Making Copies of On Ride Pics

Not sure why it isn't all digital, really. Your 'purchase' should simply be the photo emailed to you along with a release. I don't even want to carry a flash drive around. Just have it sitting in my inbox when I get home.

Yup

I actually wanted to ask about that; I ordered a digital copy of a pic on I-305, and I had been wondering if that emailed picture was then mine to print out as I wanted. Perhaps I missed it in the discussion, but is this still an infringement thing where I'd need to get a release, or is it my personal property that I can do with as I please?

Why in the world would they give you a digital copy if they don't want you using it?

My most recent experience with this type of thing: We toured the Ice exhibit at the Gaylord Texan resort in the Dallas area and there's a photo opp at the entry. When we looked at the pic in the merchandise area, they offered us a 8x10, 2 4x6s, and a flash drive for $40. My wife asked what the cost for just the flash drive was and they guy said that it wasn't available without the printed pics. She said, "ok, no thanks", and he immediately said he would sell the whole package to us for $30. 30 bucks for a flash drive is still obscene, but since my mother in law wanted printed pics, it was okay with us.

Jeff said:

Now we have individuals who think no content (especially music) is worth anything. It all costs someone, somewhere, something to create. Why don't people get that?

Except that's different from what we're talking about now. In this example, somebody paid for the product up front. They paid their money, they now own it. Very different situation from somebody "stealing" an MP3 off the internet. As you pointed out, industry has spent years fighting a mostly losing battle trying to control what consumers do with their products after they've purchased them in an effort to preserve outdated business models.

eightdotthree said:

Is it even possible to purchase another copy after you leave the park to do this legally?

This is also a problem in this situation, as I understand most ride photo systems don't store the images for more than the next few ride cycles.

...somebody paid for the product up front. They paid their money, they now own it.

The "it" that you speak of is a copy of the photo, not the original photo, nor the machine that produced the copy, nor the right reproduce it yourself.

Would you make the same argument if we were talking about a book? Even if it's a book about you, just as the photo is a picture of you, that doesn't give you the right to copy it.

Unsurprisingly, Disney's new product is more or less exactly what Gonch wants. Every photo taken of you during your entire vacation, available for download as soon as you get home, including a release.

https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/memory-maker/

On at least a few of the attractions, your on-ride photos are added to your account automatically using the long-range Magic Band readers.

Edited to add: you can buy them individually, as well---and AFAICT even decide which ones to buy when you get home, rather than in the moment.

CP Chris said:

Except that's different from what we're talking about now. In this example, somebody paid for the product up front. They paid their money, they now own it.

Buying something that can be reproduced (music, movie, book, etc) and then reproducing it is the very definition of pirating. What world do you live in?

If I buy a copy of something that doesn't give me the right to make and distribute copies as I see fit.

...industry has spent years fighting a mostly losing battle trying to control what consumers do with their products after they've purchased them in an effort to preserve outdated business models.

You paid for one copy. Just because you can easily make additional copies doesn't make it ok. For personal use, sure. The second you hand a copy over to someone else, the creator of whatever we're talking about didn't get paid for their work. It's not up to you to decide the value or distribution of their product.

The worst part of this whole line of thought is that it's slowly eroding the incentive to create.

Or compensate creators...

But the younger generation doesn't seem to care about that. Everything they do is posted for the world to see (and steal) and I don't hear of them complaining about it. That is all they know so maybe they don't see it as a bad thing?

No they don't,...yet. One day those tech-savvy youngsters, a good portion of which will be creative types, will find themselves in the job market. Maybe then a light will go on.

Perhaps the creative types will realize that people will do what they want with the things they've purchased, and either adjust their pricing to compensate or find incentives to get people to buy additional offerings?

I personally know a number of semi-professional photographers. Some are very open about letting people know that the price includes full rights to their pictures, and they build the price of providing everything on a DVD or flash drive into their offerings. A couple of others have decided to take a different course, and are openly suing every single client that dares to post a single wedding picture on Facebook. Needless to say, one group seems to be doing a lot better than the other at attracting new customers...

These parks would make so much more $$$ if they did what REDMAN822 said and either charge a fee for flash drive with yearly photos added for $1 each, or pay a fee for each digital image emailed to you which people print themselves. Most people don't buy them as they are too much. I was with a friend and her daughter, waited to see and get a photo with Elmo, loved the photos and wanted to buy it, but their cheapest "DEAL" was $20! If they had known that they wouldn't had wasted their time! The greed at parks is sickening. They were like me as we both thought it'd be $10- $12, for the about 5 X 7 photo, but they sure went up!

I was in a band once where the lead singer/songwriter was very open to the idea of giving CDs away for nothing and letting people download and share our recordings as they please.

The CD we recorded cost him roughly $12k to produce, and we played about 5 live shows for peanuts during the course of about one year.

I quit to join a cover band that made good money every weekend. Guess where his band is now? That's not to say his attitude toward music distribution caused the band to dissolve, but he'd likely be in a much better financial state had he made more sound business decisions whether the band stayed together or not.

CP Chris said:

Perhaps the creative types will realize that people will do what they want with the things they've purchased, and either adjust their pricing to compensate or find incentives to get people to buy additional offerings?

That makes sense.

On the flip side, maybe certain customers will realize the people who create these things have the right to price and control their work however they'd like and that no one is making anyone buy anything.

The beauty of all of this is that if the value proposition isn't there, people will quit buying and something will have to change. The fact that the pricing is what it is says it's working...for now, at least.

CoasterGoddess said:

These parks would make so much more $$$ if they did what REDMAN822 said and either charge a fee for flash drive with yearly photos added for $1 each, or pay a fee for each digital image emailed to you which people print themselves. Most people don't buy them as they are too much. I was with a friend and her daughter, waited to see and get a photo with Elmo, loved the photos and wanted to buy it, but their cheapest "DEAL" was $20! If they had known that they wouldn't had wasted their time!

So the park would make more money selling photos for $1 each than $20?

You do realize they have to sell 20 times the photos.

The greed at parks is sickening.

The expectations of customers expecting something for nothing is equally greedy and sickening.

You get the same summary as CP Chris:

The beauty of all of this is that if the value proposition isn't there, people will quit buying and something will have to change. The fact that the pricing is what it is says it's working...for now, at least.

The word "greed" and the way it's abused today is sickening to me.

Lord Gonchar said:

So the park would make more money selling photos for $1 each than $20?

You do realize they have to sell 20 times the photos.

Not exactly; they'd save money on photo paper and processing. But your point is valid.

I remember when people thought I was "greedy" for putting ads on CoasterBuzz and starting the club. It didn't matter to them... they weren't responsible for the grand a month it cost at the time to keep the site on the air.

Yeah, the whole 'greed' thing is funny to me. Obviously, anybody taking part in a transaction wants the terms most favorable to them.

I think the term "greed" is grossly misused, but even if we decide it isn't, then it's just as greedy to want to keep as much of the money in your pocket as a customer as it is to want to keep as much of the money in your pocket as a business.

It's essentially saying, "You're horrible because you're trying to do exactly what I'm trying to do."

Worse yet, our culture seems to imply that anyone who is well off is greedy and obtained their wealth in immoral ways. That pisses me off.