Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Trolloiing for reasponses from all you "too professional" old p

Subject: [OM] Re: Trolloiing for reasponses from all you "too professional" old pros here
From: ScottGee1 <scottgee1@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:45:11 -0400
The primary subject of the linked USATODAY article summed it up well:

"It's a real problem," Wolfson said. "And I think it's going to even get worse."

Sadly, a *LOT* of people have no compunction about stealing
copyrighted material and the legal system does very little about it
unless a huge amount of money is involved, e.g., Napster and Hollywood
vs. DVD pirates.

I've confronted more than a few people about copyright violation --
most recently my own grandson who bought on DVD three movies that are
still in theatres.  They turned out to be unplayable, but apparently
copying crime is rampant is his school.  And he's only 13 years old.

For my own photo work, I plan to move to paperless proofing, offering
clients low resolution, Web based images from which to choose OR proof
books with small images that would be difficult to scan.  To be
honest, it's a lot easier than assembling albums!  And unless required
for publication, a client does not get files unless they are highly
compressed and designed only for screen viewing.  I did provide high
res to a publisher for a book cover last year because I trusted them.

So, IMO, even though WalMart (with which I will NOT do business under
any circumstances) is overly conservative in some cases, I'm glad the
issue is on the table and being discussed.

my two lux worth/ScottGee1


On 9/26/05, Gary Holder (c) <gary.holder@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/C23/
>
> Those of you that enjoy using you digital camera to take high quality images
> may want to think about how you take your future photographs.  It seems some
> photo labs are refusing to print digital photographs that look "too
> professional", fearing that in doing so they may be breaking copyright laws.
> With traditional photographs, the widely accepted rule was that if you had
> the negative, you had permission to reproduce it, but in this age of digital
> photography it can be hard to tell if the photo was taken by Joe Blow, or
> simply scanned into a computer or downloaded off the Internet.  While the
> photo labs fear being sued for breaking copyright laws, there really isn't
> any exact way to know if a photo belongs to the person bringing it in and
> approval could vary from lab tech to lab tech.
>
> ---
>
>
> Naturally, I created the above text and image from scratch myself, and did
> NOT  simply copy/paste it from
> http://www.gearlive.com/index.php/news/C23/
>
>
> -- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
> -- Type: image/jpeg
> -- File: walmartbuilding.jpg
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz