What's up with Photobucket and Video copy right's ?

[Flench]

Man I just spent 2 hour's making a video and went to post it on Photobucket and about half way throught it , it come up with the copy right BS on a CD that I PAID for , now wt-hey ? Never has before  When they start this ?

[ImADot]

Dunno, but just because you paid for a CD doesn't give you rights to copy the content and use it however you want. Just like if you bought a DVD movie and projected it on the side of a building for public display. You bought the right for private enjoyment of the content for yourself. It sucks, but that's how things are.

Most times, YouTube won't usually block movies if you give credit for the music or other content you used...so far. They will, however, block domains from accessing your movies because of copyright laws - like Europe not being able to view a movie because of music content (even with proper credits for such content).

[eagl]

If you don't like that, you'll HATE wal-mart's policy on making prints from high quality digital images.  If you take them an image that looks "too good", they assume that you couldn't have possibly taken it yourself and they require proof that some professional photographer has released copyright to you.

My wife had a half-dozen images rejected by wal-mart that way.  The images had no copyright logo or anything on them, and had been pulled from a CD we received from a photographer for the express purpose of making prints.  Since we submitted them for printing online, they needed the CD or some other proof that we had image duplication rights.  We didn't have the CD with us since they had never required this proof on similar print orders before, so we cancelled the order and will just have some other shop do the printing.  Kind of annoying, but although the images were "clean" they still required physical proof of copyright release.

And maybe next time I'll run the files through a metadata scrubber...  That might help.  We did the order online just to avoid having to carry the CD around where it might get scratched or lost, and the CD cost a lot of money so it's worth protecting.

[Dichotomy]

that's why I started hosting my pics on my own site.  I got tired of photobuckets random nonsense

[PFactorDave]

My wife had a half-dozen images rejected by wal-mart that way.  The images had no copyright logo or anything on them, and had been pulled from a CD we received from a photographer for the express purpose of making prints.  Since we submitted them for printing online, they needed the CD or some other proof that we had image duplication rights.  We didn't have the CD with us since they had never required this proof on similar print orders before, so we cancelled the order and will just have some other shop do the printing.  Kind of annoying, but although the images were "clean" they still required physical proof of copyright release.

You got hosed by the photographer in this case.  He should have known that you would need a physical written copy right release.  Sounds like he was too lazy to provide good customer service.  The people at Wal Mart were protecting the photographers rights.  It is incumbent on the photographer to provide the release.  The Wal Mart folks did exactly what they were supposed to do.

[Dichotomy]

hey Dave, clear something up for me,  I occasionally dabble with PS just for the heck of it.  Most of the time it's to make a funny picture of someone or something like that.  Is using all or just part of a pic w/o express consent still infringement? Everything I put on the web I hope somebody likes enough to use again but that's not how I make my living you know?

[PFactorDave]

hey Dave, clear something up for me,  I occasionally dabble with PS just for the heck of it.  Most of the time it's to make a funny picture of someone or something like that.  Is using all or just part of a pic w/o express consent still infringement? Everything I put on the web I hope somebody likes enough to use again but that's not how I make my living you know?

Not always, but in most cases it probably is infringement.  Copyright law is pretty easy to find if you google it.  If you want to allow stuff you have made ot be used by anyone, just say so when you post stuff up.

[Dichotomy]

I always do

And I have googled it numerous times after I realized that my opinions were based on out dated laws.  Can't say I always agree with the current laws but I can understand the logic behind them. 

[PFactorDave]

Can't say I always agree with the current laws but I can understand the logic behind them. 

Well, those of us who make our living with our cameras appreciate your understanding.   

[saggs]

Well, those of us who make our living with our cameras appreciate your understanding.  

+1

I've had many requests from random people who want to use some photo off my website for personal use, or even several for a commercial use on a calender or book.  I always respond by pointing out where the I have both hi and low res digital downloads with either a personal or commercial use license listed for sale right under all the different print sizes when you click "Buy This Photo".

So far I've only had one actually buy it.  

As for Wal-Mart and the photo CD, I quit selling photos on CD a few years ago, but when I did I included a personal use license document right on the CD.  I quit selling CDs however after somebody entered a picture of his pet Labrador (which I took, and sold to him on CD) in a local amateur pet store sponsored photo contest as his own photo, and won.     Also I decided I didn't want my photos to be reflected poorly because of cheap home printers or crappy Wally world prints.

[Dichotomy]

Well, those of us who make our living with our cameras appreciate your understanding.   

 

Still going to ps your head on a llama some day 

[PFactorDave]

I included a personal use license document right on the CD.  

This is how I have always done it also.  I even have the document sized as a 4x6 so the photo finisher can print a copy for their files right on their photo printers.

[Flench]

Well how can photobucket tell that music I am running ?

[eagl]

In all fairness, the photographer included the copyright release on either the CD or the CD jacket.  The problem I had was that Wal-mart had not enforced this requirement in the past, and the online submission site and process did not make it obvious that we would need to physically carry the copyright release to the store in order to pick up the prints.

In the past, we submitted the pics and picked them up, no questions asked.  Since we don't steal stuff and don't violate photographer copyrights, we thought that this was "normal".  We've used this wal-mart print shop and printed images from the same photographer before, so it was a big surprise when they suddenly started enforcing a rule that wasn't obviously posted anywhere.

[saggs]

In all fairness, the photographer included the copyright release on either the CD or the CD jacket.  The problem I had was that Wal-mart had not enforced this requirement in the past, and the online submission site and process did not make it obvious that we would need to physically carry the copyright release to the store in order to pick up the prints.

In the past, we submitted the pics and picked them up, no questions asked.  Since we don't steal stuff and don't violate photographer copyrights, we thought that this was "normal".  We've used this wal-mart print shop and printed images from the same photographer before, so it was a big surprise when they suddenly started enforcing a rule that wasn't obviously posted anywhere.

Take it as a sign to stop getting Wal-Mart prints.

In my experience Wal-Mart prints suck anyway, you will no doubt get far better prints, and better customer service if you find a decent photo lab.    You may not notice it unless you compare side-by-side with a good print, but when you do you'll notice Wal Mart prints have lost shadows, blown highlights, blacks that aren't really black and even messed up color temperature.

I got some quick prints I needed on the road once from a Wal-Mart, and could tell immediately the color was way off (average Caucasian skin was orange).  When I got home and compared them with prints from the same file I got from my regular lab (Bay Photo online) I was blown away with how poor they where.

I'd stay away from the Ritz/Inkleys/Wolf chain as well, I've had miserable experience with them, including lost 6x7 negatives on 2 separate occasions with no compensation, and sales people that flat out lied and made stuff up.