Photographers Logo on print

[tjodork]

I just ordered an 8x10 and 5x7 of my daughter receiving her college diploma from a photographer's studio.
I was very disappointed to see that they put their logo on the print such that it will still show in the frame... its not huge or anything but I don't think that it should be on the front of the frame.....the picture I bought should not be an advertisement for their studio...which of course had a monopoly on the service for that graduation.
I understand the need to copyright...but that can be done on the back or with an invisible watermark (right ?)
Am I wrong to be upset ?

Tim

[Steve Grisetti]

I agree, Tim! It's your photo. You commissioned it. You paid for it. They don't own the copyright -- so they shouldn't be allowed free ad space in your living room!

I'm the same way about cars. As soon as I buy a car, a get rid of those annoying license plate frames with the name of the dealership on them. I didn't spend $15,000 so that they could get a free traveling billboard!

[Dave McElderry]

I also agree, and would probably contact them to see if they will provide prints without their logo. BUT we have old portraits from the 1960s in our family that have the "Olan Mills" logo on them. It's been done for a long time. And Steve, I do exactly the same thing. We have a local dealer that puts stickers (yes, stickers!) on the back of the cars they sell, new or used. It's a good dealer, but we've bought several cars there and the first thing that happens is that the stickers come off. It amazes me driving around town and seeing how many people just leave them on and don't seem to care.

[Bob]

The logo on the photo is not a copyright notice. It serves more as an advertisement and crude copy protection device -- if you take it to a lab to duplicate/print they will often ask for a release from the studio/photographer. And, yes, unless the photographer's contract says otherwise, the photographer/studio does own the copyright. This type of arrangement would not be considered a "work for hire" as defined in copyright law.

Personally, I agree with you. I don't think a logo should be a permanent part of the image. If necessary, it could be printed in the print border or, if borderless, near the edge where a matte could covered it. But, my preference would be to not have it at all. Most professionals I've gone to for portraits either did not include a logo or honored my request to omit it. You don't have much control over school portraits, but I've been lucky and none of my children's school/graduation photos have embedded logos.