Copyright Protection and scanners

[mcnuss]

I just encountered a something new & different. I bought a picture of the McNuss family that was taken when we were in NYC last month. I spent almost $20 for a 5x7 (pretty darned pricey, but I actually look thin so it was worth it ) and wanted to scan it and email it to my mother. I stuck it on my HP 2500 series PSC, and got an error saying it could not be scanned. I checked the back of the picture and lo & behold, it has markings all over it saying that "Professional Images are Copyright Protected - Do not Copy". I have never encountered this before.

I am a lawyer but this is not my area. I would have thought that a personal copy was a "fair use". Has anyone got any expertise in this? I'd like to make a complaint to the company I bought it from.

 

[safetymom]

Photographer owns the right to the image.

 

[Charade]

I've never heard of a scanner being able to read a copyright watermark.

The only thing I can suggest is to take a picture of it with a hi rez digital camera. Not the best solution but you will still be able to make a "fair use" copy.

 

[McDISer]

Cover the backside of it with heavy gloss paper, otherwise call the photographer and get permission. Usually the rites cost about $12.

 

[Geoff_M]

I would have thought that a personal copy was a "fair use".

Nope. Copying, even for personal use, is a violation of the photographer's copyright. One of the biggest misconceptions of copyright law is that making copies of copyrighted works (CDs, software, photos, etc.) is covered by "fair use" exemptions so long as the copies are used by the same person that purchased the original.

 

[Beth76]

That's so strange that the scanner can detect that. I agree with trying to cover the back of it with something.

 

[Nite0wl71]

Where I work we have a machine that scans pictures to make enlargements etc. It can detect the marks on the back, I have never heard of one at home doing it. Our machine has a disclaimer on it about professional photos. An Osco in PA was actually sued by a photograper for letting someone copy one of his pictures.

The photographer owns the pictures, that's why you never get the negatives.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The photographer owns the pictures, that's why you never get the negatives.

Actually they own the image--not the physical picture .

And if they retain the negatives, they retain the rights. If they surrender the negatives--they retain no rights other than photograph credit (i.e.--you cannot claim them as your own creation and profit from them). Once you own the negatives, you can print however many copies in whatever size and distribute as you see fit.

However--the intentions of the OP and the suggestions of others are definitely skirting copyright law.

 

[MICKEY88]

I just encountered a something new & different. I bought a picture of the McNuss family that was taken when we were in NYC last month. I spent almost $20 for a 5x7 (pretty darned pricey, but I actually look thin so it was worth it ) and wanted to scan it and email it to my mother. I stuck it on my HP 2500 series PSC, and got an error saying it could not be scanned. I checked the back of the picture and lo & behold, it has markings all over it saying that "Professional Images are Copyright Protected - Do not Copy". I have never encountered this before.

I am a lawyer but this is not my area. I would have thought that a personal copy was a "fair use". Has anyone got any expertise in this? I'd like to make a complaint to the company I bought it from.

the photographer owns the rights to the image,,if a personal copy was fair use, all photographers would be out of business unless they charged a high fee for taking the picture...


if fair use applied, all photography clients could then buy one 8x10, scan it and make as many copies as they want, eliminating all photo sale profits for photographers..