur.daley]

lawyers and deep pockets - sounds familiar!

Last time we moved house our lawyers were a pain in the backside - dragged their feet, went on holiday, picked holes in the deeds of a house that had already sold half a dozen times (the one we were selling). Suffice to say they ran up another 500 quid on our bill that was completely unnecessary. When I questioned this and asked what the complaint procedure was, it was pointed out to me that I was actually speaking to the senior partner and if I thought my pockets were deep enough I was welcome to take them to court but should remember that court representation would cost them nothing on the basis that I would lose anyway as their terms and conditions allowed them to add to the bill in the way they had as they were of course only looking after my interests. Bollocks! They had me, I knew they had me and they knew that I knew. Game over. I did consult a free legal service that I used to get from my employer at the time - they said "you could go to court and you might win but it could easily cost you a couple of grand in legal fees and if you lose - which is much more likely, you would still have the original £500, the other sides legal fees and your own legal fees to pay" (

[Stitch Up]

My take on this is that we're not responsible for policing copyright - if a customer comes to us with artwork, I just tell them that it's okay if they have permission to use it, I don't make a big issue of it.

No 'flaming' please