3 ms·

> No creation of art is infringing, you can rip other artists off in your home to your heart's content. It's the commercialization of your output that creates i

> No creation of art is infringing, you can rip other artists off in your home to your heart's content. It's the commercialization of your output that creates infringement - when you license or sell the work. You can create infringing works in your home to your heart's content because you are unlikely to get caught. But that doesn't mean that the infringement hasn't happened. There are fair use factors that will determine whether an exception to infringement applies, but only one of those factors relates to commercialization. This is why most photo print shops won't let you print images that they suspect to be copyrighted, even if you just plan to use it in your own home. Perhaps this will come across as an overly-technical explanation to non-lawyers (IAAL), but I think it's worth noting in this thread because it is strictly not true that infringement hasn't happened until you license or sell a work.

dbspin 3y ago
> This is why most photo print shops won't let you print images that they suspect to be copyrighted, even if you just plan to use it in your own home. That's genuinely shocking to me, is that an American thing? Never heard of such a restriction here (in Ireland).
- tracker1 3y ago
  Different nations have different interpretations of intellectual property in general. Combined with treaties that provide protections in other nations. It all will vary.
  - dbspin 3y ago
    I suspect the law is all too similar, it's the enforcement that tends to vary. Recently moved from back from living in Germany. On paper Germany has similar noise nuisance laws to most countries. In practice they're super officious about enforcement, with a whole police force dedicated just to nuisance complaints. Which has an extremely chilling effect on social life and neighbourly relations - since its normalised to call the police on ones neighbours.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Here in the US, print shops will typically require you to check a box indicating that you own the copyright to any images you are printing. I don't know how tightly this is monitored or enforced by most shops, however. One funny thing that happened to me is that when I tried to print some company tshirts on Zazzle, they rejected the order because it included my company's logo, which they somehow identified and flagged (for trademark reasons, not copyright). This was shocking, given that I'm a solopreneur. Equally interesting: once I simply said that I was the owner of the company, they made no attempt to confirm (I was using my wife's personal Zazzle account, since she uses it frequently, so the email domain would not confirm ownership). They just green-lit the order. I was pleased not to have to jump through a bunch of hoops, but it was surprising how easy it was to claim to be the IP owner.
- qzw 3y ago
  Yes, in the US when you try to get prints of photos that look to be professionally taken, you'd often be asked for the photographer's copyright release, especially if it's something like wedding photos where there are usually professionals involved. It can be a bit of a pain, such as when they're just your own family photos taken with a "real" camera, but I suppose it does sometimes help to protect photographers against unscrupulous clients.
  - dbspin 3y ago
    That's outrageous. Why would it unscrupulous for a client to make more prints of a given photo? Surely the primary service is taking the photograph, and the client then owns the photo? I actually work as a cam op / director (obviously a different but related medium), and the idea that I would charge someone additionally, or try to prevent them from creating a copy of something I'd created expressly for them is just absurd. For example if I filmed a wedding for a couple (as many of my friends do), I'd charge for shooting or editing, and perhaps an original gift copy on some specific format (deluxe USB key or whatever). But after that point the couple would be free to distribute the film - they already paid for it. What happens if the original photographer is no longer in business, or can't be contacted or sells the rights to your wedding photos to some awful copyright troll. My head is spinning thinking about the potential for exploitation.
    - qzw 3y ago
      It depends on the business model of the photographer. Higher end photographers usually work as you describe, but some, particularly on the lower cost end or in places like malls (think Santa or Easter Bunny pictures), will take dozens of photos for free, but then offer packages of images/prints at various price points. Usually there's a digital package that will include high res versions of all images along with the full rights, but that tends to be priced relatively high. What some clients might do is to buy a lower end package (or none at all) and then try to make prints of additional pictures from the digital sample images they're given, thereby circumventing the photographer's business model. The resulting photos are of course of poor quality, due to low resolution and imperfect watermark removal, but some people really don't care if it can save them some money. You're right that it all seems unnecessarily complicated, but look at the healthcare system we have.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I'm sure enforcement is all over the map but commercial print shops absolutely won't wholesale copy stuff they think is a copyright violation. There was even a lawsuit against Federal Express a few years back because they were making money from copying Creative Commons non-commercially licensed material.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
SeanLuke 3y ago
> You can create infringing works in your home to your heart's content because you are unlikely to get caught. But that doesn't mean that the infringement hasn't happened. I don't think so. Title 7 Chapter 1 Section 101. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." ---- Copying a work solely in your home is clearly not of commercial nature (factor 1) and has no effect on the market, since the item is not being sold (factor 4). It is almost certainly fair use and not infringement.

dbspin 3y ago

> This is why most photo print shops won't let you print images that they suspect to be copyrighted, even if you just plan to use it in your own home. That's genuinely shocking to me, is that an American thing? Never heard of such a restriction here (in Ireland).

tracker1 3y ago
Different nations have different interpretations of intellectual property in general. Combined with treaties that provide protections in other nations. It all will vary.
- dbspin 3y ago
  I suspect the law is all too similar, it's the enforcement that tends to vary. Recently moved from back from living in Germany. On paper Germany has similar noise nuisance laws to most countries. In practice they're super officious about enforcement, with a whole police force dedicated just to nuisance complaints. Which has an extremely chilling effect on social life and neighbourly relations - since its normalised to call the police on ones neighbours.
gnicholas 3y ago
Here in the US, print shops will typically require you to check a box indicating that you own the copyright to any images you are printing. I don't know how tightly this is monitored or enforced by most shops, however. One funny thing that happened to me is that when I tried to print some company tshirts on Zazzle, they rejected the order because it included my company's logo, which they somehow identified and flagged (for trademark reasons, not copyright). This was shocking, given that I'm a solopreneur. Equally interesting: once I simply said that I was the owner of the company, they made no attempt to confirm (I was using my wife's personal Zazzle account, since she uses it frequently, so the email domain would not confirm ownership). They just green-lit the order. I was pleased not to have to jump through a bunch of hoops, but it was surprising how easy it was to claim to be the IP owner.
qzw 3y ago
Yes, in the US when you try to get prints of photos that look to be professionally taken, you'd often be asked for the photographer's copyright release, especially if it's something like wedding photos where there are usually professionals involved. It can be a bit of a pain, such as when they're just your own family photos taken with a "real" camera, but I suppose it does sometimes help to protect photographers against unscrupulous clients.
- dbspin 3y ago
  That's outrageous. Why would it unscrupulous for a client to make more prints of a given photo? Surely the primary service is taking the photograph, and the client then owns the photo? I actually work as a cam op / director (obviously a different but related medium), and the idea that I would charge someone additionally, or try to prevent them from creating a copy of something I'd created expressly for them is just absurd. For example if I filmed a wedding for a couple (as many of my friends do), I'd charge for shooting or editing, and perhaps an original gift copy on some specific format (deluxe USB key or whatever). But after that point the couple would be free to distribute the film - they already paid for it. What happens if the original photographer is no longer in business, or can't be contacted or sells the rights to your wedding photos to some awful copyright troll. My head is spinning thinking about the potential for exploitation.
  - qzw 3y ago
    It depends on the business model of the photographer. Higher end photographers usually work as you describe, but some, particularly on the lower cost end or in places like malls (think Santa or Easter Bunny pictures), will take dozens of photos for free, but then offer packages of images/prints at various price points. Usually there's a digital package that will include high res versions of all images along with the full rights, but that tends to be priced relatively high. What some clients might do is to buy a lower end package (or none at all) and then try to make prints of additional pictures from the digital sample images they're given, thereby circumventing the photographer's business model. The resulting photos are of course of poor quality, due to low resolution and imperfect watermark removal, but some people really don't care if it can save them some money. You're right that it all seems unnecessarily complicated, but look at the healthcare system we have.
ghaff 3y ago
I'm sure enforcement is all over the map but commercial print shops absolutely won't wholesale copy stuff they think is a copyright violation. There was even a lawsuit against Federal Express a few years back because they were making money from copying Creative Commons non-commercially licensed material.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

SeanLuke 3y ago

> You can create infringing works in your home to your heart's content because you are unlikely to get caught. But that doesn't mean that the infringement hasn't happened. I don't think so. Title 7 Chapter 1 Section 101. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." ---- Copying a work solely in your home is clearly not of commercial nature (factor 1) and has no effect on the market, since the item is not being sold (factor 4). It is almost certainly fair use and not infringement.