Staples refuses to print my PDFs....

[jmucchiello]

That's beautiful. What is apparently "official policy" in-store isn't mentioned once on their web submission form. Hmmmm. . .

Good luck with that. Can't wait to hear how it turns out.

 

[Blood Jester]

It isn't staples "job" to make people happy. It helps, and that ensures return customers. It is staples "job" as a business to make sure that laws are upheld - especially if you are in the 'duplication' business as are kinkos and staples...

I don't know where you work, but you are cracking me up with these assertions.

I work for a network design and management company.
By your definitions, it is our job to make a working network, and to troubleshoot failures.
But not to make the customers happy.

You would get stopped in the middle of your sentence in the job interview and be told "Thank you, but we have no positions you would be able to fill." if you whipped that line out.

As a matter of fact, please go interview at *any* private company, and tell them that it is not your job to make their customers happy (whether they be internal or external customers).
Proceed to live your life unemployed for as long as you cleave to that stance.

 

[jdrakeh]

Good luck with that. Can't wait to hear how it turns out.

Oh, I do't plan on doing anything with Staples (or Kinko's) ever again. I use a local shop that actually understands the fine points of Copyright and, thus, doesn't require me to jump through crazy hoops such as formally registering my own works with the Library of Congress in order to print them or obtain a handwritten letter from the publisher of a book granting me permission to photocopy a character sheet (which says right on the flippin' thing that I've been granted permission to photcopy it).

To be clear, they don't let me print pirated PDFs, either, but they've proven that being completely paranoid and/or rude in order to uphold the law becomes completely unnecessary when one actually takes the time to learn about the things that one's job entails. This business of demanding that consumers jump through whatever hoops that register jockey X deems necessary because management can't be bothered to learn how Copyright actually works (or let their employees know about it) is rediculous.

 

[JustinA]

For example, every artistic creation or piece of writing has, upon creation, a copyright. In the example of the Jpeg map, I own the copyright, because it's my creation.

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. In the case of a SimCity map you've created a derivative work, based on the graphics for SimCity which presumably Maxis holds the copyrights for.

Now, in this specific case, Maxis gave you explicit written permission in their documentation to makes copies of those derivative works.

Now fair use enters in this, of course, but the courts have repeatedly held that screenshots are derivative works whose copyright belongs to the creator of the software/media you're taking the screenshot from.

Similarly, when I create a map using Dundjinni, that's a derivative work using their copyrighted material. They give me permission to make personal copies, but for commercial use they require a separate license.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net

 

[waterdhavian]

In my experience, copyrights are a tough call. I worked for Fedex Kinkos as they are called since the merger. It is a fine line between upholding copyright laws and breaking them entirely. If you have valid proof that you can copy or print a document you should be in the clear. However, some stores or districts may come down harder on documentation or proof of replication rights. My suggestion is if you have a receipt which states you can print the document or if in the document there is a copyright permission, show it to them. More and more documents are in PDF or similar formats today and copy shops actually prefer a PDF over a hard copy. Better quality prints and less hassle to duplicate. While at kinkos I printed many documents which had a waiver to print copyrighted works. Alot of this came from companies printing out advertisements or brochures or one place which frequented us was a lawn care company and they needed to print out their books from corporate.

 

[Delta]

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. In the case of a SimCity map you've created a derivative work, based on the graphics for SimCity which presumably Maxis holds the copyrights for.

I'm skeptical. Do you have a citation for that?

 

[JustinA]

I'm skeptical. Do you have a citation for that?

Do a Google on "screenshot copyright". Here's one decent result: http://lifehacker.com/software/ask-...is-publishing-screenshots-fair-use-193343.php

 

[the Jester]

Yep. I've run into that a lot at Kinko's and it goes directly back to the lawsuit I mentioned earlier. Their (Kinko's Corporate) reasoning was that since their employees got sued for copying text books and re-selling them in the store for profit, it must be illegal for anybody to copy anything from all books. Which, of course, is insane. Obviously, the corporate guys at Kinko's aren't the brightest folks.

They got sued because they tried to sell xeroxed texts for profit, not simply because they copied the texts.

As someone who works at a FedEx Kinkos, I feel compelled to point out that any time you ask a Kinkos guy to print something under copyright for you, you are asking them to break copyright law and to "sell xeroxed texts for profit".

You guys don't seem to understand- copyright law, in general, is there to prevent party A from making money off of something copyrighted by party B (and to prevent party A from stopping party B from making money off of their copyrighted material). Any time you have a third party print a pdf that you have permission to reproduce, you are probably asking them to print something that they don't have permission to reproduce.

You want them to print a newspaper article you wrote? You no longer hold the copyright, the publisher does (almost always); ergo, you are asking them to break the law.

I totally understand your frustrations, but it doesn't change the fact that, for me to charge you money to copy or print something, I need permission from the holder of the copyright. Otherwise, why couldn't I just make twenty copies of the Monster Manual and sell them to make a few bucks?

I am reading a lot of "oh, they should make their customers happy blah blah blah" in this thread; but companies have to put the law above their customers' wishes. Hell, I have customers come in griping about their wives all the time, but that doesn't mean I can kill their wives for them. Hell no!

Of course, this doesn't even begin to address the issue of Kinko's policy painting the rest of the free world as criminals based upon the criminal actions of their own employees. Really. That's simply a mad bit of justification, a flagrant attempt to disown repsponsibility for their employee's own actions.

Uh- the policy, essentially, amounts to, "Don't ask us to break the law for you; if you must copy something prohibited, don't do it in front of us."

All of that said, Kinko's stands behind their policy firmly, no matter how insane those of us with a basic understanding of copyright law know it to be.

Are you an attorney?

I've actually had Kinko's staff try to physically oust myself and a friend from one of their stores for attempting to print character sheets with the words "Permission Granted to Photocopy" appearing on said sheets.

Now that is ridiculous.

Needless to say, that Kinko's location is no longer open. And, I suspect, that this policy is a big part of what lead to hundreds of their stores being closed nationwide, their subsequent move toward bankruptcy, and their eventual acquisition by FedEx.

I don't think you have followed the company's business history very closely. This policy probably saved Kinkos (later FedEx Kinkos) from being sued out of existence at one point or another. I'm sorry that you have to print your pdfs in self-serve, but it's not that hard, and I bet that if you wrote and asked, you could get permission from the publisher to have FXK print your pdfs for you. Hey presto, no problem.

Jesus, people, just because it inconveniences you personally doesn't mean a company is free to break the law. You want a print shop to print your document? Have permission, in writing, for someone to print it for profit and give it to you. That is exactly what copyright is supposed to prevent. Yeah, it may be a pain in the ass, but copyright law is doing exactly what it is supposed to here.

 

[bodhi]

But in the end, their job is to provide the customer with a fair service.

I think the fundamental disconnect is in the definition of "fair service".

As a PDF buyer, it certainly makes sense that I bought it, and I should be able to print out a copy of it for myself. That's certainly seems reasonable.

But that's not how the law is set up. The applicable limitation to copyright is Fair Use. You could certainly argue that printing one copy of a legally purchased PDF for personal use falls within the terms of Fair Use, and I would agree with you. But, from the same page:

The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations.

That's because only a court can decide that.

If you, as an individual, feel that you are within your rights (and again, I would agree with you[0]), then have at it. But you are taking a legal risk. A tiny one, realistically, but a real one nonetheless.

Think of it this way. If you, as a driver, decide to do 60 in a 55 zone, no one's going to care[1]. You could get pulled over by a cop, and you could get a ticket. But realistically, chances of that are tiny. On the other hand, if you're in a cab, and you want your driver to speed, odds are good that the company policy specifically prohibits that.

No, it's not quite the same, but you're still asking someone else to assume the risk on your behalf. But if you jump through the hoops, then you're taking the risk, and the business can at least show a good faith attempt to stay strictly within the law. And any reasonable place shouldn't have too much in the way of hoop jumping. Not that any of the big chains will necessarily (or even often) be reasonable. YMMV hugely.

I, too, like it when authors/publishers place a statement explicitly allowing printing of a PDF for personal use. Of course, you still need to find a place with adequate reading comprehension.

[0] Although I have seen at least one PDF that specifically prohibited printing. Of course, it didn't have the security bit set to prohibit printing. Duh.
[1] So I like the car metaphor. Shut up.

 

[Morrus]

You guys don't seem to understand- copyright law, in general, is there to prevent party A from making money off of something copyrighted by party B (and to prevent party A from stopping party B from making money off of their copyrighted material). Any time you have a third party print a pdf that you have permission to reproduce, you are probably asking them to print something that they don't have permission to reproduce.

I don't know about US law, but I find that extremely unlikely. It's certainly not true elsewhere. Unless you have a specific cite, I'm going to have a hard time believing this.

The store employee is acting as your agent in this regard. If you mail something, the post office isn't liable for "distributing" it.