Tesco enabling copyright infringements

[cjevans]

Costco asked me to bring my camera when I had pictures that were 'too professional' looking, it's one way of protecting a pro level photographer of the exif is intact and not many people are going to have/buy the camera required to scam a cheap print. If it was a printed copy like this case things are more difficult but they could make some effort, my local asda will let you log in to Facebook and print pictures straight off. Without even getting into the resized low quality image FB usually saves its scary what people are allowed to print with zero effort made.

Most people think they have the right to print any picture they're in because its a picture of them so they don't even know what they're doing is wrong, the rest just don't care. Supermarkets it would seem fall into the 2nd group.

 

[omens]

Most people think they have the right to print any picture they're in because its a picture of them so they don't even know what they're doing is wrong

+1. As I stated above, people believe they "own" anything with their image or something they've made for. There were similar issues with music CDs - people thought they bought and owned the CD whereas the legal fluff stated that they had paid to listen to the music but didn't own it or the CD. Hence there was the issue of copying music to play on PC/laptop/mp3 player - technically illegal but basically the law turned a blind eye to it so long as it was for personal use.

I wonder if that's what the law will be changed to - "you can make as many copies and prints of that photo that you paid for so long as it's for your personal use"?

 

[simonblue]

Nope. Tesco's are equally culpable, no matter what their disclaimer says. Ignorance (which is effectively what they are claiming) is no defence.

In agreement Ignorance is not a defence.

I wonder how many times you could go into your local Tesco"s buy a load of CD and just copy them,and take them back the next day for a refund,before they would cotton on

 

[Johnny Throstle]

They (Tesco) only accept returns on CDs/DVDs that are unopened or faulty.

I imagine its a standard policy at most retailers.

 

[Phil Young]

As soon as the internet came about, that wasn't it first music. I would have laughed at people telling me they bought their CD's when I was a kid growing up with every track made at my disposal...and years down the line has this been changed? Nope, still easy to attain and distribute if one wishes.

...my point is, that's just the way it is now with copyright and it's simply to difficult to regulate.

Does that make it right? No. Does that matter to the customer? Probably not.

Personally, I think people need to accept it and adjust their business to this, not try to fight the way it is nowadays because it isn't going to get more favourable for the photographer.

 

[andya700]

I blame tescos policies, not their staff, low or high paid
They protect their own products with cameras, security, scanners etc. Its a simple thing to suggest to a questionable print should require authorisation from the original artist, or at least have a procedure to question it imo

I can see why you are concerned/upset by this, but unfortunately with the technology available today this is going to be happening a lot.
The other question I would ask you - what is a "questionable print"? How on earth could Tescos or for that matter, any other retail outlet police this? There may well be a copyright mark on the reverse of the print, but as others have said, the resources are simply not available to check everything.
Your client was honest about what happened, but for every honest person, there will be ten dishonest people, hoping to get a large canvas print for a fraction of the price which you charge.

 

[cambsno]

Costco asked me to bring my camera when I had pictures that were 'too professional' looking, it's one way of protecting a pro level photographer of the exif is intact and not many people are going to have/buy the camera required to scam a cheap print. If it was a printed copy like this case things are more difficult but they could make some effort, my local asda will let you log in to Facebook and print pictures straight off. Without even getting into the resized low quality image FB usually saves its scary what people are allowed to print with zero effort made.

Most people think they have the right to print any picture they're in because its a picture of them so they don't even know what they're doing is wrong, the rest just don't care. Supermarkets it would seem fall into the 2nd group.

Really. So what is deemed a 'pro camera' to a Costco checkout person? Can they really tell the difference between a d90 and a d600? What if I took a professional pic on my x100?

How annoyed would people be if they had to drive back home to get a camera then drive back to get print. Crazy.

 

[BruceMo]

I can see why you are concerned/upset by this, but unfortunately with the technology available today this is going to be happening a lot.
The other question I would ask you - what is a "questionable print"? How on earth could Tescos or for that matter, any other retail outlet police this? There may well be a copyright mark on the reverse of the print, but as others have said, the resources are simply not available to check everything.
Your client was honest about what happened, but for every honest person, there will be ten dishonest people, hoping to get a large canvas print for a fraction of the price which you charge.

It is all too easy to happen with the expensive equipment they have at their disposal, which is why I think they should act responsibly and not have the morals of a crack whore
I'll say this for the last time, imo a "questionable print" would be one very similar to the one I described. New condition, high quality would be a clue, then simply turn it over to see "copyright protected image"
Wouldn't that be questionable enough for you?
I totally understand tesco and their viewpoint, they just want to maximise profit. I'll never understand people who agree with or support it

 

[Steve Smith]

It's even more difficult if you are using an online supplier to produce prints from your scans and files. This is from Tesco's website:

You agree only to send to us images in which you own the copyright (e.g. you took the photographs or they were taken with your permission with your camera) or images which you are authorised to send to us. You agree not to send us any images which may be objectionable. You agree not to infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party. By sharing your images using the sharing facility on the Tesco Photo site, you agree that the person or persons receiving the shared images / albums may edit and print any such images.

You agree to be responsible for any claims, costs, expenses or legal proceedings caused as a result of your use of this Service in contravention of this section. Further, in these circumstances, Tesco shall be entitled to cancel any pending orders for Products made by you and terminate any access permission granted to you by Tesco forthwith, without notice to you.

Steve.

 

[DemiLion]

Ah - you're a solicitor?

I don't need to be. As a press photographer one of the specialist areas of law that I studied was Copyright (in particular the CDPA 1988). Most run of the mill solicitors won't have a clue about it.

 

[HoppyUK]

It is all too easy to happen with the expensive equipment they have at their disposal, which is why I think they should act responsibly and not have the morals of a crack whore
I'll say this for the last time, imo a "questionable print" would be one very similar to the one I described. New condition, high quality would be a clue, then simply turn it over to see "copyright protected image"
Wouldn't that be questionable enough for you?
I totally understand tesco and their viewpoint, they just want to maximise profit. I'll never understand people who agree with or support it

Speaking of morals, and putting the letter of the law to one side for a moment, do you think it's 'right' that if you cover a wedding, or do a model shoot, or take on any paid commission, that the couple/model/client have zero rights to those images, even when they would not exist without their participation?

That's at the heart of this problem. Ask a few friends what their view is, then explain the legal position, and you'll find they're mostly bemused and think the law has got it morally wrong.

 

[Steve Smith]

Speaking of morals, and putting the letter of the law to one side for a moment, do you think it's 'right' that if you cover a wedding, or do a model shoot, or take on any paid commission, that the couple/model/client have zero rights to those images, even when they would not exist without their participation?

That's at the heart of this problem. Ask a few friends what their view is, then explain the legal position, and you'll find they're mostly bemused and think the law has got it morally wrong.

In the olden days when you used to keep the negatives, you had control. If a customer wanted a print, he had to come to you to get it. Now that everyone has access to a scanner and there is a means of printing in every high street and supermarket, combined with giving the customer digital files, that control is gone.

A large proportion of photography customers will now scan and/or make their own prints and no amount of 'customer education' is going to change this.

Blaming Tesco for infringements is like blaming Epson for supplying scanners and printers.


Steve.

 

[simonblue]

They (Tesco) only accept returns on CDs/DVDs that are unopened or faulty.

I imagine its a standard policy at most retailers.

My point being if you're dishonest enough to take in an copyright photo,then i dare say you would return all your cd/dvd as faulty.
Then i would imagine Tesco after a while would keep an eye out because it would be biting into them money wise.
Whereas with copyright photos they make money from

 

[Last_Straw]

Speaking of morals, and putting the letter of the law to one side for a moment, do you think it's 'right' that if you cover a wedding, or do a model shoot, or take on any paid commission, that the couple/model/client have zero rights to those images, even when they would not exist without their participation?g.

Wouldn't their rights be laid out in the contract, so they could be zero, or they could own copyright of the work outright, or somewhere in between?

 

[HoppyUK]

Wouldn't their rights be laid out in the contract, so they could be zero, or they could own copyright of the work outright, or somewhere in between?

What contract? I'm talking about the legal default position when no contract exists, ie mostly. That's when these problems arise, and even if there is a contract it's not always understood (or even read) by the other party.

Take a model shoot, often done on a TFCD basis - model gives time for free in return for images on a CD for their portfolio, and photographer shoots for free to do the same. Legally, she owns the CD (the bit of plastic) but not the images, of her, actually on it. Same applies if you give her a print - she owns the paper, but not the image of herself on it.

Then you get her to sign a model release that says you, the photographer, can do whatever you like with the images.

Try explaining that to the average model, and get her to agree that it's morally right and perfectly reasonable for the photographer to own all rights, and for her to own none at all. Which therefore means, if she tries to copy or print any of the images herself, or puts them on Facebook or whatever, she's committing an offence.

It's a nonsense

 

[Faldrax]

Wouldn't their rights be laid out in the contract, so they could be zero, or they could own copyright of the work outright, or somewhere in between?

This is fine, if the copyright and / or licensing rights to the images are explicitly stated in a written contact that both sides can agree to (and understand) before hand.

I suspect, however, that a lot of contracts are agreed verbally, or if there is a written contract the prospective couple sign it without reading it - they've talked it over with the photographer, and know they'll be getting (for example) 200 shots covering the wedding.

The concept of what rights they have to those shots will simply not occur to them - it's their wedding, they're paying the photographer to take the shots - obviously they own them! (except the law says otherwise, by default).

 

[HoppyUK]

This is fine, if the copyright and / or licensing rights to the images are explicitly stated in a written contact that both sides can agree to (and understand) before hand.

I suspect, however, that a lot of contracts are agreed verbally, or if there is a written contract the prospective couple sign it without reading it - they've talked it over with the photographer, and know they'll be getting (for example) 200 shots covering the wedding.

The concept of what rights they have to those shots will simply not occur to them - it's their wedding, they're paying the photographer to take the shots - obviously they own them! (except the law says otherwise, by default).

Exactly. And the reality is worse than that, because the customer (ie happy couple) only finds out about what's in the fine print after the event and take umbrage when they can't make a few copies for gran etc.

So they completely ignore the law, believing it to be morally ridiculous after they've paid a four figure sum, and get them done anyway. It's impossible to stop this, so any photographer that expects to generate profit from reprints - like they used to in film days - needs to change their business model.

 

[ernesto]

Bruce, out of interest did you explain to your client what she had done wrong here, after all she is the root cause of the issue? Are you going to be taking action against her for breach of your copyright?

 

[Nod]

ISTR a thread (or several) from people moaning that Tesco/Asda/SnappySnaps and the like had refused to copy or print photos for them since the shots were too professional. They're in a difficult position - damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[BruceMo]

Bruce, out of interest did you explain to your client what she had done wrong here, after all she is the root cause of the issue? Are you going to be taking action against her for breach of your copyright?

Yes,as I explained earlier somewhere, and was pleased when she ordered multiple copies of a few prints from the latest shoot, even though she knows tesco would copy them and she just needs to keep quiet about it
I explained it was wrong and she was very sorry. What do you do? I cant see me ever going to the bother of legal action over anything like this but not happy with tesco for making it all too easy to ignore copyright
Hey ho. Life moves on
On a side note, I spoke to trading standards today about it, and they said what I expected, tesco do what they want and have a big warchest for legal fees, so very difficuilt and expensive to fight them on any legalities
But he and the tesco worker from head office I spoke to were very sympathetic and completely agreed with my grievance. Which makes some of the responses on here even harder to understand

 

[HoppyUK]

Yes,as I explained earlier somewhere, and was pleased when she ordered multiple copies of a few prints from the latest shoot, even though she knows tesco would copy them and she just needs to keep quiet about it
I explained it was wrong and she was very sorry. What do you do? I cant see me ever going to the bother of legal action over anything like this but not happy with tesco for making it all too easy to ignore copyright
Hey ho. Life moves on
On a side note, I spoke to trading standards today about it, and they said what I expected, tesco do what they want and have a big warchest for legal fees, so very difficuilt and expensive to fight them on any legalities
But he and the tesco worker from head office I spoke to were very sympathetic and completely agreed with my grievance. Which makes some of the responses on here even harder to understand

What did you expect Tescos to say? That they think the law is daft so they just ignore it? When you do see printers/processors with a sign about copyright, or sales assistants that question customers, they're doing it to protect their butts, not out of any sympathy for the photographer.

It's the customer/subject/client that needs to change their attitude, but since that's not going to happen, for whatever reason, the problem will continue to exist. And in all likelihood, it's the law that will change - back in line with where it was pre-1988 when the paying client was the default owner of copyright. Quite right too IMHO.

 

[Steve Smith]

back in line with where it was pre-1988 when the paying client was the default owner of copyright. Quite right too IMHO.

I agree with this (which will be an unpopular opinion).

When 99% of your clients believe that they own the copyright to images which they paid for, you might as well change your business model to make that the case.

Clients given digital files and/or the ability to scan and print themselves are going to do just that.

In most cases, paid for photography is of no real use to anyone other than the person who paid for it (I'm mainly thinking about weddings, portraits and product photography). just get paid a suitable amount for your time and don't worry about future uses of the images.


Steve.

 

[omens]

When 99% of your clients believe that they own the copyright to images which they paid for, you might as well change your business model to make that the case.

+1 agree with this. My sister got married last year and the photographer (as much of an arse as he was) have my sister the album + CD will the full images + the reference number to get more albums printed by the company he used. Then again, we did pay £2000.

 

[Steve Smith]

the album + CD will the full images + the reference number to get more albums printed by the company he used. Then again, we did pay £2000.

Well, you don't need to transfer copyright for this, just give a letter giving permission to have prints made.


Steve.

 

[BruceMo]

What did you expect Tescos to say? That they think the law is daft so they just ignore it? When you do see printers/processors with a sign about copyright, or sales assistants that question customers, they're doing it to protect their butts, not out of any sympathy for the photographer.

It's the customer/subject/client that needs to change their attitude, but since that's not going to happen, for whatever reason, the problem will continue to exist. And in all likelihood, it's the law that will change - back in line with where it was pre-1988 when the paying client was the default owner of copyright. Quite right too IMHO.

It wasn't a tesco response
It was a personal one, from an employee who writes a blog and was into writting and felt the same when his work was copied onto other sites etc. I had a nice chat with him
But jump in anyway

 

[HoppyUK]

It wasn't a tesco response
It was a personal one, from an employee who writes a blog and was into writting and felt the same when his work was copied onto other sites etc. I had a nice chat with him
But jump in anyway

I will thanks - that's how forums work.

But there's no need to take offence. I'm expressing an opinion, mainly a pragmatic one, simply based on how the general public thinks and acts in regard to copyright. It's been a big part of my professional life for decades.

That is separate from the rights and wrongs of it all though, legal or otherwise. I have a view on that too, and it's not one that everyone agrees with as far as payment and ownership of copyright is concerned. On the other hand, the whole intellectual rights question is very complex and there are many exceptions. In my own work, mostly the client gets full rights. But not always, and sometimes there are caveats. This is reflected in the price, and it is always clear and agreed up front.

 

[BruceMo]

No offence taken
I just feel I've made it very clear what I expect tesco to say
And you jumped in (which is your right on a forum) assuming (wrongly) I was talking about tesco official response and I was referring to the personal feelings of the fella on the phone Sorry if it sounded very grumpy, but there have been many responses to imaginary situations and hypothetical non arguments that the facts get very muddy and I seem to keep repeating myself
Anyway, its done now. I can live with the real world, won't stop complaining about things I find wrong tho. I've done what I can, moaned where I can, now I'm just chilled with it all.
Three cheers for tesco and their money grabbing, soul sapping, morally devoid attempts at global domination. Hip hip

 

[a1ex2001]

Three cheers for tesco and their money grabbing, soul sapping, morally devoid attempts at global domination. Hip hip

Welcome to the world of business, if you want to be huge these are the things you need to do. Although I would say your tiny irrational photography complaint is pretty insignificant on the list of low down nasty things tesco does.

 

[ernesto]

Although I would say your tiny irrational photography complaint is pretty insignificant on the list of low down nasty things tesco does.

Spot on. If this was all Tesco was guilty of then the world of supermarkets would be a much happier place with actual morals...

 

[ernesto]

I explained it was wrong and she was very sorry. What do you do? I cant see me ever going to the bother of legal action over anything like this but not happy with tesco for making it all too easy to ignore copyright
Hey ho. Life moves on

She is still the root cause and that is what should be tackled but as you say life moves on (well it would but you seem to be letting your grudge with Tesco get in the way)

And as copyright seems to be so misunderstood maybe you should have explained it to her as part of the chat beforehand and more importantly do this with all future clients otherwise you have done nothing to stop it happening next time.

 

[BruceMo]

Welcome to the world of business, if you want to be huge these are the things you need to do. Although I would say your tiny irrational photography complaint is pretty insignificant on the list of low down nasty things tesco does.

Thanks for such a thought provoking, stimulating post
I'll check with you in future to see if my threads are significant, rational or big enough to trouble you
I've been in business for decades by the way, you're welcome is a tad late

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

+1 agree with this. My sister got married last year and the photographer (as much of an arse as he was) have my sister the album + CD will the full images + the reference number to get more albums printed by the company he used. Then again, we did pay £2000.

I'm looking for a wedding photographer for next year, and for this very reason, anyone who expects us to cough up for extra prints when we're already paying them a, not exactly small, fee to do the work in the first place, is instantly excluded from our shortlist.

 

[Im Bald Ok]

Thanks for such a thought provoking, stimulating post
I'll check with you in future to see if my threads are significant, rational or big enough to trouble you
I've been in business for decades by the way, you're welcome is a tad late

I like how you react to anyone who doesn't take your side.

Anyway, your beef should be with the customer or your business model surely? Your customer bought the images, they are responsible for what happens to the images. Why should Tesco go to such lengths to make sure the customer isn't breaking copyright?

 

[cjevans]

Really. So what is deemed a 'pro camera' to a Costco checkout person? Can they really tell the difference between a d90 and a d600? What if I took a professional pic on my x100?

How annoyed would people be if they had to drive back home to get a camera then drive back to get print. Crazy.

They look at the exif, if you have the camera that matches then they can say they took reasonable steps to prevent copyright breach. The camera doesn't actually matter at all, could be d3100 or d4, if you have the camera that matches they are happy to accept that the pictures belong to you.

I uploaded online and they emailed me to discuss, brought in the camera and they handed the prints over.

I don't think it's a perfect system but it a step more than others are taking. It happened when I had a picture for my sister as well, she went to print a canvas of the kids and they wouldn't do it without a release from me. They have updated my details and so I don't have to take he camera every time so it is a one off pain but I overall one that looking for the right outcome in a fairly practical way and so fair enough.

If we're going to be up in arms about supermarkets not protecting photographers rights then I think we possibly have to be a little more willing to work with them to achieve that.

(Sorry for delayed reply, just not been on to check)

 

[BruceMo]

I like how you react to anyone who doesn't take your side.

Anyway, your beef should be with the customer or your business model surely? Your customer bought the images, they are responsible for what happens to the images. Why should Tesco go to such lengths to make sure the customer isn't breaking copyright?

"Although I would say your tiny irrational photography complaint is pretty insignificant on the list of low down nasty things Tesco does".
This isn't not taking my side, it's rude. I can be that too if I chose

Your question has been asked answered and put to bed in thread as to how I feel and what I think tesco has a duty to do
People disagree, that's fine
I'm off looking for new things to moan about

 

[ernesto]

I'm off looking for new things to moan about

Well your are going to have a large list with the bar set so low on this one

 

[big soft moose]

Thing is tesco arent making it easy to ignore legalities - they are specifically asking the customer to confirm they have the right to duplicate

If the customer lies to them , then you can't really blame tesco , especially as theres no fast way of proving copyright (yeah okay yours have a sticker on, but supose a client scans them and brings in a memory stick)

As a paralel supose I zap one of your photos off your website and then upload it to TP claiming it is my own - does the blame for that rest with matty, marcel, and brian for not somehow checking i have the copyright to everything I upload ? , or does it rest with me for being a dishonest ****wit ?

 

[cambsno]

They look at the exif, if you have the camera that matches then they can say they took reasonable steps to prevent copyright breach. The camera doesn't actually matter at all, could be d3100 or d4, if you have the camera that matches they are happy to accept that the pictures belong to you.

I uploaded online and they emailed me to discuss, brought in the camera and they handed the prints over.

I don't think it's a perfect system but it a step more than others are taking. It happened when I had a picture for my sister as well, she went to print a canvas of the kids and they wouldn't do it without a release from me. They have updated my details and so I don't have to take he camera every time so it is a one off pain but I overall one that looking for the right outcome in a fairly practical way and so fair enough.

If we're going to be up in arms about supermarkets not protecting photographers rights then I think we possibly have to be a little more willing to work with them to achieve that.

(Sorry for delayed reply, just not been on to check)

So what about my pics from last 3 years with my old D300 - now have a D700!! Camera wouldnt match exif!

The problem is this :

1. Joe Public does not understand copyright/licensing! Partly as we dont explain it, and as Steve and Hoppy said, it seems crazy. If I pay you to take pics of me why cant I print them off?

2. Todays world means it is so easy to copy and share media. From films and applications to music and photos, people will do what is easy and free! I am sure we have all broken the law to one degree or another! It is also easy to print off your own letter saying you have copyright.

3. We need common sense - it seems crazy that you read of a 50yo needing ID to buy booze, so taking cameras with us is not common sense. I would argue that 99% of pics Tesco print are holiday snaps and pics from a night out or day at the beach, taken on iphone or compact. Should you really employ massive deterrents which will hinder these. We know that despite CCTV is everywhere yet shoplifting still goes on. Should Tesco then search everyone leaving the store to prevent this? No, sledgehammer - walnut!

4. I dont care what clients do as I cant prevent it. I generally sell prints or electronic images and I cant police what they do with it. If they do make their own canvas they would not have paid my price anyway and I am not going to lose sleep over it. I am happy with the price I get paid and thats that. If I was bothered I would either not supply prints or CD, or charge a hell of a lot more!

 

[DemiLion]

Thing is tesco arent making it easy to ignore legalities - they are specifically asking the customer to confirm they have the right to duplicate

If the customer lies to them , then you can't really blame tesco , especially as theres no fast way of proving copyright (yeah okay yours have a sticker on, but supose a client scans them and brings in a memory stick)

As a paralel supose I zap one of your photos off your website and then upload it to TP claiming it is my own - does the blame for that rest with matty, marcel, and brian for not somehow checking i have the copyright to everything I upload ? , or does it rest with me for being a dishonest ****wit ?

In both cases the fault lies with the person who reproduces the work.

What Tesco's T&Cs do is to indemnify them against unlicensed material being submitted for printing: ie if I go after Tesco's for infringement of copyright, they can seek to reclaim their loss from their (and my) customer.

Hoppy's right though - printing like this is virtually impossible to police and chasing after this sort of infraction is likely to earn you a miserable reputation. Customer education is the only way to deal with it. That and charging sufficient that you aren't reliant on reprints.

 

[big soft moose]

In both cases the fault lies with the person who reproduces the work.

What Tesco's T&Cs do is to indemnify them against unlicensed material being submitted for printing: ie if I go after Tesco's for infringement of copyright, they can seek to reclaim their loss from their (and my) customer.

Hoppy's right though - printing like this is virtually impossible to police and chasing after this sort of infraction is likely to earn you a miserable reputation. Customer education is the only way to deal with it. That and charging sufficient that you aren't reliant on reprints.

surely its the customer who copies the photo - just using tesco's facilities to do it (hence the indemnification)