Printing photos for autographs - fair use?

[SirJamison]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? North Carolina

I haven't seen this exact topic discussed and there's been some heated debate in a Facebook group I"m in about this. If I print a photo of a movie scene or a pro athlete off of Google with the sole purpose of having the photo autographed for my personal collection and not to sell would it fall under fair use? It's not for a commercial purpose and it's not depriving anyone of revenue. I understand it would be different if I was reproducing a print of a painting or something that the artist would sell because then I would be depriving the artist of the sale of that print. I'm strictly talking about photographs. Thank you.

 

[FlyingRon]

No, it is not fair use. The fact you aren't using it for commercial purposes is not, by itself, enough to justify fair use.

Further, just because you found it on GOOGLE doesn't mean you're stealing it isn't depriving the photographer (or whoever the rights are assigned to) of his rights.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? North Carolina

I haven't seen this exact topic discussed and there's been some heated debate in a Facebook group I"m in about this. If I print a photo of a movie scene or a pro athlete off of Google with the sole purpose of having the photo autographed for my personal collection and not to sell would it fall under fair use? It's not for a commercial purpose and it's not depriving anyone of revenue. I understand it would be different if I was reproducing a print of a painting or something that the artist would sell because then I would be depriving the artist of the sale of that print. I'm strictly talking about photographs. Thank you.

I agree with FlyingRon. Reproduction rights - the copying of the photos - are exclusive rights held by the copyright owner.

Although actual damages (profits, losses) might not be suffered by the copyright holder with the type of use you describe (depending on facts), statutory damages can be awarded the copyright holder if the photograph was registered with the USPTO.

Statutory damages are from $750 per infringed work to $30,000 per infringed work (with awards for especially egregious infringement up to $150,000 per infringed work). A judge can also at his discretion award as little as $200 for an infringement that is determined to be truly innocent - but this award is unlikely to apply to someone who understands copyright laws enough to question a use of another's work.

Personal uses of copyrighted works are never going to attract the same type of attention that public or commercial uses do - but legally, the act of copying a rights-protected work without authorization from the copyright holder is still infringement and subjects the infringer to possible penalties.