Professional Photo Ownership

[RachelEllen]

"Ultimate"??? Gosh now. I wouldn't say anything like that.

Ok, hopefully this isn't took annoying in a photo thread, 'cause it is interesting.

I used the word 'ultimate' in reponse to your assertion that there is 'nothing is illegal that isn't immoral.'

Illegality does not itself make an action immoral. Rather, it is the common perspective of the immorality of the action that results in its illegality.

I find the above a bit inconsistant.

You seem to be saying that an action has an a priori moral dimension. But, that the law is perfectly reflective of this dimension. Is the law without flaw in reflecting the preexisiting morality? That's a rather hard position to support (IMHO). Or are you supporting a completely subjective morality. In which society, as voiced through the law, is creating what is moral or what is not.

Either way, it seems pretty 'ultimate.' If everything illegal is immoral, than, either, an action gains its immoral status from the law. Or, the law is trying to reflect our view of what is moral, and once that law is in place, being lawful always trumps other moral considerations. I would argue that trying to say that the latter is correct, but that the law is always, without failure, correct in what is moral, is simply a reductionist view of the former.

I hope I am understanding your view correctly. I just can't agree with it. I'm not sure where morality comes from (agnostic that I am), but I can't believe that it can change so drastically based on a governmental system. Would you extend your arguements to say that morality comes from the will of the people in a democracy, but the will of a king in a monarchy? Is it really morality, as most people use the term, that changes decade to decade, or simply mores. Can we not look back in time and judge slavery as wrong?

 

[candykisses]

I tried to copy a picture of my great grandmother and her family at Walmart. What a nightmare!

The picture was definately done by a professional, but as close as I can date it that would have been in 1896.

There were about 4 people in line ahead of me and this young clerk kind of yells, " Hey lady, you can't copy that!". Of course everyone turns to look at the picture. She walks over and tells me that professional pictures can't be copied. I said ok, but they're all dead. She said the picture had to have a photographer. I agreed with her, but assured her that he's dead too.

We all gave her a chorus of they're dead and he's dead. But no copy.

The funny thing was she looks again at the picture and said, "They must have been really, really rich, huh?"

 

[Tinker74]

Have you ever looked up how many traffic fatalities are due to rolling through stop signs? I think you would be hard-pressed to find one case. (Just out of curiousity, since I believe the term is an American colloquialism, and I know you're not American: Do you even know what "rolling through" a stop sign means? It does NOT mean the same thing as blowing through a stop sign.)

Well Disney 1990 knows of several fatalities just in her town.And Iam not American either but its really not difficult to figure out what "rolling through" means ya know!

 

[Viking]

Have you ever looked up how many traffic fatalities are due to rolling through stop signs? I think you would be hard-pressed to find one case. (Just out of curiousity, since I believe the term is an American colloquialism, and I know you're not American: Do you even know what "rolling through" a stop sign means? It does NOT mean the same thing as blowing through a stop sign.)

I know what rolling through a stop sign means. And as a former professional paramedic I scraped many people off the road, who just 'rolled' through a stop sign. FYI I've driven at least 15,000miles in American traffic and will add another 2,000mls this summer.

Back to topic:
The only professional photos I bought in the USA so far, I purchased during several Disney cruises. ALL of these photos I have scanned and saved to CD/DVD. Most of them I've even sent to friends. Some of them I have enlarged and made bigger prints. When I pay frigging 10 bucks for a small picture like those I consider them M-I-N-E and do with them whatever I like.

 

[bicker]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to doubt your reports. It is practically impossible to have a fatal accident result from rolling through a stop sign. The driver would have have to blow through the stop sign to cause a fatal accident, unless the driver deliberately wanted to get hurt. It's as simple as that.

Your perspective on photograph copying is also indefensible. When you pay $10 for a small print you're purchasing only the print, not the picture. It is a violation of copyright to act as if you own the picture, and wrong to make copies of the print.

 

[Viking]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to doubt your reports. It is practically impossible to have a fatal accident result from rolling through a stop sign. The driver would have have to blow through the stop sign to cause a fatal accident, unless the driver deliberately wanted to get hurt. It's as simple as that.

Your perspective on photograph copying is also indefensible. When you pay $10 for a small print you're purchasing only the print, not the picture. It is a violation of copyright to act as if you own the picture, and wrong to make copies of the print.

You can doubt as much as you want, but your attitude is the full explanation why the number of people killed in traffic in the USA now is the same as it was in the 70ies - Whereas over here it has gone down 75% in the same time. BTW the increase in traffic in that time in the USA and Germany was more or less the same.
Just one example for you: You roll over a stop sign and fail to see a kid on a bike or someone on a motorcycle - BOOOM, they're dead!!! Need a drawing?

And my perspective on copyrights of photos may be indefensible, but at least it is realistic Now please don't ask me about the music on my iPod

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to doubt your reports. It is practically impossible to have a fatal accident result from rolling through a stop sign. The driver would have have to blow through the stop sign to cause a fatal accident, unless the driver deliberately wanted to get hurt. It's as simple as that.

Your perspective on photograph copying is also indefensible. When you pay $10 for a small print you're purchasing only the print, not the picture. It is a violation of copyright to act as if you own the picture, and wrong to make copies of the print.

Actually it is not impossible if the victim is on a bicycle, motorcycle, or a bike. They could easily be killed or seriously injured by a car going at a very low speed (that of a california stop).

And just b/c death doesn't result, doesn't make it any less irresponsible and unnecessary and stupid and illegal and the fault of the person who failed to STOP and not who they injured or kill.

I know someone who had their leg shattered by someone "not blowing" through a stop sign.

So your theory on that is debunked. And don't try to say it is the fault of the person who got hit.

For the comparison that it is going on here--then we should be able to say it is the fault of the photographer for releasing a print knowing about the technology available to reproduce at leisure. (which we know is BS just like this car rolling theory).

 

[bicker]

There is no way to to fail to see a kid on a bicycle unless you're blowing through the stop sign. I cannot understand why you continue to assert that there is.

Why don't we just agree to disagree without all the disrespectful innuendo about your assumptions about attitude?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

There is no way to to fail to see a kid on a bicycle unless you're blowing through the stop sign. I cannot understand why you continue to assert that there is.

Why don't we just agree to disagree without all the disrespectful innuendo about your assumptions about attitude?

Because we all know that children perfectly know the rules of the road and that drivers will foolishly pass through a stop sign.


It doesn't matter what "you" think about their being "no way" to do this.

There is no agree to disagree b/c you are wrong in this instance.

It can be done, has been done and will continue to be done as long as drivers continue to think they are invincible and that nothing bad will happen as they tweak a law here, tweak a rule there to meet their driving needs.

 

[bicker]

Actually it is not impossible if the victim is on a bicycle, motorcycle, or a bike. They could easily be killed or seriously injured by a car going at a very low speed (that of a california stop).

However, if the driver looks both ways before going through the intersection, as is the case when rolling through a stop sign, the impact would be either a negligent or deliberate act, one that could just as easily have occurred if the driver made a full stop and then proceeded into the intersection despite the bicycle, motorcycle, or a bike being there already. That was my point. If the driver was going to ignore what s/he sees in the intersection, then s/he's going to do so regardless.

And just b/c death doesn't result, doesn't make it any less irresponsible and unnecessary and stupid and illegal and the fault of the person who failed to STOP and not who they injured or kill.

ITA. I never would say anything to the contrary.

For the comparison that it is going on here--then we should be able to say it is the fault of the photographer for releasing a print knowing about the technology available to reproduce at leisure. (which we know is BS just like this car rolling theory).

No, your comparison is apples and oranges. Rolling through a stop sign is not even a misdemeanor; it is a violation. Violating a copyright is at least a misdemeanor, and possibly a felony. Society has made the determination that one is a minor mistake, and the other is a major transgression.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

However, if the driver looks both ways before going through the intersection, as is the case when rolling through a stop sign, the impact would be either a negligent or deliberate act, one that could just as easily have occurred if the driver made a full stop and then proceeded into the intersection despite the bicycle, motorcycle, or a bike being there already. That was my point. If the driver was going to ignore what s/he sees in the intersection, then s/he's going to do so regardless.

ITA. I never would say anything to the contrary.

So you now have qualifications and rules to this rolling stop.

You do realize that what you are saying is safe to do when there is a YIELD sign..not when there is a STOP sign.

People anticipate for you to STOP at a STOP sign. They do not anticipate for you to roll through it.

So if you have no intent to stop--you could very easily roll into the path of someone and hit them even if you look left and look right as you are rolling.

 

[bicker]

So you now have qualifications and rules to this rolling stop.

No. I made it very clear to Viking from the very start that I didn't think Viking knew what I was talking about. Those qualifications were there from the start.

You do realize that what you are saying is safe to do when there is a YIELD sign..not when there is a STOP sign.

And moreover, I'm not even saying it is a good thing to do -- all I'm saying that copyright violation is worse -- much worse.

People anticipate for you to STOP at a STOP sign. They do not anticipate for you to roll through it.

Not here in MA, where a very common cause of rear-end collisisons is drivers making a full stop where other drivers aren't expecting a full stop. It's a problem. The drivers in the rear are wrong, but they're plentiful, so the reality very important.

So if you have no intent to stop <snip>

Which would be blowing through a stop sign, not rolling through it.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

No, your comparison is apples and oranges. Rolling through a stop sign is not even a misdemeanor; it is a violation. Violating a copyright is at least a misdemeanor, and possibly a felony. Society has made the determination that one is a minor mistake, and the other is a major transgression.

The comparison was a preemptive comparison just in case you blamed the victim for getting hit by a rolling stop vehicle.

So it is not apples and oranges--if you blame the victim..then for this ongoing debate that has nothing to do with copyright--then one cane blame the photographer since he let yo uhave the photo.

Amazing how you justify rolling stops and how they wouldn't be able to hit anybody since they follow the other rules of the road...but then you get all phanatic about rationalizations and disney rules. You are rationalizing why it is OKAY to roll through a stop sign b/c you have rationalized that no harm can result.


I'm sure my friend with the shattered leg would love to hear how he should not have been hit while riding his bike into the path of a vehicle that should have been stopping at a stop sign instead of rolling on through. (you know since he had the right of way--and stop signs are STOP signs and since he didn't have a stop sign---he shouldn't have to stop for someone who is going to commit a misdeameanor and subsequent felony (hit and run)).

FTR--he did try to avoid the vehicle--and that is probably why he didn't end up any more injured than he was.

 

[Quinn222]

Sears used to sell a disk with the proofs for $15, and you could do whatever you wanted with it. Last year the price had gone to $200 and it was no longer worth it to me.

They do make it very clear that the portraits are copyrighted and not to be duplicated.

See, that's just stupid business. For $15 or $20 pretty much everyone would pay. For $200 almost everyone will walk away and use their own scanner to make copies. It's not right or legal but by gouging on the price like that Sears has cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

[Quinn222]

-- all I'm saying that copyright violation is worse -- much worse.

No, it's not. You can kill someone going through a stop sign. I never heard of a copyright violation killing anyone.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Which would be blowing through a stop sign, not rolling through it.

IF you are rolling stop--then how is that intent to stop? Sounds more like intent to do as you please.

So if stopping is the intent, then why don't you just stop?

Not here in MA, where a very common cause of rear-end collisisons is drivers making a full stop where other drivers aren't expecting a full stop. It's a problem. The drivers in the rear are wrong, but they're plentiful, so the reality very important.

THe people behind you don't anticipate you to stop--and that applies to this conversation how? They are the ones "trying" to do a rolling stop and violating the rules of the road by doing so. It is irrelevant if every single citizen in MA does this.

STOP means STOP!


(this rationalization is just too funny)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

No, it's not. You can kill someone going through a stop sign. I never heard of a copyright violation killing anyone.

I get what he is saying, though I disagree.

You cannot say one is worse than the other when the two are not even related crimes (or misdemeanors or infractions or whatever).

He says apples and oranges--yet the orange is worse than the apple.

 

[bicker]

The comparison was a preemptive comparison just in case you blamed the victim for getting hit by a rolling stop vehicle.

In other words, it had no relevance to what I wrote. Okay...

Amazing how you justify rolling stops and how they wouldn't be able to hit anybody since they follow the other rules of the road...but then you get all phanatic about rationalizations and disney rules.

Amazing how you distort what I said.

I never justified rolling stops. Read the thread, Lisa. Read it, instead of posting irrelevant, self-serving nonsense.

Viking wrote: "At least copying of photos won't kill people"

I replied: "Neither will rolling through a stop sign. Speeding, though, I can see your point regarding."
​

Viking was talking about degrees of transgression. So was I. What they hay are you talking about?

You are rationalizing why it is OKAY to roll through a stop sign b/c you have rationalized that no harm can result.

You're wrong. That's not what I'm doing. Read the thread.

 

[bicker]

No, it's not. You can kill someone going through a stop sign.

You can kill someone with your car sitting in a driveway. What's your point?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I have read the thread Bicker. You follow both sides of an argument very well and what you have done is rationalized why rolling stops are not bad whether or not that you think they are.

Read your own posts.