Will my photos be considered "Professional"

[Powerstroke]

With the recent purchase of a Nikon D80 and Photoshop software I have the ability to take some really nice shots and do some "fancy" editing. Using PSD templates I have learned to take some great shots and make them really professional looking.

Will I have a "copyright"problem trying to get these photos printed at a local one hour photo shop? How do you handle a situation if the photo shop thinks it is a professional photo?

I have a Canon photo printer but I have the intentions of shooting a lot of picture and don't want the trouble of printing them myself.

Thanks for feedback.

[Reanimator]

copywrite lies with the person who took the photo so thats you, photo labs etc are not supposed to print things with copywrite on them, ie a stamp on the back. so your ok on that front

why not post some shots on this forum for us all to view

its not just about editing, time of day and lighting, weather conditions, and compostion, all play a part in the finished result



gary

[BillDrew]

Don't worry about it. Unless *EVERY* photo you are having prints made of looks like a pro shot of a wedding, they are very unlikely to question you. If they do question you, take it as a compliment and offer to sign anything they put in front of you saying that you are the photographer - that should get them off the hook for copyright isues, though I am no lawyer and cannot say for sure.

[TCav]

'One Hour Photo' places don't often get professional photos to process, and don't even look for them. If you take your photos to a 'One Hour Photo' place, they presume you're not a professional.

And if they do happen to notice the extraordinary quality of your photos (as compared the the rubbish they usually see, as BillDrew says, consider it a compliment.

[DrChris]

Not necessarily so, TCav. I took some engagement shots of a friends daughter last year. I edited the best ones and put them on a cd for her. The clerk at Wal-Mart(!) wouldn't process them for her until she had a signed release from me. She was irritated; I was flattered. I guess that's actually a good policy to protect those who make a living at this.

[TCav]

DrChris wrote:

Not necessarily so, TCav. I took some engagement shots of a friends daughter last year. I edited the best ones and put them on a cd for her. The clerk at Wal-Mart(!) wouldn't process them for her until she had a signed release from me. She was irritated; I was flattered. I guess that's actually a good policy to protect those who make a living at this.

Just out of curiousity, how did the clerk at Wal-Mart know that the signed release was from the original photographer? That sounds more like some schmoe flexing his or her muscles than any serious attempt to keep from unlawfully reproducing intellectual property.

Unless, the images contained a watermark. If you put a watermark on the images, then, even if they were pictures of the backs of everyones heads, out of focus, and with your finger on the lens,the clerk would be obliged to ask for a signed release. If so, forget the flattery part of this discussion; if you put a watermark on the image, then you caused the irritation felt by your friend's daughter, not the clerk.

[BillDrew]

TCav wrote:

...Just out of curiousity, how did the clerk at Wal-Mart know that the signed release was from the original photographer?...

The clerk (and Wal-Mart) don't care at all if the release is from the orginal photographer. All they want is to have someone else to aim any lawsuits at. Since Wal-Mart has deep pockets, they attract lawsuits. Being named as a codefendant in a suit with Wal-Mart is likely to loose the first born for the next ten generations.

A really bad idea to sign off unless you are the real photographer.

[TCav]

BillDrew wrote:

TCav wrote:

The clerk (and Wal-Mart) don't care at all if the release is from the orginal photographer. All they want is to have someone else to aim any lawsuits at. Since Wal-Mart has deep pockets, they attract lawsuits. Being named as a codefendant in a suit with Wal-Mart is likely to loose the first born for the next ten generations.

A really bad idea to sign off unless you are the real photographer.

How would the clerk at Wal-Mart know that the signature on the release was a real person? How would the clerk at Wal-Mart know the true identity of the person reqesting the print?

In the signature block on the backs of all my credit and debit cards, I've written "ASK FOR PHOTO ID". The one time I actually boght something in WallyWorld, I used one of those credit cards, and was never asked for a photo ID.

I have no doubt that some schmoe was flexing his or her muscles. Or the images contained a watermark.

[DrChris]

I've been away.

Anyway, no I didn't put a watermark on the photos. I agree with you though...how the heck do they know if I really took the photos and if I really signed the release? I also have to agree with BillDrew...I think they just want a piece of paper just in case.

They only other reason I can think of is that maybe the photo-clerk is actually into photography and isn't just cross-training from footwear or produce, and she actually has an interest in the field (?!?) and felt like she was protecting a fellow photographer.

Either way, I guess if they see engagement, graduation, wedding, or anything else "official" looking it may be a red flag and it would be a good idea to have a standard release.

Now, if you can just prove it was really you looking thru the viewfinder...

[bedfordpreneur]

Just be careful, the last thing you want is to run into a One Hour Photo guy like Seymour Parrish.