a

[Rod Bishop]

a

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

In your contract let the customer know that they will get a Photo CD/DVD but that the file sizes will be greately reduced and shrink the files down to a size that would only make a decent wallet sized photo. Yeah you can see the pics but can't print from them and you uphold the contract and then maybe offer an option for larger file sizes at a higher price if the customer balks well that is their problem.

AS far as Google, join the PPA or the Wedding Photos Equivalent and get them to go after them as a class action- GODGLE would set up and listen when $$$$$$$ aka MILLIONS are being tossed around in the conversation vs your piddleing hundreds.

[boxofrocks]

I guess I'm confused...So you sold/gave them a DVD of all the images, but retained the reproduction rights to them? If so, that seems like a contradiction.



If I was a customer and bought/received electronic images, I would assume they were mine to do with whatever I pleased. Is there a reason why you didn't use some kind of online proofing?

Just trying to figure out the reasoning behind selling/giving them a DVD and still expecting print orders.

[Rod Bishop]

Hey DEM!

Yeah I'm a member of PPA and have spoke to them. The legal dept is going to send Google and PhotoWorks.com the same legal info about identifying professionally taken photos that they sent to Shutterfly.

Hey Boxofrocks!

Thanks for the input. Unless you sell complete copyright, the customer purchasing the CD/DVD only gets limited usage rights. Which usually includes reproducing prints up to a certain size for family and friends, but they cannot be sold by them or anyone else. But just because someone purchases images does not necessarily ( and in most cases do not ) give them the right to do anything they wish with the purchased images.

I don't expect reprint orders when I sell limited rights, however, I stil get them on most occasions. The problem here was, a third party company is coming in and seeking reprint orders of images that may or may not be copyrighted.

Sorry, if I was confusing in the original post....

[CobyPhoto]

Originally Posted by Rod Bishop

Thanks for the input. Unless you sell complete copyright, the customer purchasing the CD/DVD only gets limited usage rights. Which usually includes reproducing prints up to a certain size for family and friends, but they cannot be sold by them or anyone else. But just because someone purchases images does not necessarily ( and in most cases do not ) give them the right to do anything they wish with the purchased images.

Not always the case. YOU must specifiy and make sure your client knows the limitations that are placed on the images you sell. If it was an assumption or verbal agreement, your screwed. If I sell images on a DVD/CD with limited rights, it is accompanied by a written release that specifically spells out the useage and print terms for the images on that DVD/CD.

In a nutshell, if you don't take steps to prevent copyright infrignment, you have no case in court. All the client has to do is say "Well, he sold me the DVD/CD, I thought I could do with it what I wanted. I paid for it." And if there is nothing to prove otherwise, the client wins.

CJ

[jeffkohn]

Thanks for the input. Unless you sell complete copyright, the customer purchasing the CD/DVD only gets limited usage rights. Which usually includes reproducing prints up to a certain size for family and friends, but they cannot be sold by them or anyone else. But just because someone purchases images does not necessarily ( and in most cases do not ) give them the right to do anything they wish with the purchased images.

I don't expect reprint orders when I sell limited rights, however, I stil get them on most occasions. The problem here was, a third party company is coming in and seeking reprint orders of images that may or may not be copyrighted.

So forgive me if I'm being dense, but what is the difference between taking the jpg's to walmart to get prints versus getting them online from Google/Photoworks? Are you worried that people who shouldn't be able to get prints under your limited usage agreement are ordering them? Like who? I can't imagine that prints of these images are of too much interest to anybody but friends and family members, and you've already stated they can get prints from the images you delivered to them.

[Rod Bishop]

a

[chloew]

Originally Posted by Rod Bishop

Even, then the processing company is supposed to be aware, just as we are of what looks like a professionally done image vs. an amateur and not reproduce that image for ro to anyone without a written release authorzing the processor to do so.

I think that's a litte much to ask. I'm sure there are tons of amateurs here who's images are much better than many professional wedding photographer's images. So pure judgement of image quality can not be a deciding factor.

[DeLeon]

I guess I don't get it....