"Industry Standard"

shoshone

shoshone

Messages
788
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
No
My wife had a watercolour painting scanned at a professional print shop sadly via a third party.

She paid £50 for the scan and then was told she could not have the electronic image instead she would have to have all of the prints done by said print shop.

Printer stated he retained the copyright to the electronic copy and claimed this is standard practice by the entire industry.

Is this true?
 
If she'd paid for a scan then she should get the scan electrronically, if she'd just paid for a print then she should get a print and wouldn't normally be able to keep the printers scan. Sounds like they're taking the pee to me, I'd go in and have a word with them ;) Your wife retains the copyright over the image
 
You might well have some comeback but the trouble is the third party, your wife has no idea what the third party agreed to. If they asked for or chose the option for a print then they got what was asked for I suppose. If it was an advertised service, did she read the advert properly (most people see what they want to see which is why advertising works).
The shop could just as easily have said they don't retain the electronic version but to say they retain copyright I think is just not true. The copyright if it exists should be with the original artist.
 
Steep said:
You might well have some comeback but the trouble is the third party, your wife has no idea what the third party agreed to. If they asked for or chose the option for a print then they got what was asked for I suppose. If it was an advertised service, did she read the advert properly (most people see what they want to see which is why advertising works).
The shop could just as easily have said they don't retain the electronic version but to say they retain copyright I think is just not true. The copyright if it exists should be with the original artist.
Click to expand...

This could very well be the crux of the problem. Ah well you live and learn.

Hairyduck said:
If she'd paid for a scan then she should get the scan electrronically, if she'd just paid for a print then she should get a print and wouldn't normally be able to keep the printers scan. Sounds like they're taking the pee to me, I'd go in and have a word with them ;) Your wife retains the copyright over the image
Click to expand...

No question regarding the watercolour she retains the copyright but the printer retained copyright on the scanned image. I called him and he conveyed this on the call.
 
As a postscript to this, I got information about scanning from a photographer who does a lot of work for fine art glossy magazines and he said he had hardly touched his scanner in over 3 years saying that he photographs them now as digital photography has become so good....mind you I believe he uses a Hasselblad which cost over 25 grand.

Anyway I decided to do just that with her watercolour admittedly just using my 1DIII and was pleasantly surprised with the result. So in a way the issue has gone away and we shall not be going to any printer now as the result on Hahnemuehle fine art on an Epson 4000 works just as well, notwithstanding this I still realise that this could all have been the 3rd party's fault.

Thanks for your input
 
shoshone said:
No question regarding the watercolour she retains the copyright but the printer retained copyright on the scanned image. I called him and he conveyed this on the call.
Click to expand...

So what did you get for your £50 ? and does the print shop now believe they have the use of the scanned image :thinking:
 
shoshone said:
This could very well be the crux of the problem. Ah well you live and learn.

No question regarding the watercolour she retains the copyright but the printer retained copyright on the scanned image. I called him and he conveyed this on the call.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that he is wrong. If he is making a reproduction of an original art work then unless you signed something granting them copyright usage then they cannot legally aquire copyright. There was a legal case in the USA where a museum lost a copyright claim but I dont know the details.

If they are saying that you've paid for a print service and they dont want to give you the electronic image, that is one thing. But for them to now claim copyright on the electronic image - which would allow them to sell that image is wrong imo.

I'm fairly sure though that a straight electronic reproduction is not a creative work as I understand is required for separate copyright on the electronic image.

What did you sign?

Can I suggest you post this in one of the more read forums to get fuller advice?


edit: I've just reported this and asked for it to be moved to a different section - I think that the OP will get better advice in the general section
 
Why not name the printer, he seems a right joker

Just ring him up and tell him that you contracted his services for a scan nothing more. The copyright belongs to your wife. Telephone trading standards tomorrow and send him a letter stating that if he uses the photo you'll be taking legal action.
 
dcash29 said:
Why not name the printer, he seems a right joker

Just ring him up and tell him that you contracted his services for a scan nothing more. The copyright belongs to your wife. Telephone trading standards tomorrow and send him a letter stating that if he uses to photo you'll be taking legal action.
Click to expand...

Straight to the point! But quite correct IMO!!

Name and shame!!!!
 
As far as I understand it :

He doesn't own the copyright to the image.
Now, depending on what the 'third party' agreed to (as this is the basis of any contract formed with the printer)...
He does however own the digital file.
He does not have the right to reproduce that or use it for any other purpose, only for the purpose of the original contract between the third party and himself (ie making prints from it).

However, your wife may be able to sue him for copyright theft for not having permission to scan the image, although the 'third party' would also have to be implicated as transferring rights that he/she did not have the authority to transfer, so that's a bit of a nonstarter.

I would speak to this third party, get it clear what they agreed to with the printer.

However, the contract for the digital file and scanning service thereof is with the third party and the printer, not your wife, so any refund requests and complaints of changing terms of service with the printer will have to be made by the third party.
 
yeah exactly Marcel ...I would have thought that the third part cannot legally sign over the copyright of an image which isn't theirs and copyright to them without detailed written direction. So most likely no matter what has been signed, its void because the images copyright can only be sold by the owner in a proper manner and all ....buyer beware and all that.
 
dcash29 said:
Why not name the printer, he seems a right joker

Just ring him up and tell him that you contracted his services for a scan nothing more. The copyright belongs to your wife. Telephone trading standards tomorrow and send him a letter stating that if he uses the photo you'll be taking legal action.
Click to expand...

SInce a 3rd party was involved I am not going to name anyone as I am not sure what the 3rd party commitited to sad to say. There is no question about the copyright for the original watercolour and the printer knows this. He is just maintaining he has kept the copyright on the electronic image hence my question about Industry Standard.
 
Marcel said:
As far as I understand it :

He doesn't own the copyright to the image.
Now, depending on what the 'third party' agreed to (as this is the basis of any contract formed with the printer)...He does however own the digital file.
He does not have the right to reproduce that or use it for any other purpose, only for the purpose of the original contract between the third party and himself (ie making prints from it).

However, your wife may be able to sue him for copyright theft for not having permission to scan the image, although the 'third party' would also have to be implicated as transferring rights that he/she did not have the authority to transfer, so that's a bit of a nonstarter.

I would speak to this third party, get it clear what they agreed to with the printer.

However, the contract for the digital file and scanning service thereof is with the third party and the printer, not your wife, so any refund requests and complaints of changing terms of service with the printer will have to be made by the third party.
Click to expand...

He is only claiming copyright to the electronic image and yes your remark regarding the 3rd party's relationship with the printer seems to hit the nail on the head.

He was given permission to scan the image, it's just that we simply expected that to be the service for an electronic image...and it could very well be down to a misunderstanding between her and the 3rd party. In WHICH CASE we could be maligning the printer though I did subsequently speak with him before posting here and it appears that he will/would not provide a simple scan and delivery of the electronice image, he would only produce a print and retain the image (and the copyright of that image) for any future prints, so it seems as though it could have been a faite acomplis for the 3rd party.
who just might have got on the phone to explain this at the time.

I really don't wish to or feel in a position to slag off a printer however this situation won't happen again and there will be no intermediary who knows a 'good' printer who will scan a watercolour.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
yeah exactly Marcel ...I would have thought that the third part cannot legally sign over the copyright of an image which isn't theirs and copyright to them without detailed written direction. So most likely no matter what has been signed, its void because the images copyright can only be sold by the owner in a proper manner and all ....buyer beware and all that.
Click to expand...

He didn't nor would he presume to do that. There is absolutely no contention over the fact that my wife retained and still does retain the copyright for the original art work. It's just that the printer states categorically that he retains the copyright to the electronic image BUT solely for the future production of prints of that image for my wife at least that is what he told me on the phone. Hmmn, maybe I should just get that put in writing..though it is awkward because it did come up in the telephone discussion and I guess I have to reluctantly agree with him, he (the printer) dealt only with the third party, the 3rd party paid his invoice and we then paid him what he paid the printer.
 
who? said:
I'm sure that he is wrong. If he is making a reproduction of an original art work then unless you signed something granting them copyright usage then they cannot legally aquire copyright. There was a legal case in the USA where a museum lost a copyright claim but I dont know the details.

If they are saying that you've paid for a print service and they dont want to give you the electronic image, that is one thing. But for them to now claim copyright on the electronic image - which would allow them to sell that image is wrong imo.

I'm fairly sure though that a straight electronic reproduction is not a creative work as I understand is required for separate copyright on the electronic image.

What did you sign?

Can I suggest you post this in one of the more read forums to get fuller advice?


edit: I've just reported this and asked for it to be moved to a different section - I think that the OP will get better advice in the general section
Click to expand...

That bit I highlighted in red worries me I must say. I seem to be taking him at his word he will not do that hmmn
 
shoshone said:
He didn't nor would he presume to do that. There is absolutely no contention over the fact that my wife retained and still does retain the copyright for the original art work. It's just that the printer states categorically that he retains the copyright to the electronic image BUT solely for the future production of prints of that image for my wife at least that is what he told me on the phone. Hmmn, maybe I should just get that put in writing..though it is awkward because it did come up in the telephone discussion and I guess I have to reluctantly agree with him, he (the printer) dealt only with the third party, the 3rd party paid his invoice and we then paid him what he paid the printer.
Click to expand...


Yeah but you can't have two copyrights of one image ...the second scanned image is a COPY of the original...
Get it in writing and then sue him for attempted copyright theft. ;)

Thers nothing wrong with him holding the image for further use by you. But this guy seems to think he can claim ownership of the scanned copy without having to buy or legally being passed the copyright ...which is obviously BS.
 
shoshone said:
Yes she painted it.
Click to expand...

Is the correct answer! :lol: I would have got the popcorn out if you had said that she hadn't painted it!

I think Mr Scanner is delusional if he thinks he own's any copyright to the image (unless the 3rd party signed something handing the copyright over to them), however, if their policy is to charge you £50 quid plus any print costs and not supply you with a digital copy then that is up to them. Obviously reproducing the image for anyone other than the copyright holder would be a no no.
 
He doesn't own copyright to anything. He merely owns the digital file. :)
He can't resell it to anyone else as copyright to the image hasn't been handed over.

It looks like this thrid party made a cockup by not checking with the printer what he was paying for, and therefore has paid for a service that your wife didn't want.
 
shoshone said:
He is only claiming copyright to the electronic image and yes your remark regarding the 3rd party's relationship with the printer seems to hit the nail on the head.
Click to expand...

As Marcel has said, the printer does not own copyright, he only owns the digital file. If you want to be strictly technical, he is not even allowed to open that file to view on screen without the copyright holder's permission.

It sounds like you were ripped off (£10 sounds more like it just for a simple hi-res scan) and that's a lesson learned, but if you are unhappy about the current situation you are legally entitled to have the scan deleted. A solicitor's letter should see to it (if you want to get ripped off again, this time for even more money :lol: ).

Forbiddenbiker said:
Yeah but you can't have two copyrights of one image ...
Click to expand...

Yes you can. There can be multiple copyright holders very easily, if more than one person contributed to the work. For example, if the printer modified the file in a creative way, maybe cleaning up a blemish, he would be a joint copyright holder in the new image.

Unless he assigned that copyright to your wife, she would not be allowed to copy the copy, if you see what I mean. Copyright can get crazy-complicated in this way. I use a local printer that does a bit of Photoshop tweaking now and then and he has signed a blanket agreement that assigns to me full copyright to any work he does for me. It didn't stop him printing out another copy of one of my pics and hanging it on his wall as an ad for his services, but that's printers and copyright for you :shrug:
 
Have you never had anything photocopied and had to state in writing that you own the copyright to the original?

I suspect the printer shouldn't even have scanned it without making sure the third party was the copyright owner.

I also suspect the scan may belong to the copyright owner as well, although it would be best to check on this with a specialist, if it is important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top