EXE to Pictures ??

[Ginger]

Hello, I hope you can help me with a dilemma I have. 18 months ago I got married and was supplied by our photographer all of our photographs, albums etc and a drafts CD with an exe file, which I think was created with PicturesToExe.

I now need to have a couple of additional prints made, but upon going back to my photographer, he says that the he no longer has the original copy, he only kept it for 12-14 months.

I was wondering if it would be possible to somehow be able to re-open the pictures in the exe file and remove the draft logo from it and have them professionally printed again?

The only alternatives I guess I have is to scan in from our wedding album the shots I'd like prints of - which I think could give mixed results, as the pictures in question are at angles and have boarders around and probaly wouldn't easily fit on a scanner

Is this possible?

I guess the lesson I've learnt is that I should have insisted on getting some sort of originals before he destoyed them, but at the time, I just didn't realise....

All help appreciated

G

[Lin Evans]

Hi Ginger,

You should take the "draft" CD back to your photographer and let him deal with getting the images for you. If he uses PicturesToExe then he will know how to best deal with recovery of the images and how to remove the "draft" information and print them for you. Photographs made by a professional photographer are copyrighted by the photographer and most likely the reason the images on the CD are marked draft were to prevent them from being printed without compensation.

If your photographer is willing to let you print them, then he should give you written permission to have them done, otherwise you would be in violation of copyright laws and you will not find many professional printers willing to do so without express permission from the photographer.

Best regards,

Lin

[Guest Techman1]

Lin,

This is a very interesting point. I am not a lawyer but my logic tells me that if there is a law forbiding a person to use his own photos, it sure is a stupid law, unless he uses them for commercial reasons. Is there any lawyer in this forum to shed some light ?

Granot,

As you know, I'm not a lawyer, but the photographer owns the copyright to photos taken by them. As a result, the client can not make copies without the photographers consent (from a legal standpoint in many countries). This is part of how many of us make money! The exception to this is, if the client hires you and in their contract state that you are giving them the rights to the photographs (this is similar to being hired on a day rate contract), but typically the client pays quite a bit for this type of contract deal.

On the flip side, unless a photographers contract states something different, the photographer can not sell the image(s) to a magazine (for instance) without the clients approval via something like a model release or as stated in their contract somewhere.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding (in brief) of how copyright laws are setup in at least the US.

Ginger,

As Lin has stated, I would go back to your photographer again and ask them if they have your images on CD backed up somewhere. I know I backup all weddings multiple times as there is always a potential for reprints at a later time. If they don't have any backups still, then you should request a letter from them on their studio's letterhead that allows you to copy any of your wedding photographs.

Good luck!

Fred

[ronwil]

I am using this thread to show that I have at last posted my Avatar thanks to stirling advice from Ralph, Ken and Michel. Why in this thread ? Well the portrait was taken at our Club portrait evening by the late Edwin Appleton Hon FRPS former President of the Royal Photographic Society and also was our Club President. He gave me the slide. Who owns the copyright?

Ron [uK]

[Guest Techman1]

I am using this thread to show that I have at last posted my Avatar thanks to stirling advice from Ralph, Ken and Michel. Why in this thread ? Well the portrait was taken at our Club portrait evening by the late Edwin Appleton Hon FRPS former President of the Royal Photographic Society and also was our Club President. He gave me the slide. Who owns the copyright?

Ron [uK]

IMHO - He does (or now his estate), you just happen to own the slide! But....since you have the slide, I'm sure his intentions were for you to use it.

Great smile, by the way!

Take care,

Fred

[Ken Cox]

well Granot you better take a trip to NA and try to get a picture copied that has been done by a pro -- walmart etc will not do it -- they respect the pro

ken

[myseniorpics.com]

All Questions about photo copyrights are on the Professional photographers of america website at www.ppa.com and yes any photo taken by a pro in copyrighted.

[Lin Evans]

I'm not familiar with worldwide copyright laws, but here in the U.S. any copy made of a photograph whose copyright is owned by another without express permission is a violation of copyright laws.

The fact that the image is of one's self and that one would be using it for non profit purposes has no bearing whatsoever on the copyright. Using a copyrighted image without compensation to the photographer who owns the copyright is, defacto, depriving that photographer of compensation. The photographer makes his/her living from photographs and in the case of a wedding, sold prints to the bride/groom, etc. Subsequent use of those copyrighted images without either express permission from the copyright holder or payment to the copyright holder violates the copyright laws.

Now, whether or not this is "fair" or "right" is another issue altogether. In my own case, when I shoot for clients I give them joint ownership of the photographs so that they may, without further compensation to me, do what they please with them. I charge sufficiently up front to give myself fair compensation for their future use. But remember - in the days before digital, the photographer always owned not only the copyright but the "negative" and never relinquished ownership unless the client paid for the negatives. In such a case the "copyright" passed to the owner of the negative. In Ron's case, I would assume that he now owns the copyright to the image from the negative given him.

The fact that the photographer for Ginger's wedding placed text over the images furnished to her on the CD means that they were not intended to be used for reproduction and that the photographer expected the client to return to him for copies. Since he no longer has the originals, in some sense this is like destroying the negative. In such a case there may be grounds for a claim that copyright ownership has been passed or at least shared with Ginger so that it may be possible to make a legal case for reproduction from the demo disk but probably not for "altering" the image by removing the text.

This is legal "muddy waters" and the advice of a copyright attorney would be advised.

Lin

[lathompson]

Granot,

Professional photographers make their living selling images. If fair use included making your own copies, everyone would buy one 8x10, scan it and supply thier entire familly with photos. There would be minimal profits and very quickly, no professional photographers left in business. This is happening at a frightening rate in wedding photography right now. Where we used to have $500-$1000 in extra sales after proofs were delivered, we now experience almost $000 in extra sales.

The law is quite clear. OTOH, what a person does with a photo in the privacy of their home is beyond policing, but it is done often and without remorse. Record companies pursue the offenders of their copyrights and they may only loose a few dollars while making millions on legal sales. Photographers have one set of images for one single client and if they don't buy them, they're worthless.

The copyright law is really needed by photographers. For the most part, we can only rely on the personal need to be honest with one's self and hope clients give the owner of the copyright first opportunity to produce copies.

LT

[Conflow]

Hi All,

I have been following this wonderful debate for the past while and althought there are "Pros & Cons" in the various replies put forward, and having had experience of 'Copyright Design Issues' I would like to make some points,viz:-

1) Copyright Law in the U.S. is quite different from E.C Law and the subject of 'Fair Use' origionally applied to Music Copyright. It's now established that 'Musical Fair Use' must be limited to 30 seconds and for demonstration purposed solely.

2) However there is an addendum to the 'Fair Use Law' in that a work of artistic merit in Literary and Imagery and Design pursuits should come under the 'Fair Use Law' (see link below to the U.S Copyright Office)

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

They can be reached at:- 101 Independence Ave SE. Washington DC.20559-6000. USA.

In Gingers case (USA only) ~ given the circumstances of his origional Lost Images for which I presume he had paid a 'fee' to a competent Professional Photographer, then he has the right of redress of bringing this matter to the attention of the Copyright Office above.

It all makes very interesting reading.....

Brian.Conflow.

[Ken Cox]

Right on Granot

maybe Bush et al should elect you to to the world judicial system -- but common sense seems to have got lost thru the years

ken

[alrobin]

All laws (Except the Bible laws of "Do not kill, Do not steal ...etc.") are unjust and always discriminate the poor and weak to the benefit of the rich and powerful (who are usually those who make the laws).

Even the "Bible laws" are unjust, as they discriminate against euthanasia.

Woops! I've just opened a Pandora's box and a flurry of emails and posts by people who won't agree with me and want to get into all sorts of discussion on the basis of religious belief.

Igor how do I delete this quote???? Igor! .......... Help! ....................................................

[Conflow]

Hi Al and Boxig,

I am sure most readers will agree both of you on the points raised 'off topic' re:- Morality and Laws...but then at the end of the day surely this all boils down to an 'informed conscience' capable of making morality decision's without hurt nor injury to another ?....problem being that there are many persons in this World who ignore their conscience and act irrespective of the consequences..usually for self interest.

Examples are abound all around us, so if we are not going to slide into total anarchy we must have Law's to protect the basic fundmentals of Human Life...although imperfect, being man-made, it's the best we can do in our current phase of Human development. What the future holds, I don't know ~ does anyone ?

Al,

You raise a very important issue in one of your recent Post's:-...Igor please erase this Message....

There are so many times that readers reply to the Forum 'in the heat of the moment' and soon afterwards either regret or wish to erase their..Posted Reply...

Question: How can one do this with ones' own Post ??

Brian.Conflow

[Ken Cox]

Hi Al and Boxig,

I am sure most readers will agree both of you on the points raised 'off topic' re:- Morality and Laws...but then at the end of the day surely this all boils down to an 'informed conscience' capable of making morality decision's without hurt nor injury to another ?....problem being that there are many persons in this World who ignore their conscience and act irrespective of the consequences..usually for self interest.

Examples are abound all around us, so if we are not going to slide into total anarchy we must have Law's to protect the basic fundmentals of Human Life...although imperfect, being man-made, it's the best we can do in our current phase of Human development. What the future holds, I don't know ~ does anyone ?

Al,

You raise a very important issue in one of your recent Post's:-...Igor please erase this Message....

There are so many times that readers reply to the Forum 'in the heat of the moment' and soon afterwards either regret or wish to erase their..Posted Reply...

Question: How can one do this with ones' own Post ??

Brian.Conflow

Brian you can go in and edit your own post but do not know how you get rid of the entry -- Igor can delete the blank entry or in the case of the porn entry he can delete it all

ken

[Conflow]

Brian,

You are right but...

The doctor has to decide, either to cure or to amputate. As I see the world now, no cure will help, so trying to cure what can't be cured will result in death. Evil was and always will be. When it is a small abscess on your toe, even you fail to cure it, you will survive. But when it spreads to the whole leg, then you must amputate or die. And since nobody will amputate, human destiny is to vanish in 50-100 years from now.

When the law allows to sell carpets made by slave children, it protects only those who make money from this slavery. When the law permit foreigners to enter a country only if they have a work permit, it is for the benefit of the employer who will save money on a low salary. Even the laws of property are for the rich and poweful. All world's resources are in the hands of few while millions are starving to death every year. Limiting the wealth that a person can own will save all those starving (for example: a 50 million dollars limit which is more then anyone will ever need for the best life).

Here is a true story:

A factory run into a bankrupcy. They fired all workers with no pension due, mostly 50+ old workers. Then the owner opened an new factory 50 km from the old factory and got 5 millions dollars from the government as incentive because the new factory will... supply work for 300 people !!!

The bankrupcy was legal, the intensive was legal. One person became richer and hundreds lost their pension, and probably, because their age, will have no job and no money to eat.

[Conflow]

Granot,

Yes, I appreciate your descriptive examples of 'Slave Labour~Greed, Mamon & Abuse' ~ we also have these things in our Country, its called 'exploitation' and I don't know of any Country which is blameless in that respect, and it exists irrespective of Colour,Creed,or Religion ~ it's Universal.

But thats no excuse to 'throw in the sponge and give up' ~ the United Nations is imperfect but they are trying. Have you forgotten about UNICEF, Oxfam, Sans Medicare, Concern, Islamic Red Cross and the hundreds of other Voluntary Organisations finance by ordinary people like you and I who bring relief to millions of 'abused peoples' around the World...sure our efforts are not perfect, but damn it we are trying and thats what our God asks of us...Charity to another.

It's so easy to be negative in these matters, but let's not forget the magnificent good works done by so many of all Nations for so many millions in other Nations...and there are those who want to destroy that ??

Brian.Conflow.

[alrobin]

Woah! Let's slow down the histrionics for a bit and put things back into perspective.

Brian, do you have that saying "The law is an ass" over in Ireland? Charles Dickens was one of the first to say it. ( 'If the law supposes that', said Mr. Bumble, 'the law is an ass...'").

I think that is all we are talking about here. Of course neither Granot nor I is advocating the disbanding of Oxfam, UNICEF, etc. !

I think we were originally saying that sometimes certain laws are on the books because certain powerful interests or certain religious groups, etc., lobbied to put them there, and that eventually certain laws have to be re-examined in order to serve the interests of the majority. Case in point: the ridiculous copyright laws which certain countries are in the act of invoking to protect the fat-cat music industry. Sometimes the majority even have to "take the law into their own hands" - case in point: Romania, Poland, Ukraine, Lebanon, Czech Republic, E. Germany, etc. etc. We in the "West" are not exempt from bad laws.

All in all, it's been a good discussion, though.!

[Conflow]

Hi Al, and Granot.

Sure I agree with the points made about 'Imperfect Laws' ~ I said nothing about disbanding UNICEF ~ I was simply replying to Granots Post No:1038 (above) ~ in particular, I was countering the negativity of Granot's last Post in making the point that all is not 'Black' in this World and thankfully there is an awful lot of good in it, this despite the Legal imperfections some of which seem to favour Mamon and the Moguls, a point I had raised earlier in this Debate.

At this stage I think we should all get back on track and try and give "Ginger" some answers to his origional query ?

Granot,

I never,never, Cut,Paste and Quote others' correspondance ~ its simply a personal principle of mine, and I do not know how your Post No:1038 became "quoted" in my Reply to you. To say the least I was shocked when I saw the "quote"....here again Al is another example where one would like to delete a personal 'Posting' before it was published on the Forum.

Best to all...

Brian.Conflow.

[ContaxMan]

I'm not going to jump in on the copyright issue as it leaves me completely baffled - and cold.

As for morality, I have strong (Christian) views on this and reckon that there is often a conflict between man-made (usually/often man=male here) laws and Jesus's injunction to "Love one another".

But I do agree that the facility to delete (only) ones own posts could save us from occassional on-line falling out that can occur, usually due to misunderstanding.

[Conflow]

To:- Roger (Yorkshire)

Many Thanks for 'seconding' the proposal for a utility where we could... "Delete one's own Recent Posting"

I completely agree with your comment whereas sometimes a 'Posting' can lead to a misunderstanding by a Reader whose response is usually "Selective Quoting" (out of context) as a basis for their reply...that's not fair play!

This 'Tic for Tac' method of communication is responsible for more debates and arguements on this Forum than I care to remember.

It's better for one to have the oppurtunity to delete ones own Posting in the 1st instance rather than wasting this valuable space with what amounts to a..."Storm in a Teacup".

Furthermore it should eliminate 'multiple-postings' and free up 1st.Page space for more Topics, surely that's more beneficial to all ?

Brian.Conflow.

(304.twbsq)

[boxig]

Brian

Sorry if I did something wrong.

I have deleted all my posts on this topic.

[alrobin]

Granot,

How did you do that??

[boxig]

Al,

Click on "Delete" button on bottom-right, near the "Edit" button.

[alrobin]

Al,

Click on "Delete" button on bottom-right, near the "Edit" button.

Thanks, Granot. I don't know how I could be so blind - even after you told me, I was looking at the bottom of the page instead of at the bottom of my quote. This must be a relatively new feature, because I don't remember it being there earlier.

I'm not sure it's such a good feature after all, though, as it puts other quotes out of context, and could lead to ambiguities in certain situations. Also, if someone quotes a post, the author wishing to delete has no control over that quote. Maybe the forum should permit the ability to edit, as at present, and to post a message to that effect, but leave the structure of the post intact.

[boxig]

Al

I agree with you. We also have to remember that for many of us English is not a mother language and this fact together with different culture background can result in different interpretation of what other members write. It would have been better if deleted topic will delete only content and leave a "Content was deleted" so other users will know.

Yes, this feature is new. Before you could delete content only. BTW, you are not the only "blind" here. After a week I was saved by Ron West who told me how to see all topics, which I didn't know. That's why we old guys don't like changes.