I didn't mean that you needed to suffer financial harm to send a cease and desist, that's absolutely within your rights as a copyright holder. Most websites will happily take down a single image rather then have their whole website shut down, and there are some webhosts that will do that.
I meant that for there to be any damages awarded in court, you're going to need to show that you have suffered financial hardship due to the unlicensed use of your work.
To prove something was printed out for Fair Use is a matter of intent, if you consider yourself to be a film/sports history buff then to say you're doing it for scholarly reasons is totally reasonable. If you maintain a blog or are part of any sort of Autograph community then its not unreasonable to say that you're doing it to comment about the picture and the signer.
On the other hand, you're removing watermarks from someones work or if you were routinely selling autographs on unlicensed photos on ebay or amazon, then it might be alot harder to prove your intentions were noble.

Poor Kim3303may, i fear we have hijacked her innocent thread :lol:

As well, there has been two instances where a photo of mine was used on a site. Didn't matter whether or not I "suffered actual damages," didn't matter that one of them used it for a nonprofit organization and event, I sent them a cease and desist letter ordering them to take down the image or pay me. And they did take down the image. All I had to prove was that I was the originator of the image.

And to quote you:

"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Making a print of a photo in which you have not been given permission is not fair use.

Again, making a print or a few prints for one's personal collection, the original creator may not know or find out. But it doesn't matter if you (the royal you) makes one copy and doesn't sell it. Per the US Copyright Office: "As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner." (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html)

As per the case with Jerry Falwell, there is usually only a case for copyright infringement if the original owner can prove that their income has been impacted by the creation of copies.
(Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 606 F. Supp. 1526 (C.D. Cal. 1985).)
The Fair Use Doctrine is to allow for limited and reasonable uses as long as the use does not interfere with owners’ rights or impede their right to do with the work as they wish.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act states:
[i]the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.[/i]

I may have been a little flippant in my earlier post, I'll concede it's a bit of a theoretical grey area.
The general opinion around the office is for there to be an issue, the offended party must prove there has been actual damages, something that's going to be effectively impossible to figure out for printing a couple of pictures at walmart that you keep in your own collection. They also need to show that there would have been a way for you to purchase said picture.
BUT if you were to scan the autographed pictures and display them on a site that you gained advertising revenue, that would be completely different, and well beyond my experience.
To worry about printing a few photos as Walmart is just melodramatic, and really silly. I have NEVER heard of anyone getting into legal trouble for printing a couple of pictures, maybe I am wrong, if anyone knows of a case I would love to hear about it.
Even worst case scenario, the copyright holder is going to send you a cease and desist letter or a takedown notice.
Walmart MIGHT refuse to copy the pictures to cover themselves, because they're the ones making the profit in the transaction.

-hartster, I'm a graphic designer with almost ten years experience. Not claiming to know everything, but just talking from experience. Your quote: "Making prints of a work, scanning it into digital form, photocopying it, copying digital works, etc."
Please notice its says prints, not print. Like i said, making multiple copies of the same picture will raise eyebrows.

"Some other activities that only the copyright owner has the exclusive right to do (and for which you may need permission) are:

-
"Making prints of a work, scanning it into digital form, photocopying it, copying digital works, etc."

(http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip_photography.pdf) - The World Intellectual Property Organization

Wrong wrong wrong. Printing an image off the internet where you do not have the permission of the creator of that image is illegal. Does not matter if you are selling it or not, or how many copies you make. Again, granted, the originator may not know their work was printed out for personal use, but regardless, there is an issue with legality.

I work in social media for a media company. Where do you work, Spacedracula, and where's your source for your claim?

The only celebs getting mad would be the ones who actually sell their own photos. Even then, I've never heard of anything of the sort.

There is no issue with copyright, printing a single copy of an image you found online is in no way illegal. :roll: It becomes illegal when you are mass producing it for sale.

Print 100 of the same image and you may raise an eyebrow! :lol:

I try to look for pictures in magazines or use inserts from CDS and DVDs mainly. If it's someone I don't have a photo of I send an index card with a big enough envelope for a photo in case they have their own to send.

An image that is not yours, and is not public domain, is generally copyrighted and generally illegal to print without the creator's OK, regardless of whether or not you sell it. Whether the individual stores will enforce it is up to them - some are more strict than others. Some may say if it _looks_ like a professionally-taken photo they may not print it without a release.

Honestly? Sometimes photos found on the web aren't the best resolution to print, anyway. I would look on eBay or some other auction site for photos to buy, and then send off to get signed.

There may be the occasional celeb who won't sign on that basis, but IMO they are very rare and the majority aren't bothered.