Is duplicating photographs without the permission of the photographer a crime?

Photographers own a copyright in their photographs. If you copy it without permission, you're stealing money from their pocket. Note: I'm biased. I worked as a professional photographer a number of times in my life.

The practice described in the article is not uncommon. People don't realize that every photographic print processed by a lab is actually reviewed by a human being to ensure it is properly color balanced. Otherwise, you would end up with incredibly crappy green, red, or blue pictures. (Of course, many times you get that anyway if it is not too extreme and the lab is cheap). This means every racy or gruesome photo is actually seen by another person, not merely a machine. You would never guess how shocked people were when one of my former bosses returned their negatives, explained that her lab would not process pornography, and asked them never to return. They all thought the printing machine worked without human oversight, despite the fact lab employees sorted and packaged the photos right out in the open.

For prosecutors, this also means that your agencies who take crime scene photos to the local Ritz, Wolf, Walgreens, or the like (and they do) are exposing important crime scene evidence to lots of folks outside the circle of trust.

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 03-24-04 at .]

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 03-24-04 at .]

And what federal agency should I contact to prosecute that crime? I'm thinking they are not going to be so interested. Surely, there is some other crime.

Maybe Shannon needs to get moving on this and get a new crime added to the Penal Code. What shall we call it?

Seems to me it would be a local agency problem in each individual jurisdiction.

My question, is if it is indeed theft, what's the value?

TPC 31.08 gives some a little guidance, but whatever value you choose, I'd be prepared to support it on a motion to quash.

Under 31.08(c), the value would be deemed to be between 500 and 1500. That would seem fair to me. Of course, the silly people that sent their nudie pictures to the Fotomat might think they are worth more, while some I was exposed to back when would objectively be worth far less. Indeed, there were many the lab techs would have paid not to see. There is no accounting for bad taste.

John B., the Legislature (in its wisdom) partially addressed this topic last session by amending the Penal Code to add this:

Sec. 43.27. DUTY TO REPORT. (a) For purposes of this section, " visual material" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.26.
(b) A business that develops or processes visual material and determines that the material may be evidence of a criminal
offense under this subchapter shall report the existence of the visual material to a local law enforcement agency.

This doesn't really apply to the situation you described, but it's something to build on next session. And maybe you could also add an actual punishment for the omission to perform this duty, since there isn't one right now (but hey, what is the Penal Code for if not to be a place for the administrative regulation of photo shops? ... )