Encrypting a DVD so that others cannot copy

[bode]

If I pay someone to do something for me, then I am their employer and they are my employee.

What if Lars Ulrich bought a Metallica CD from HMV? It's not the property of the guy that pressed record on the tape deck.

We are getting mixed up here, Lars owns it because it is his creative work.

If the bride and groom wants the negatives, master copy etc, then they would pay extra to cover loss of earnings, that's how it works.

Anybody who gives up their negatives, master copy is a mug and will go out of business very quickly.

[rhegedus]

Well surely the wedding is the creative work of the bride and groom in the same way that the song is the creative work of Lars Ulrich?

Either way, there is still the subject of emplyer/employee in the matter.

[dcapp1]

This is not entirely true. My sisters wedding photographer is very successful. Not only does he transfer the pictures on to disks for his customers. He encourages his customers to create business for him by showing off his work. No matter how you look at it this is a case of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. I wonder if this pelsass character is a republican!

[rhegedus]

http://dictionary.law.com/

employer
n. a person or entity which hires the services of another called a principal in the law of agency.

employee
n. a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer......

[freestyler]

If you have access to an Apple computer then you could use DVD Studio Pro to author your DVDs. In the program you can add CSS and Macrovision. If you add these, your basic watcher won't be able to copy it.

They can't be "added" and they won't be functional - period. Many people see the words Macrovision and CSS and think they can add them to their own content on the discs they burn - WRONG.

These features are to be implemented by replication facilities only when stamping silver dvds. Fees are paid to the DVDCCA to obtain the CSS encyption keys (DVD Copy Control Association, the body that issues them) and Macrovision™ must also be paid royalties based on how many discs are being pressed, usually a few cents a disc - the more discs, the cheaper the fee is.

What's the best protection? A fair-priced quality product.

[DarkmanX]

Pelsass, you're really getting beatup over this issue. I think that this is a microcosm of the pros and cons of Technolgy. With all of the benefits, there are downsides. Whether it was the advent of VCR capabilites to copy movies from cable tv,(who hasn't copied a movie from cable?) to cassette recorders providing duplication capabilites to consumers. More relevant to your profession, scanners and DVD/CD burners. Would you expect Walmart to keep negatives/memeory cards from customers for fear of customers scanning/ copying and prining photos themselves on photo paper with a quality printer. Like earlier mentioned, a lot of consumers don't know how to perform these tasks, but the technology is available for consumers to "do-it-yourself". The best you can hope for is to offer services and a personal touch that your customer will be compelled to return for future business

[freestyler]

Copy protection is a lost cause, I'd worry more about those punks with camcorders putting your wedding on the internet before its released.

Why pay for a wedding dvd when you can download it before its supposed to come out? :P

[tgpo]

What's the best protection? A fair-priced quality product.

The best protection? Use one of those Panasonic DVD-R Recorders. They are non-standard and you'd have to search around to find something that will copy them.

[bode]

Well surely the wedding is the creative work of the bride and groom in the same way that the song is the creative work of Lars Ulrich?

Either way, there is still the subject of emplyer/employee in the matter.

No, the photographer has manipulated the light, chosen the aperture and shutter, arranged his subjects and brought this together to create a piece of "art" His creation.

I don't believe the employee part matters in this case. The photographer owns the intellectual copyright of the work by law.

Regarding the successful wedding photographer dcapp1. That photographer will have covered his costs, they have probably paid for these extras in the overall package. He is obviously gaining in free advertising.

[bode]

What's the best protection? A fair-priced quality product.

The best protection? Use one of those Panasonic DVD-R Recorders. They are non-standard and you'd have to search around to find something that will copy them.

[duhmez]

Unauthorised does not mean illgal. Unauthorised, legal copies happen all the time, tive, vhs AIW etc. That is fair use, and no disclaimor or copyright notice can take away these rights.They have a legal right to copy this if they want. you have a legal right to make it difficult.......

The only thing that can take away a person's right to copy somehting they legallty acquired, is if they sign a legally binding contract, with a pen.
As I said before, good luck getting them to sign on to these terms. (if they don't pay attention they may indeed sign it, but may give bad word of mouth if they notice after and feel they were "tricked" into it.

[jimmalenko]

I agree in part with the people who say that if big Hollwood studios couldn't master it, what makes you think you can ? I do agree in part that you have to protect your livelyhood. Legally, I do not know where you stand in terms of rights etc. I would imagine that the intellectual property would be owned by the people in the wedding. They paid you for the service of videotaping their wedding but never agreed to transfer of rights to the footage. You have not paid for exclusive rights to the footage and therefore probably don't have any claim on reproduction of the footage because you have already been paid for the footage in the first place. I would imagine that the people in the wedding hold all rights to reproduction if they so wish.

Just an opinion though...

[bode]

I don't understand these terms sorry...tive, vhs AIW?

[freestyler]

tivo, vhs recording, all in wonder (capturing)

[bode]

In my professional experience jimmalenko, the photographer always retains copyright.

[jimmalenko]

Would that need to be stated in a contract though ?

[bode]

In the UK, a law was passed that you may only keep these type of tivo/ vhs recordings for 3 months, then they must be deleted.

[b1tchm4gn3t]

More people than not agree this is a wrong thing to do....guess I can add another person to my list of greedy bastards.

[bode]

Generally contracts are drawn up to cover your ass so there wouldn't be this kind of debate every single day. But I'm pretty sure that the law automatically favours the artist.

But I still agree with the author of this thread 100%. He's far from being the parasite who a few have claimed him to be, their argument is rather childish.

[jimmalenko]

I think you need a lawyer, pelsass....and a favourable judge.

[b1tchm4gn3t]

In the UK, a law was passed that you may only keep these type of tivo/ vhs recordings for 3 months, then they must be deleted.

He is not in the UK, irrelevant? YES!

[jimmalenko]

Getting back to the question at hand, technically there is no real way to protect the content. I don't think we should question the morality of the question - there are law forums for that !

[bode]

The point I'm making regards the issues of unauthorised "legal" copies. My point being that this is not 100% true.

I'm not going to tailor a reply to every country's copyright laws, that's just ridiculous.

[andkiich]

1, Pelsass is in the US and US laws apply, not EU laws.

2, if it were true that an photographer/videographer retainsthe copyright, why is it that news paper and magazines, TV shows need people to sign waivers to allow them to show the pictures/clips. I think this is a relevant point.

Also, as was stated before, since no one here can confirm that he/she is a board certified lawyer, anything stated here is purely conjecture and means absolutely nothing. If Pelsass needs an answer based on legal statute, then he needs to spend some time with a lawyer and get the proper answers.

[bode]

I have absolutely no interest in what country anybody is in. I was referring to a comment by duhmez.

2. That is a model release form to stop people from sueing if they feel that their character has been misrepresented.

eg. If I used your face in a poster campaign for homelessness, you couldn't sue me if you signed the release form.

My opinions are based on my professional experience in the field of photography. I don't need to be a lawyer to know basic copyright issues.

[jimmalenko]

My opinions are based on my professional experience in the field of photography. I don't need to be a lawyer to know basic copyright issues.

What if you have been in violation of copyright procedures all this time ? Surely you must have checked your own rights and responsibilities ?

[bode]

Then everybody I know would be in jail or bankrupt.

[jimmalenko]

Does that mean you have obtained legal advice because of your profession ?

[bode]

As I said before you should really draw up a contract to cover your ass.

Every profession draws up a contract for work undertaken. There is nothing peculiar about Wedding photography. But pelsass is doing nothing illegal whatsoever regardless of which country's law he lives under.

[jimmalenko]

I'm not trying to be a smartass bode so don't think that. I'm interested to know if you yourself have taken legal steps and know exactly where you stand should one of your clients object.