OT-Copyright infringement / Kinkos

In article <WioUb.21793$
says…

Hi-

I’m new here so hello to all and hope you’re all OK.

One year ago I had a problem with Kinko’s reproducing my images which are stamped with a copyright front and back. Had a talk with the district manager regarding these infringements and asked him to stop.
A year later I find out through a customer of mine who had actually originally gone to Kinko’s and placed an order for Christmas cards. The cards looked so bad that she refused to pay…. and they then proceeded to give them to her anyway.

She then called on another photolab to have similiar treatment done and was informed that it is illegal to reproduce a copyrighted image; the photolab referred her to the photographer that took the picture. She did contact me for her order and finally got my quality with my name on it.
I called upon Kinko’s to check their awareness of copyright law and Kinko’s copyright policy. I found that three out of four different locations copied my work, no questions asked even with the Copyright sign on the front, a big stamp on the back with "Copyright by PetPix" and my phone # listed in plain view.

Just wondering if any of you have had any similar experience with Kinko’s defacing your art and putting your name on something that doesn’t represent your quality?

It seems that Kinko’s is making profit on copyrighted professional photographs and I’d like to personally put a stop to this illegal activity with your help!

Email me at if you’ve suffered a similiar
situation. With all the hoopla regarding copyright laws in this country at the moment should not there be a system of checks and balances regarding images??

This is how I earn my living and Kinko’s is getting my paycheck. Are they getting yours too?

Best Regards,
Brooks Ray
www.petpix.com

What I’m about to say is my opinion and not to be construed as fact. I think alot of people aren’t fully trained to recognize what constitutes copyright and the limitations on them. Fonts, photos and usage of images for personal or even commerical use is fast becoming a serious issue. The problem is the nature of today’s technology and its implications.

I work as a free lance graphic designer using Illustrator and Photoshop along with PageMaker 7. (I want my multiple undo!! Must purchase a legal copy of Adobe InDesign CS somehow!!) I recently upgraded Photoshop 6.01 to Photoshop 7.01. I’m NOT getting Photoshop CS because of the activation technology. I’m a perfectly intelligent individual who understands the limits of copyright…but when a powerful company like Adobe starts putting the chokehold on people like me…then it’s time to walk away. A case in point is the revelation that Adobe admitting it includes software technology to prevent us from "abusing" our creative minds by using techniques that "could" be used illegally like copying passport photos, etc. Another thing is this activation business I just mentioned. I understand where Adobe is on this…but to treat innocent customers as potential criminals is not a good way to build a customer base. Sealing a unique serial number onto my computer locking in Photoshop CS to my hard drive puts me at the mercy of Adobe. If for no reason at all my computer dies and I’m forced to buy a new computer…I have to beg Adobe to let me reinstall my legally purchased copy of Photoshop CS over the phone to some tech support located in God knows where?! I’m sorry but I’m so not going there.

Now that’s the darkside to copyright. I’m beginning to like the movement called the "copyleft". They advocate the idea that copyright should be renewable every so often and not "locked" in for over 100 years or so. Like I’m going to live for more than a 100 years?! That’s a nice thought..although seeing myself lurch from one scrawny leg to the other to get where I’m going at that age is something I’d rather not think about (let alone realize to get to that point means my health care premiums per month would probably be more than 1500 dollars a month!). Oh no…I’ll probably die ALOT earlier than this but what of all my artwork that’s been copyrighted at that point? If I died what’s to happen to my work? Will I even CARE at that point?! I won’t care about it after I’m dead…but while I’m alive I can understand this…but I believe if my contributions to society is such that my artwork has had such an impact on culture then I’m probably going to feel it’s best to share it. After all, all art is prior art. Even Beethoven copied from Mozart to get his music career going.

So if we go by the pure definition of art…then the concept of copyright should be abandoned. Because art is based on inspiration coupled with a health respect for prior contributions. Only God can claim S/he created Light and own a copyright on that because God came first…unless some other deity has a copyright on that too. 🙂

Just my two cents.

The reason that copyright continues after the holders death is to help provide support for the surviving members of their family. For example, you *might* live to be a hundred years old, but you might also die in your mid-twenties leaving, say, three young children and a wife saddled with a 20 year mortgage and maybe 2 or 3 years payments still on the car, plus your funeral expenses etc etc.
They may be dependant on the money your copyrighted work brings in. Why should someone else make a living from your work while your own family struggles??
—

Ron.

Alberich wrote in message

Now that’s the darkside to copyright. I’m beginning to like the movement called the "copyleft". They advocate the idea that copyright should be renewable every so often and not "locked" in for over 100 years or so. Like I’m going to live for more than a 100 years?! That’s a nice thought.

"RTM" wrote in
message

The reason that copyright continues after the holders death is to help provide support for the surviving members of their family. For example, you *might* live to be a hundred years old, but you might

also

die in your mid-twenties leaving, say, three young children and a wife saddled with a 20 year mortgage and maybe 2 or 3 years payments still on

the

car, plus your funeral expenses etc etc.
They may be dependant on the money your copyrighted work brings in. Why should someone else make a living from your work while your own family struggles??
—

Ron.

I agree with you in principle, a copyright is an asset. I’m sure the previous poster would not agree to have his real property rights revert to the state upon his death.