Copying Professional Photos

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicSam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CatholicSam

Guest
Is it sinful to make a copy of a professional portrait that you bought? I have my own understanding of it, but would be interested to learn what all of you think about this. Do you consider it stealing or is it rightfully yours to do with what you please? Thanks 🙂
 
As long as you’re not selling them, and the copy is for your own use, I’d think it would be OK. You’ve bought and paid for the picture. But, you should know, most reputable picture developers won’t make copies of professional portraits.
 
Depends on what you are copying them for and what the copyright says.
 
It is stealing unless the photographer gives you permission, regardless of what you intend to use the photo for.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
aurora77:
As long as you’re not selling them, and the copy is for your own use, I’d think it would be OK. You’ve bought and paid for the picture. But, you should know, most reputable picture developers won’t make copies of professional portraits.
Click to expand...
You only own that particular picture in your hand and buy law do not have the right to make copies of said picture.
 
If it’s for personal use I doubt the photographer would care. Sometimes the letter of the law is silly when taken to extremes. Is it a sin if I back my car up ten feet in the driveway to let someone out without putting on my seatbelt? Then again it’s my seatbelt anyway right? The law seems to say I have no right to choose to use my property.

-D
 
40.png
Darrel:
If it’s for personal use I doubt the photographer would care. Sometimes the letter of the law is silly when taken to extremes. Is it a sin if I back my car up ten feet in the driveway to let someone out without putting on my seatbelt? Then again it’s my seatbelt anyway right? The law seems to say I have no right to choose to use my property.

-D
Click to expand...
As wabrams noted, you only own the copy of the photo that you purchased from the photographer. The photographer makes his living selling those photos. If you decide to make copies, you are stealing those copies unless you either paid for extra copies or you have permission of the photographer to make the copies. It’s the 8th commandment that makes this different from using a seatbelt.

Peace

Tim
 
The cost of professional photography is precisely why I prefer to have friends and family take pictures instead. With digital printing options online now, it’s easy to take tons of pictures until you find one that really looks great without wasting film, then have exactly the prints you need made instead of conforming to a package.

Yes, it is stealing to copy professional photos.
 
40.png
Darrel:
If it’s for personal use I doubt the photographer would care.
Click to expand...
Well, I know of people who will take a photographer’s portrait and decide to make copies of them for their family members because they don’t want to pay for copies from the photographer. The work of the photographer is his work and is usually his means to put food on the table. And legally, it owns the “copy” right. That is, he is the sole person who can legally make copies.

This is the same for people stealing (and it is stealing!!) music and computer software. Some will rationalize it with: “They” charge too much! Or such non-sense.

To paraphrase Nike: Just Don’t Do It!

Paul
 
40.png
Orogeny:
As wabrams noted, you only own the copy of the photo that you purchased from the photographer. The photographer makes his living selling those photos. If you decide to make copies, you are stealing those copies unless you either paid for extra copies or you have permission of the photographer to make the copies. It’s the 8th commandment that makes this different from using a seatbelt.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Good Point,

I see intent as an issue here. Was the law designed to protect the photographer from his/her work landing in say a marriage magazine or was it to protect the photographer from a married couple having a second copy of there favorite photo? I suppose the catch all would be to contact the photographer and ask permission. Beyond the law I see the issue of ones property coming into to play. If I buy a cd and burn a copy for my car I see no issue. The issue is usually ‘commercial’ reproduction.

-D
 
40.png
Darrel:
If I buy a cd and burn a copy for my car I see no issue.
Click to expand...
This is troubling. I spend money a CD and then it gets scratched. So, what is wrong with a backup? I struggle with this. What is the right call here?

Paul
 
40.png
goldenautumnday:
This is troubling. I spend money a CD and then it gets scratched. So, what is wrong with a backup? I struggle with this. What is the right call here?

Paul
Click to expand...
It’s your CD make a copy for you. God will know you are not making 200 copies and selling them on the street for $4.00 each. Your not stealing your own music. Feel free to rip it to mp3 for personal use on the PC as well. Just don’t email it to all your friends or share it online.

-D
 
What if it’s a professional photo that was taken back in the 1920’s of my grandmother’s wedding? I can’t make copies for my family members?
 
40.png
rayne89:
What if it’s a professional photo that was taken back in the 1920’s of my grandmother’s wedding? I can’t make copies for my family members?
Click to expand...
Intent here?

Seems like a loving family gift based on copyright infringment? I think not, I say go for it. That is unless it’s sin to not track down the person who did the original. In my mind stealing copyrighted material is about a thief making a prophet. I think God knows the difference. Then again in 1920 a photographer would usualy encourage you to share the work with your family in love.

-D
 
40.png
Darrel:
It’s your CD make a copy for you. God will know you are not making 200 copies and selling them on the street for $4.00 each. Your not stealing your own music. Feel free to rip it to mp3 for personal use on the PC as well. Just don’t email it to all your friends or share it online.

-D
Click to expand...
But the catch is you are doing that in the privacy of your own home with your own equipment.
 
40.png
rayne89:
What if it’s a professional photo that was taken back in the 1920’s of my grandmother’s wedding? I can’t make copies for my family members?
Click to expand...
It’s legal.

Something else to think about: the copyright of a photograph expires 50 years after the death of the photographer.
 
I think Rayne89 and Darrell do make valid points. I don’t think anyone wants to commit sin here, but God does know the intentions.
It’s funny this thread pops up. I have a problem and maybe someone here would have advice. My mother passed a way in October after a long battle with COPD (quit smoking if you do! Your family loves you too much to have to you watch you suffer, not to mention care for you if you happen to develop this. Please forgive me- I’ll stay on thread!)
Anyway, she did NOT look like herself at the end of her life- not to sound vain, but she was so pretty before this happened to her. For some reason there is only one photo from her wedding back in 1994, and no negative (the photo is not mine by the way). Since it was in Las Vegas of all places, I’m not sure which of the many places it would have been taken at, not to mention if it is even around anymore. What can I do if it’s a sin for me to print a copy for my own keeping?
Tamara
 
40.png
TamaraS:
I think Rayne89 and Darrell do make valid points. I don’t think anyone wants to commit sin here, but God does know the intentions.
It’s funny this thread pops up. I have a problem and maybe someone here would have advice. My mother passed a way in October after a long battle with COPD (quit smoking if you do! Your family loves you too much to have to you watch you suffer, not to mention care for you if you happen to develop this. Please forgive me- I’ll stay on thread!)
Anyway, she did NOT look like herself at the end of her life- not to sound vain, but she was so pretty before this happened to her. For some reason there is only one photo from her wedding back in 1994, and no negative (the photo is not mine by the way). Since it was in Las Vegas of all places, I’m not sure which of the many places it would have been taken at, not to mention if it is even around anymore. What can I do if it’s a sin for me to print a copy for my own keeping?
Tamara
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear about you mother. Print the picture for you and your entire family if you like. I doubt that even the most legalistic camera man would object to this.

-D
 
As for the 1920 picture, it is true that copyright does have an length to it. Now, 50+ after the death of the copyright holder does not make sense to me. The purpose of copyright to give a balance between the producer of the work with respect to his creation and the general public as a hold. Once expired, how can one make copies?

The interesting thing today in copyright is the technology issue. In the past, painters usually made a single painting and it was unique. As were many books (when you had to painstakingly rewrite it). Today, making a copy of a CD is quite easy. Did anyone make copies of vinyl (on to vinyl, not tape)? Today making a copy of a photograph is easy (be it a scanner or digital).

So, I guess the intent is the main issue. As Darrel said, if I make a bunch of copies of a CD with intent of selling (or giving them away), then that would be a stealing. If my intent was only to make a personal copy to prevent a defect in today’s technology then that is not stealing. I am intenting to preserve my copy.

So, in the case of the 1920 photograph, even with the present 50+ of copyright, as a personal copy, I don’t see that as stealing. But, if you take the 1920 photograph, make many copies and sell them (or give them away), then I that would be stealing.

I’ve said several times about giving it them away. I did that on purpose. In the recent Napster days, a person was just making a song on his hard drive available to anyone to copy. Usually, they did not make actual copies or charged for them, but it still violates the spirit of the copy right law. The creater of the work of art has the right to control the copy mechanism.

Paul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top