Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

UK amateur photographers: if you're good, don't use Boots!

(1/6) > >>

rjbull:
Customers of Boots (the UK pharmacy chain) face interrogation over the origins of their photographs, if those photographs look too "professional."  The company's attitude appears to be that if a photo is good, it can only have been taken by a professional, and a customer wanting a copy is engaged in copyright infringement.

This came to light when Boots refused to print pictures taken by a photography student because she couldn't prove who she was, either with a letter of introduction, or headed notepaper.

Sources:

Amateur Photographer magazine, edition dated Saturday 17th April 2010, page 5.
Amateur Photographer online news items:
Boots crackdown on 'professional' photos - what's the law? (update 5.25pm)
Boots admits photo copyright blunder

Another example of the abandonment of the principle of "innocent until proved guilty," the use of copyright as a blunt instrument for beating money out of people, and insane oversensitivity to legal issues?  A patronising insult to capable photographers in the UK.

JavaJones:
I've heard of lots of other cases of this in the US as well, Walgreens or Walmart was one example I think. One of those "Wals". ;)

Anyway it's definitely a ridiculous thing. The zealotry and misplaced responsibility over copyright protection is quite frustrating. The store should not be responsible for policing their users, just as Google should not be responsible for policing YouTube (current Viacom suit) or ensuring that photos uploaded to Picasa are not violating someone's copyright. These are just "dumb" services, and in order to work properly in the *majority* of situations, they need to take no responsibility for what their *users* do with the service. Taking any copy protection burden will inevitably hurt real users more than possible infringers.

- Oshyan

KynloStephen66515:
Anyway it's definitely a ridiculous thing. The zealotry and misplaced responsibility over copyright protection is quite frustrating. The store should not be responsible for policing their users, just as Google should not be responsible for policing YouTube (current Viacom suit) or ensuring that photos uploaded to Picasa are not violating someone's copyright.
-JavaJones (April 13, 2010, 03:28 PM)
--- End quote ---

I disagree, but only in cases of them policing photos that could possibly be used for malicious purposes, or ones that are possibly of minors (nude photos obviously) so they can report possible child pornography to the relevant authorities and inform them who had issued them printed.

Obviously I'm only disagreeing with you for these specific purposes.

JavaJones:
And I disagree with your disagreement. ;) How do the store employees distinguish between "child pornography" and a parent taking pics of their kids having fun swimming, which just happens to be naked (as kids often are), or in the bath, or whatever? Not to mention, do you really think a child pornographer would be stupid enough to go and print something at a shop like that? How many people doing malicious things are really going to use a public service like that and risk getting caught? Do you think more criminals would be caught than innocents? Do you want the FBI knocking on your door one morning with a warrant after you drop off photos of your kids at the local printer? Sure it's an "innocent mistake" and you would eventually be cleared of any wrongdoing, but is it reasonable to go through that kind of ordeal just on the outside chance that it might possibly catch someone who could be doing something illegal? Surely there are better ways of finding and incriminating these people that will have less "collateral damage".

- Oshyan

40hz:
Is it just my imagination, or does the UK have a real fetish for experimenting with fascist behavior?  :tellme:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page