Randy Cassingham's Blog

You got my attention on this one! Wal-Mart has a similiar overreaching policy regarding the copying of photographs. They have gone so far as to produce a tri-fold explaining their policy - "Copytright Policy and You". It states that they are following the Constitution and "the Copyright Act of 1976".

It states: " . . .Wal-Mart Photo Centers will not copy a photograph that is signed, stamped or otherwise identified by any photograper or studio, unless we are presented with a signed Copyright Release from the photographer or studio"

All well and good so far BUT then they continue their policy with "In addition, we will not copy a photograph that APPEARS (my emphasis) to have been taken by a professional photographer or studio, even if it is not marked with any sort of copyright, unless we are presented with a signed Copyright Release from the photographer or studio."

This presents a true problem for several reasons. The first being that it is generally VERY YOUNG adults who are working this department and making these decisions. And secondly, that it now makes it impossible to copy old family photographs at any copy center because apparently other businesses are taking the lead from Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart does not care to hear the facts of the situation, for instance that EVERYONE in the photograph is dead so also most likely is the photographer. Tough to get him to sign a release. He probably died without knowing that his last act on earth should have been to write a letter to Wal-Mart. They do not care to consider that before 1978 NO photgraphs had copyright protection. They do not need to consider that the most recent photograph being copied was from 1950 and that all others were older. Customers are told to get a "signed release or don't bother coming back."

By the same magic that Wal-Mart used to be the protector of all photographers both living and dead, I was able to acquire their required release, no questions asked!

I quite agree with the notion that copyright holders are trying to grab far more than they are rightly owed at times – illustrated particularly in the questions regarding the legality of, say, describing a particularly exciting play from the Superbowl. The human memory is far more advanced than any storage-and-retrieval system ever devised by man. How long will it be until someone decides that you – having observed a particular sporting event, a newscast, or a cinematic or aural production – now owe them royalties for the right to retain your memory of the copyrighted material you witnessed?

Absurd, you say; but wait: You have surely heard the specific prohibition of storage or retrieval, in any form, digital or otherwise, of "this copyrighted broadcast". According to those terms, if they could be strictly enforced, your memory infringes the copyright.

Remember the Robber Barons in your history class? Henry Ford was nearly shut down in the beginning because someone named George Selden held a patent on gasoline engines. It was an overly broad interpretation of the patent and the court struck it down. Now it seems to be returning to those times.

Buy a software package, and it can be used on only ONE computer in your home. Can you imagine buying a CD and being able to play in ONLY one CD player in your home? Well, now you understand DRM (Digital Rights Management).

Few people remember when VCR's first hit the mass market that blank tapes cost nearly $15. That was because it was ASSUMED that they were being used to copy SOMEBODY'S work, and so a hefty portion of that $15 went to the RIAA for distribution among all members. It was struck down by the court in the 1980's and blank tapes plummeted to as low as $1.50.

It sounds good when copyright law is used to protect against theft and plagiarism, but more often it's used to restrict or eliminate any concept of competition even in an unrelated industry.

A lot like the spoiled little kid who screams "MINE!" and selfishly grabs each and every toy that somebody else picks up to look at. My dog does that to protect his food bowl from the cat, but I don't expect large corporations to display the same attitude toward the very consumers it purports to market.

Doesn't it make you wonder how libraries escaped the copyright debacle?

I own several homes which I rent to tenants. There are times, of course, when it becomes obvious that the tenants no longer intend to pay rent. I can take them to court to evict them. That takes money AND a lot of time.

So, I can padlock the house until they come to me and agree to gather their belongings and willingly vacate the house. Abuse of power? You betcha. Effective? Yes, because most people can't afford to, or don't know that they can, fight back.

What's the worst that will happen to me? If the tenant knows his rights, he can complain to the local consumer protection agency and I have to remove the padlock. Then I take them to court to evict them. Same as if I'd done that in the first place, BUT... I may have saved myself time and expense if the majority of the tenants don't fight back.

Same thing with large corporations who hold copyrights. For real damages and losses, there are means to recover thos losses. But too often, it's an abuse of power against those too weak or unknowledgeable to fight back.

No, I'm not anti-Big Business, just the opposite. But as Petey's uncle told him in Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility."

---

Yes, and many will argue you're exercising rights without responsibility with your actions. It's hard to condemn you for it, though, since you're "right" while also being outside the law -- the law is unfairly balanced against right and wrong. Yet I'm not sure it fully relates, since I don't think copyright law is unfairly balanced against right and wrong (or, if it is, it's because it unfairly benefits corporations by its excessively long terms, but again that's not to the point of this particular essay). In any case, as you indicate, it's a complicated issue. -rc

First, one must understand that copyright laws are slanted towards those who have the money. They are the ones who can easily gain the ear of the politicians who make the laws. While there may be a fallout of some benefits for others, in the end, they end up being more restrictive for all. Once they have what they want, or near what they want, in writing, they will take advantage of it and press the limits of the law.

When it comes time for them to enforce what they think the law should give them, what are they going to do? Are they going to go for the big fish, the one that can fight back, and, perhaps, beat them at their own game? Not likely. They will go after a small fish, or a number of small fish, who do not have the means to fight back effectively, and may just roll over before them, thus establishing a precedent that their claims are within the law, whether they may be or not. Then, with that precedent, they can wave a larger club.

So, what are we, mere mortals, to do? Pretty much go about our business. If you use a copyrighted source, give attribution. If someone decides to sue you for that use, fight back. If you need help, you should be able to find it. There are any number of organizations out there that could give you help. Try to take advantage of it. Keep your ear to the ground, listen for happening in Congress or other areas of government, national and local, and write your congresscritter, or other official expressing your feelings in clear concise language and encourage others to do so.

---

Just to be clear, "attribution" does not absolve one of copyright infringement. It's the right thing to do when quoting something, or saying where you heard some fact, but "I gave you credit!" is not a defense for infringement. Other than that, your advice is good. -rc

As a photographer who has worked professionally, I have had to come to grips with what copyright means to me. The origins of copyright, as I understand, is to give reasonable time to profit from works of art. After one or two years the photos mean very little to me financially so I forgo my copyright for it.

As a modern global society profit can be made within initial release of a product. Take a movie that grosses 100 million, with production cost of $50 million, money is earned. The Super Bowl had over 90 million viewers? How much did it earn? Now I understand that the objection will be, ”are they not paying for other cost too?” In the movie example how many movies got made that didn't earn money? I come back to the original point. What is reasonable and what is greed?

In our digital age copyright material is stolen faster and easier every day. I think it is greed on all parties parts, but the majority of responsibility lies on the corporations shoulders. Take Windows XP home that was selling in Canada for $299 until last month. It is a 6 or 7 year old product, have they not earned their share back? (To answer that simply look at the founder of Microsoft!) Mike brings up a great point. Installed on more than one computer is allowed under the law with it only being used by one computer at a time (in Canada at least). The license says only one period and will stop at nothing to prevent you from trying. To me this is pure greed.

The solution? In our society if we cannot make a reasonable profit from a product in 5 years, we have the ability to provide a improved version. For me, my stock photography from 5 years ago stinks compared to my work as I evolve a photographer. George Lucas’s effects are the same. If we focus less on our greed, and more on our evolution we become happier and more creative. Thus better products come out and we progress faster. The side effects are plenty and very apparent. More companies distributing the products makes the costs go down. Take VCR’s for example. Theft will be down as a by product. I guess it could make a better community in general but for now I will take of my rose colored glasses...

Lastly, think about this, why does the NFL care about ratings? More people watching means the more the can justify charging for everything from souvenirs to tickets to advertisers. The hype add coins to their pockets. Is that okay? Yes in our free world economy it is, but don’t use government to justify your greed! How much time is reasonable for them? 5 minutes of game time? 10 Minutes?

---

If the photos you take aren't valuable after two years, it's your decision to release their copyright. And that's the entire point: it's your decision. I happen to love "antique" photos -- they're worth something to me. If you created them, why shouldn't you be paid for them? It's not up to me to decide, "Oh, these are more than two years old so I can take them." It's up to you to decide. And that is how it should be. You spent the time taking them, you spent the money for the camera equipment, you drove your car to the site, etc. If you can't get paid for your effort, you'll stop doing it -- and the world will be a poorer place for the lack of your art. It's not up to me to decide when you've been paid back, when you've moved to profit, or when you've moved to "greed". What's the key here: all of that is, and should be your decision. -rc

Randy, apparently I wasn't as clear as I'd intended. I was comparing myself to the NFL. The fact that I can get away with padlocking doors against my tenants (similar to the NFL over-stating their copyright) doesn't make it actually legal. It's an abuse of power, and that's what a lot of us get away with. Especially since the little guy, most often, has no means to take us on in court. In other words, I don't REALLY padlock doors against deadbeat tenants. Although there is really no penalty if I do, it's still not legally right, and I insist that responsibility must accompany power.

---

Thanks for the clarification. -rc

1. Ryan, I suspect that if one of your pictures suddenly became of interest (i.e., worth a significant amount of money, like a million bucks or so) for some reason, well after your self-imposed two year limit, you'd like to get money for it. :)

2. I get the impression that as far as copyright and patent law are concerned (at least as originally intended), there is no such thing as "intellectual property". The work of art is not property, the copyright is, and even that is only for a limited term under restricted circumstances.

3. I think that some changes to US copyright and patent law would help. I think the terms were a bit long already before the extensions, but I understand the need to conform with international law, and I also understand the need to discourage the untimely deaths of copyright/patent holders. However, if the copyrighted material is not available to the public under reasonable terms (on-demand printing is quite cheap nowadays), or if a patent holder makes no deliberate attempt to immediately sell or license (for reasonable terms) the device described by the patent, then I don't see much purpose in the holder keeping the protection ("submarine" patents have been sunk in the US, I believe). If it's not accessible, it does not benefit the public good.

Scott and Ryan -

An example of a worthless photograph that suddenly became extremely valuable is a digital photo some press photographer took, showing Monica Lewinsky in a beret cheesing at Bill Clinton at some event or another - three or four years before she and he ever became known for their mutual love for cigars.

It went from nothing to the most valuable photograph on the planet (for a little while) in zero seconds flat!

Whoever decided not to delete the file and to preserve copyright on it suddenly became a very happy fellow.

It's worth noting that copyright not only gives an author the right to profit from his work, but to control its publication.

There are a lot of my jokes floating around the net. Usually, I just ask someone to credit me and link to me if I find them using on on their web site, but if they're using it to populate a splog, I can demand its removal. I don't have to give them the option of using it if they pay me. I can just make them stop using it.

While the ability to profit from my work is an important component of copyright, I believe the right to control who is able to reprint it is equally important.