How to get the photos you want printed out as an 8x10 from Getty, AP, etc.....

[kylehess10]

I figured out an easy way to get 8x10 photos of whatever pictures you have that you would want displayed with you pictures that come from Getty Images, Corbis, Icon Sports Media, AP, etc..

First, print out a normal 4x6 picture of what you want.

Then, once printed, with a high-resolution camera, take a picture of the 4x6, perfectly centered with no glares or anything like that.

And finally, print THAT picture as an 8x10. It MAY be a little pixelized, depending on how close in the 4x6 picture you are and how much resolution your camera has, but it worked out great for me.




I went from taking this picture:

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/kylehess1025/AP060312015153-1.jpg




...to turning it into an 8x10 and displaying the photomatch perfectly!



http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/kylehess1025/DSC014072.jpg

[thomecollector]

Kyle, the boy wonder does it again. Amazing ! Can you do a couple for me ? Email me. Lmk what you would charge.
Roger:D
thomecollector@cox.net

[kylehess10]

Kyle, the boy wonder does it again. Amazing ! Can you do a couple for me ? Email me. Lmk what you would charge.
Roger:D
thomecollector@cox.net (thomecollector@cox.net)



Sure, just send me over whatever pictures you need. The 4x6's cost about 25 cents each, while the 8x10's I get are at Costco for $1.50 each.

[costas]

does it still have the watermark tags on the photo?

[kylehess10]

does it still have the watermark tags on the photo?



Yes.

[mvandor]

Not the greatest idea to discuss publicly how to violate Getty's copyrights, they're vicious about enforcing same.

[kylehess10]

Not the greatest idea to discuss publicly how to violate Getty's copyrights, they're vicious about enforcing same.


Well, it's for the collector's personal use plus their logo is still on the photo when being printed. I can't imagine it being illegal at all. Nobody is making money off of it and nobody is claiming the photo as theirs.

[hblakewolf]

Well, it's for the collector's personal use plus their logo is still on the photo when being printed. I can't imagine it being illegal at all. Nobody is making money off of it and nobody is claiming the photo as theirs.

Kyle-

I suggest reading the information below before making additional posts on this subject and offering further assistance in breaking copyright laws.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@comcast.net


COPYRIGHT IN GENERAL:
What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.

What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp)."

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr).”

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr)” and Circular 38b (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.pdf), Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.

I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.

Is my copyright good in other countries?
The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights. However, the United States does not have such copyright relationships with every country. For a listing of countries and the nature of their copyright relations with the United States, see Circular 38a (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38a.pdf), International Copyright Relations of the United States.

[trsent]

Little Brother is Watching...

...and we all can sleep better at night now.

[mvandor]

Little Brother is Watching...

...and we all can sleep better at night now.
I think we're just trying to keep Kyle outa trouble, ie suspension from the board or worse, getting the Getty lawyers on his tail. They spider the web looking for copyright infringements.

[chakes89]

How is it a copyright infringement if the Watermark hasnt been tampered with or altered?

It's not like he hacked into a Getty and the AP, stole images and is selling them for profit.

He is printing off cheap 4x6s of low quality, watermarked photos, taking pics of them and blowing them up for personal use. If anything he is probably losing money on the whole deal.

The only thing he is "selling" is a photo taken by himself.


And the photo he has displayed isn't from Getty, it's from the AP. ;)

[kylehess10]

How is it a copyright infringement if the Watermark hasnt been tampered with or altered?

It's not like he hacked into a Getty and the AP, stole images and is selling them for profit.

He is printing off cheap 4x6s of low quality, watermarked photos, taking pics of them and blowing them up for personal use. If anything he is probably losing money on the whole deal.

The only thing he is "selling" is a photo taken by himself.


And the photo he has displayed isn't from Getty, it's from the AP. ;)


All true.

I'm not tampering with the photos in any way. Even when you look at the display I made for my WBC jersey, you can see the "AP" logo over the front of it.

[trsent]

I think we're just trying to keep Kyle outa trouble, ie suspension from the board or worse, getting the Getty lawyers on his tail. They spider the web looking for copyright infringements.

Guys, Getty Images is not worried about Kyle and the forum is not going to suspend him. No pins and needles here.

[mvandor]

How is it a copyright infringement if the Watermark hasnt been tampered with or altered?

It's not like he hacked into a Getty and the AP, stole images and is selling them for profit.

He is printing off cheap 4x6s of low quality, watermarked photos, taking pics of them and blowing them up for personal use. If anything he is probably losing money on the whole deal.

The only thing he is "selling" is a photo taken by himself.


And the photo he has displayed isn't from Getty, it's from the AP. ;)
No disrespect but some real legal ignorance running through here. If Kyle BUYS the initial smaller pic and blows it up from there, questionable as to any copyright issues, although Getty typically charges more for higher res shots.

If he just pulls it down with the watermark and prints it and uses it? Pretty sure making use of a copyrighted item without making restitution to the holder is still copyright infringement. If he does it as an individual, who knows or cares, but if he puts it up on a public message board and offers to do it for others? Not wise.

Trust me, I know from personal experience that Getty has an entire legal department tasked with spidering the web looking for copyright violations. Better for Kyle they don't find this thread. If'n it was me, I'd ask the admins to delete it.

[David]

If you're printing out an image for your own personal use, you won't get into trouble.

If you're making pictures to sell to others, you would be braking the copyright law.

Technically, you can't post a Getty or Corbis photo on this site. This is why MEARS and auction houses list the photo number rather than posting the picture.

[David]

In general, you would get into trouble if you used the images for commercial/for-profit puroposes-- selling 8x10s on eBay, illustrating your magazine or for-profit website without paying for the rights, etc.

If you print out a copy for yourself or for the personal records of your friend (who owns the bat in the picture), that would be okay, assuming you aren't making any money from any transaction. It's like with movies-- you can make a copy of a DVD for your personal use, but can't make copies to sell on eBay or distribute at your street corner.

[mvandor]

In general, you would get into trouble if you used the images for commercial/for-profit puroposes-- selling 8x10s on eBay, illustrating your magazine or for-profit website without paying for the rights, etc.

If you print out a copy for yourself or for the personal records of your friend (who owns the bat in the picture), that would be okay, assuming you aren't making any money from any transaction. It's like with movies-- you can make a copy of a DVD for your personal use, but can't make copies to sell on eBay or distribute at your street corner.
Disagree.

Copying an already owned DVD is creating a backup of something you already licensed. Copying a Blockbuster rental for personal use? Copyright infringement.

[staindsox]

Disagree.

Copying an already owned DVD is creating a backup of something you already licensed. Copying a Blockbuster rental for personal use? Copyright infringement.

This is not completely accurate either. You are permitted "user copies." For example, I have a music CD, which falls under copyright. I don't want it scratched and ruined from use. I can make a user copy and this is NOT infringement. When you distribute copies from the master to other people so they can circumvent purchasing the item, then you have infringement because it damages the artist's ability to profit from their recordings. Kyle should be fine as long as he doesn't sell anything and does not tamper with the watermark.

Chris

[mvandor]

This is not completely accurate either. You are permitted "user copies." For example, I have a music CD, which falls under copyright. I don't want it scratched and ruined from use. I can make a user copy and this is NOT infringement. When you distribute copies from the master to other people so they can circumvent purchasing the item, then you have infringement because it damages the artist's ability to profit from their recordings. Kyle should be fine as long as he doesn't sell anything and does not tamper with the watermark.

Chris
Your explanation IS consistent with mine on the DVD analogy. Where it breaks down is taking a copy of a photo you did NOT buy or license. Even for personal use, that's theft, copyright infringement. If e bought a small photo then blew it up for his own use, no issue, but if the initial watermarked pic was a comp downloaded from Getty? Infringement.

[5kRunner]

Anyone here remember Napster?

Not much selling going on there.

[staindsox]

There absolutely is no infringement here. Kyle is using the materials for non-commercial use and for research. Easily a situation of fair use.

[trsent]

...just in case - We will all have to visit Kyle in jail!

[Rob L]

Just curious as to everyones thoughts but doesn't the $0.25 for 4x6 and $1.50 for the 8x10 constitute selling the image, even if it is just to cover copy costs?

[jppopma]

Sometimes ignorance is bliss. I agree with the stateent made that all is good until you post it in public.

As for the technicalities and legalities of the copyright...its a tough call. Is he really taking a picture of the photo, or technically taking a photo of his computer screen which just happens to display the photo? As many lawyers as getty has, I'm sure there enough clear cut cases around to keep them busy.

If its only the selling of the pictures that is illegal, I'd suggest pooling in to pay Kyle for all of his photo match work (labor wise) and then he won't have to charge for the photos.

[Billyu40]

Forgive me for asking this but since many of you obviously know more about the law than I, but I would like some clarification.

Kyle is actually taking a picture of a picture not reproducing the actual photo. So therefore as stated in the copyright laws, a copyright protects original works of authorship, so then would it not be Kyle's copyrighted photo? If not, at what point is a photo taken of a copyrighted item your item to be copyrighted? For instance, I take a picture of an MLB team logo and sell them on ebay. Is this that againt the law, since its a copyrighted logo, or is it ok since the picture is my original work of authorship? What if I take a picture of myself in front of a famous work of art and include it in a book that I then publish and sell?

I can see how it may be trademark infringement since the photos Kyle has taken includes the AP logo and a trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

The whole point of this is there is a very fine line here that none of us are qualified enough to specualte on unless someone recently received a Law Degree or stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I think this is another good job by Kyle to think outside the lines to help out the forum.