Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims

from the a-real-winner dept

It's been many years since we first wrote about how stores like Walmart were dealing with ridiculous copyright laws by telling employees to simply not allow the printing of "professional-looking" photos, just in case they were covered by someone else's copyright. Last year, a story popped up about a Walmart employee not letting a family print their own old family photos for this reason. It looks like we've got yet another such story. greenbird was the first of a few of you to send in this story about Walmart (yet again) not allowing the printing of family photos (this time for a funeral, which makes it that much more tragic), with copyright used as the reason. Once again, the employee made some dumb statements, such as saying "copyright is forever."

But, just like last time, I have to say that we shouldn't blame the Walmart employee, who is just trying to protect her job, and lives in a world where copyright maximalists constantly push this sort of message. It's not her fault, it's the fault of current copyright law, which makes such things seems reasonable, and the ongoing effort by lobbyists and politicians to only push copyright law further in that direction.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    BBT, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 10:54am

    In fairness, 'copyright is forever' is accurate. The current laws are that copyright will last forever. Yes, they have a time limit, but that time limit is always increased before it expires. Therefore, copyright is never going to actually expire. It lasts forever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 10:54am

    Copyright is forever though. I mean, when it comes right down to it, right? When is Disney's Steamboat Willie supposed to enter the public domain? 2013? I think we can all expect another extension of 20 more years.

    Then an artist will have copyright last their entire life plus 90 years and corporations can have their copyright last 110 years.

    Repeat! Until the end of forever. Of course, copyright will be rendered obsolete in less than a decade, so, good luck.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:00am

    I'm shocked that Walmart is not fighting for a DMCA safe harbor type immunity from printing pictures of the public. To me Walmart is merely doing what its customers are asking. It should not be Walmart's duty to arbitrarily enforce possible copyrights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      william (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 1:51pm

      Re:

      Apparently Kinko got nailed before for printing AND selling professional photos.

      The deal is that if you copy for yourself it's probably okay, but if a retailer do it then it's not so okay since there is profit involved.

      I have to say Walmart is just looking out for it's own ass and doesn't care about anything else. But we all know that already don't we?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:06am

    With prices of high quality SLR/DSLR cameras dropping within the casual hobbyists budget you would expect to see a lot more requests for prints that would seem "professional". If Walmart makes a copy at the request of a customer, the responsible party should be the customer, not Walmart. We can blame the lobbyist who would push copyright so that copyright owners could maximalize their profits in court and collect from the deep pocketed corporations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ben, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 12:47pm

      Re: Do it yourself!

      Epson - PictureMate Dash Personal Photo Lab Printer $160.00
      Plus many others like it for even less money.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    kyle clements (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:13am

    I hate to sound like I'm coming to Walmart's defence on the issue, but since they are the cheapest place around that prints on fuji crystal archive, I get most of my photo printing done there, and I never run into these problems. I just show up, use the self-serve machines, and send in my print order, and I've never had a problem with getting it printed.

    And I am a semi-professional photographer!

    I've recently gone in with 600 photos of kids sitting on Santa's knee, obviously they were all taken on a set, under professional lighting, and I've gotten them all printed effortlessly.

    Its easy to forget how freaken huge walmart is, how many employees they have, and how stupid people can be. eventually, someone associated with the company will do something dumb.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:26am

      Re:

      "And I am a semi-professional photographer!"

      that would also make you a semi-amateur photographer

      ... Big Ole GRIN ...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:32am

      Re:

      How can someone be "semi-professional"? Either you got paid or you didn't, right? :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Will (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:52am

        Re: Re:

        Part time?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Matthew, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 12:06pm

        Re: Re:

        If you use the same equipment to take both the photos that you sell and photos for personal use, then I'd say that qualifies as "semi-pro." That seems like an appropriate definition here, considering that the apparent standard that WalMart uses to decline some photographs is whether or not they "look professional."

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 12:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Semi-pro or pro isn't the issue. Its whether the prints are of a copywritten work. Unless the photgrapher has embossed an overprint (i.e. Olan Mills) on the print, it is really impossible foe the staff at Walmart to make an informed decision about a print. There are hundreds of professional pictures that have been released into the public domain.

          Just like the government doesn't expect employers to enforce immigration laws, it doesn't require Walmart to enforce copyright laws. This is a stupid company policy. Has Walmart ever been sued for copyright infringement for prints they have made?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            It happened to me, Apr 4th, 2011 @ 1:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I agree. How can they make a professional decision just by looking at the photograph?If there is no imprint or signature on the picture how does the employee determine where the picture was taken even if you come back with a release? It could have been taken anywhere.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Ernestas, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 2:29pm

        Re: Re:

        invoice was not paid ;)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 4th, 2011 @ 1:37am

      Re:

      You must not be a really good photographer is you dont run into that problem.You should start on a new semi profession or keep practicing

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:46am

    getting paid in lint and/or candy bars doesnt really count...

    hence semi-pro... you got paid.... but ........not really.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Brian (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:47am

    Hmmm, I keep getting a Page Not Found 404 error for the link the the new story at consumerist

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    kyle clements (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:48am

    I do get paid for it, but I only do it part-time.
    I can't call myself a 'pro' when I only do shoots two or three times a month.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 12:28pm

      Re:

      Not that I disagree with you, Kyle, but if a musician writes one song popular song, you can bet he'll start considering himself a "professional" musician regardless if he never writes a popular song again in his lifetime.

      Then again, to counter my own argument, he'll get paid for that one song for the rest of his life.

      At any rate, you can drop the "semi" and I won't mind. :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      william (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 1:55pm

      Re:

      Kyle, I think you meant to say that you are part-time professional photographer, not full-time professional photographer.

      I think people are right that if you get paid then you are considered professional, regardless of how much time you spend it.

      You can stop being modest, we don't mind. ;-)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:51am

    What an awful situation to put all of these folks into - the employees and the customers. Appalling show of the criminally selective focus of copyright uber-protectionists.

    That employee is going to spout the company line that copyright is forever, because she wants to keep her job and likely doesn't know enough on the subject to question it. What are corporate policy makers going to do when presented with the OTHER part of copyright law allowing fair usage to protect themselves, and more importantly, their customers? I'd wager it'll take the form of a class action.

    I recently lost a parent, but I scanned and printed all the pictures myself for the memorial service (only because I could, didn't have to depend on a retailer for that). Many were professionally done, most done 50 some years ago. No one beat down the doors to the funeral chapel screeching about their bloody copyright. There would've been a sight more work for the morticians if anyone had.

    I'm planning to distribute copies of all those scanned photos to family members so we can all have them.

    And some would say I'm breaking the law doing so.

    Deny me. Accuse me. Sue me. I dare you. I know this funeral home that does great work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Angus, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 12:03pm

    Just fill this out when you go in

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Hal Bredbenner, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 12:03pm

    I had this problem all the time

    I used to use Walmart for printing, but I got challenged almost all the time. At first I took it as a compliment, but soon got tired of stopping by for my one-hour pick-up to be told by a high-school drop-out that I was breaking the law and they would not print my pictures.

    I take portraits, mainly as a hobby and occassionally for pay. I asked how I could keep this from happening and they had me fill out a release form that they put it file. But every time I went to pick up my prints they would not be ready and I would have to tell them to pull out the release form and see that I had a release on file.

    I finally gave up and now go to Wolf Camera: one-hour service by people who know me by name and have yet to accuse me of breaking the law because I take and print great portaits!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TheSpeakGeek, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 12:15pm

    Walmart tried to stop me from picking up a wedding photo recently that I submitted online for printing. When I tried to pick it up, the stupid Walmart envelope for the 8x11 had COPYRIGHTED written across it . In fact it was sitting in a pile of other envelopes similarly marked. She told me that I couldn't have the picture because it was copyrighted. Well they accepted my money online and even printed it for me, they just wouldn't let me pick it up. I asked them how they came to that determination. I explained to them that I in fact paid for and owned the original negatives. Not to mention the fact that I scanned the negative and digitally edited it (using GIMP) to make it B&W and added gausian blurr to the background. I guess I must be a professional photo editor now;at least good enough to fool Walmart. She finally came to her senses and gave me the picture.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 12:39pm

    I'm almost certain that Walmart's little photo Kiosks and website force you to agree to a legal statement that you own the copyright or have the copyright holder's permission to make copies of the photos.

    You've agreed, you've accepted legal liability. Why does the poor Walmart wage slave need to get involved?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    cycle003, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 1:37pm

    I have had similar issues at Wal-Mart, but they just asked me to fill out a copyright waiver form stating that I had the right to produce the pictures. Sometimes, we buy the copyright (usually by buying the CD) from professional portraits, and they include a copyright disclaimer form stating that we share the copyright with the photographer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 2:15pm

    Stupid...

    I have personal knowledge of this type of malfeasance:

    After our marriage, my wife called me on the phone in a tizzy, saying that Walmart refused to print our wedding photos.

    After asking her why the fuck she was doing business with Walmart, I told her to just be firm, assert that the photographer had no copyright over these photos, (I had specifically negotiated that with the photographer, as I have a personal stick up my ass about someone retaining copyright to pictures of *me* that I *paid* them to take. What the fuck is that all about anyway?) and insist that they print them or you would have your (angry) husband come down and "clear it up"

    This partially worked. I was forced to call in and raise my voice with the manager, insisting that not all photographers hold copyright to the photos they take and that was the case here. I had to belittle the manager for not knowing this as he was rather steadfast in his presumption that it was "standard" for photographers to do this.

    Standard as it may be, it was not the case here, and I was finally able to get him to simply do his job and provide the service they were offering.

    What really pisses me off about all this?

    (1) Dumb-Ass Walmart employees presuming to know *anything at all* about copyright law, and

    (2) Dumb-Ass Misogynist Walmart employees refusing to do something for a woman, based on the presumption in (1), only to relent and do it for her husband. "I'm sorry Mam, that's against copyright law and our policies...Oh, you're married? Just have your husband give us a call and don't worry your little head about it. Thanks for shopping at Walmart!"

    Fuckwads.

    CBMHB

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 2:35pm

      Re: Stupid...

      "(2) Dumb-Ass Misogynist Walmart employees refusing to do something for a woman, based on the presumption in (1), only to relent and do it for her husband. "I'm sorry Mam, that's against copyright law and our policies...Oh, you're married? Just have your husband give us a call and don't worry your little head about it. Thanks for shopping at Walmart!""

      Well, yeah that sucks that they act misogynist that way, but she could have just worn a Vneck shirt and used that shit to her advantage....

      Just sayin'...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dementia (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 3:18pm

      Re: Stupid...

      I agree with you concerning the whole issue of photographers retaining copyright over an image I paid them to take. Certainly seems to me to be a work for hire, since they were contracted specifically to take pictures of you for you and were paid for the work, but hey, what do I know about work for hire, I'm not a lawyer.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Almost Anonymous (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 3:43pm

      Re: Stupid...

      """(1) Dumb-Ass Walmart employees presuming to know *anything at all* about copyright law"""

      You are completely missing the point. The employee is doing exactly what they are trained/told to do. Wal-Mart's stance is to err on the side of caution, and who can blame them? Why open yourself up to even the possibility of a lawsuit? Especially after the Kinko's ruling. You can bet your ass that if Wal-Mart tried to claim Safe-Harbor protections for their "Do-it-yourself" kiosks, they'd get sued for enabling people to infringe by every professional studio and their mothers.

      On a side note, this is very similar to the practice of not selling liquor/tobacco to anyone who "looks younger than xx". When I worked as a cashier, if you didn't have ID, I don't care if you looked one hundred years old, and you cussed a blue streak at me, you were not buying liquor or tobacco from me. Of course, in this case, if you do sell to a minor, you can be held personally responsible and fined or jailed, but still, similar in the "err on the side of caution" front.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Michael Ho (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 9:22pm

      Re: Stupid...

      Actually, a similar thing happened to me at WalMart... and while annoying, the solution is that WalMart has a form that you can fill out which offers a way for you to declare that you are the copyright owner (presumably shifting the liability from WalMart to the consumer at the same time).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Photo Guru, Mar 16th, 2012 @ 12:07am

      Re: Stupid...

      I work in a print center similar to Walmarts. I AM a professional photographer, and I have done several dozen weddings. If you came into my store with THAT stick up your ass, I would have GLADLY ripped you a new one!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Photo Guru, Mar 16th, 2012 @ 12:08am

      Re: Stupid...

      I work in a print center similar to Walmarts. I AM a professional photographer, and I have done several dozen weddings. If you came into my store with THAT stick up your ass, I would have GLADLY ripped you a new one!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dennis, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 5:21pm

    Childhood pictures

    My wife tried to print out pictures that my father took of me 50 years ago when I was 3 years old. Walmart representatives tore the pictures up when we tried to pick them up saying they were professional copyrighted photos. Interesting, my father thought he was just taking pictures of his son.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2009 @ 9:11pm

    Capricious

    It's not her fault, it's the fault of current copyright law,

    While I would agree that it's not her personal fault, I would argue that it is the fault of Walmart as a company. Walmart has plenty of lawyers and knows where to hire more if they need to to explain copyright law to them, so I'm not accepting some kind of "ignorance of the law" excuse. They're just being capricious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Daemon_ZOGG (profile), Nov 19th, 2009 @ 11:35pm

    Bad for business...

    That's ok. No, really.. If it were me, there are hundreds of local copy shops with photo-printing machines that would be more than happy to accept my business. Oh, and my money too. ;D

    With all the competition around, who the hell needs "Walfart" anyway? " }:> "

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 21st, 2009 @ 3:32pm

      Re: Bad for business...

      ...there are hundreds of local copy shops with photo-printing machines...

      I'd say that's a very unusual situation. Just where do you live?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Diane, Nov 21st, 2009 @ 12:35pm

    Vintage Family Photos

    Yes, they were taken by a photographer, in the 1800's or early 1900's, but the studio no longer exists. I know with books before 1923, they are public domain. I assume the same is true of tintypes and cabinet photos, but Walmart stopped my cousin from copying....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dirtyboy, Jan 4th, 2010 @ 2:52pm

    Re: Bad for business

    ...there are hundreds of local copy shops with photo-printing machines...

    Where I live Walmart put all of the local shops out of Business with the cheap-ass prices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    I'm sorry but no, Feb 12th, 2010 @ 3:12pm

    why?

    I work at one of those "hundreds of copy shops" and here's the deal. If they're concerned about keeping their license to stay in business then they shouldn't be gladly copying photos for customers that are copyrighted.

    The laws may seem ridiculous but they are designed to help protect people who make their money from taking professional photos from being stolen from.

    I'm stunned at how often I am faced with someone who has gone to Olin Mills and had professional (if that's what Olin Mills is) photographs done and then come into my store asking me to reproduce the proofs for them, blow them up, etc. because they don't want to actually pay for the prints. As an artist, I think it's disgusting.

    Support the business that you've gone to for your family portrait rather than trying to rip them off and get something for nothing.

    And be flattered when they ask you to sign a release for your photos that look professional. Be happy they are trying to protect your work.

    Every time I run into this with a customer it's the same thing.

    "But I paid for them"

    You may have paid for them but you didn't buy the copyright so you don't have the legal right to reproduce them. If you want more of them pay the person who took them for more prints.

    People get upset and I don't care. It's the law and it's perfectly fair.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Dee, Sep 22nd, 2011 @ 7:24pm

      Re: why?

      Actually, most photographers sell a copyright privilege with a CD, that's why it is bullshit bogus when you drive all the way to walmart to pick up your pictures and you cant. Even though you paid for the pictures on a copyright privileged CD..

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Patrick D. Harrington, Feb 27th, 2010 @ 5:44pm

    I actually have to say that I commend Wal-Mart for stepping up to the plate and showing a little integrity when in comes to obeying copy write infringement laws. Too many people will hire a professional and strike up a deal for their service that includes printing of photos then skip out to a local department store to save a few dollars on the printing. That is just the greedy nature of today's selfish self centered majority. People these days just have no respect or integrity. It is unfortunate that there is some confusion when it comes to photos that are not protected or erroneously deemed as the work of a professional and not printed, but I think it shows a little bit of integrity even if it is only motivated by a desire to avoid litigation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Photo Depart Manager, May 7th, 2010 @ 5:37pm

    all of you except poster #44 are wrong. If you actually read up on the damn law then you'd understand why we have to ask for a release form. If you hire a photographer/studio to take pictures of you or your family and get prints from them, you are only buying copies. Thats it. They retain all rights to the pictures unless you buy a release from them or negotiate with them to not have a copyright for the pictures. You call us idiots, dumbasses, and etc well what the fuck do you think we call you when you can't find a fucking light bulb thats right next to your dumbass. Grow the fuck up and stop being little bitches about "they won't let me make copies of olan mills photographs". If you get a photographer to agree to no copyright then get him to sign a document that says so. Cause if you don't guess what he can still sue your dumbass citing that there was never an agreement like that. If you're that displeased with walmart go to fucking walgreens, meijer, or riteaid. I don't want you to come to me because you won't get shit. Btw, I graduated from the NAVAL Academy and did my time in as a JAG. That's a navy lawyer to all you dumbasses out here. So to argue that there's no copyright is bullshit. Stop trying to steal from other peoples hard work because we all know if you shop at walmart you sure as hell aren't a intelligent pos. In my last words to all of you except poster 44 shut the fuck up, get the fuck out, and stay the fuck out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lindsey, May 7th, 2010 @ 10:29pm

    digital

    I just tried to get some photos of my wedding printed from Walgreens. They were already printed and ready to go but I couldn't take them. Why would the photographer give a disk to me if I wasn't allowed to print them? I contacted the photographer and she's sending me a release.

    I understand she's just following the rules but the rules should be more clear. I would have gotten a release and brought it with me if I had known. We already got some printed earlier this week with no issues. The employee's attitude was also uncalled for - she acted like we were complete idiots. Now I just know that next time I'll have them mailed to my house instead of going to pick them up and being denied.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2010 @ 7:21pm

    I just can not believe that there is that many dumb people in the world to keep putting up with warlmarts crap.

    I have old family photos that I found at my dads house after passing away. wanted to view them you could see the icons and know there names but they were not viewable. so I went to walmart to see if they had a program or viewer that I was missing and they also claimed it to be copyrighted material and they would not assist in recovering these files.

    JUST PLAIN STOP USING WALMART
    IT IS ONLY A MYTH THEY ARE CHEAPER

    Only lazy people go to walmart There products are junk and way over priced. Ever since Sam Died walmart died with it
    the most savigs on the few items I did find worthy of buying was only .15 to .25 cents there are to many better quality places to buy from than walmart and that really care not only about there employees but there customers as well. Walmart dose neither.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Haley, Jun 26th, 2011 @ 9:34am

      Re: only lazy people go to walmart

      Yeah, no they don't. My family goes to walmart almost daily. Not because we're lazy, but because it's the only real store except SAVE A LOT in our town. Jeesh..

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dee, Sep 22nd, 2011 @ 7:27pm

    And i would like to add..

    I'm a photographer myself, and I was thinking about going to walmart to print some of my own pictures there.. what am I going to do when they ask me to show PROOF...? they are wacked outt..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    la, Jan 26th, 2012 @ 6:09pm

    This is crap....

    I had the same problem today. I took pictures circa 1900's to copy because I am doing my family genealogy. I was treated disrespectfully and was told photos prior to 1923 are in public domain, well if the lady who clearly did not pass high school history looked you could clearly tell the photos were prior to 1923 women had dresses to their feet , bustles, and basically turtlenecks on!. I used the instant machines and they printed before I paid for the photos. Next time I am going to put the old professional photos in my bag before I take them to the desk to pay. By doing this you are still paying because the quantity printed is on your receipt, but you avoid any hassle from stupid employees who are snooping through your photos. If that doesn't work i am printing a photo of someone naked and putting it on top of the stack and they won't have the nerve to look at any of the other photos. I understand what they are trying to do, but when an old photo has no label as to whom took it, it is kind of hard to track down the copyright holder.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 6th, 2012 @ 1:24am

    Here's the deal: think of a copyright for a picture the same as a copyright for a movie or a song. If you buy a movie or a song, you're free to enjoy it as much as you'd like. HOWEVER, you most certainly are not allowed to legally copy such a thing, and then go down the street and start handing it out. And the reason being is, you're directly taking money away from those who created such a thing. Well, the same thing goes for photographers, only more so.

    What I mean is, they have even less money than corporations, since most of them work as a small business. Given as such, when you pay to purchase pictures from a photographer, you're paying for that ONE TIME USE--as in ONE TIME, and that's it--UNLESS you buy the copyright.

    And the reason being is, the bit where it's the same as taking someone else's work, copying it, and then going down the street and passing it out--you're taking money away from someone for services rendered. Sort of like if you're at a restaurant and you walk by a dozen empty tables, and swipe the tips from each one--it's not kind of sort of wrong or kind of sort of stealing, it's you doing something you shouldn't be doing.

    And so it doesn't matter that it's your face, or your family, or belongs to the departed, or any other factors--because all of that is out-weighed by the bit where it is a FEDERAL LAW. You own the picture, sure--just like you own the movie or the song--but you don't own the right to replicate an infinate amount of copies without the original artist's permission.

    And so it's been my experience working in a photo lab (albiet not for Walmart) that it's the general public's fault more often than not. Firstly, for being unaware of the guidelines and thinking the poor sap behind the counter (or the company they represent) is just trying to be a jerk-face--and then second, by thinking the guidelines don't apply to them, once they realize what they are. But, what can you expect from a society where those who complain the most get what they want?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    POed, Jun 20th, 2012 @ 7:18am

    You made your case.

    A dumb walmart employee is not the qualified to quote copyright law. Their photo processing center sucks and their employees are generally idots. Photo Guru is a prime example.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    KeepsakeLady, Jul 9th, 2012 @ 6:12am

    What about photographers having their own work printed out?

    I only just recently opened a small photography studio and do most of my own printing. However I will need to visit Walmart often in order to process larger prints as well as specialty items like canvas prints. Does anyone know if Walmart has a problem with printing frequent orders from small studios like mine? I will sign any release that states that I am the photographer as well as show my business credentials identifying me as the owner of my studio.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      BetKha, Dec 30th, 2012 @ 9:53pm

      Re: What about photographers having their own work printed out?

      Yes to your question, I had a problem today about pictures my friend had taken of my son. I printed the pictures July 24,2012 and this one man was so nasty to me, I understood where he was coming from. The gentleman came at me as if I was stealing, so I talk to the manager my pictures were printed. I went today 12/30/12 the young guy at the counter was nice to me, I forgot, I opened my mouth and told him about what had happen before and will I have that same problem. My next thing was asking for a manager, the manager looked at the pictures on the usb and said print them. I was shopping with my 9 year old son and we went to pick up the pictures and the gentleman from before helped me and looked at the pictures and said "nope can't sale them to you".I wanted to cry, not again, well we had a lot to say. My friend that took the pictures said hi to him and you know me, I print here all the time. He acted like he didn't know her, she signed the form in the store, which was only go for those pictures. So every time she or I bring pictures in to be printed it will be a fight. I wrote to Walmart Photo headquarters because this is getting very old and someone need to train the folks there. It's messy but I hope you have better luck, talk to a person in photos that might be nice and put something on file like an affidavit,not that crap they have. Good luck

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Elizabeth Meisner, Jun 22nd, 2013 @ 5:32pm

    Walmart's Copyright Policy

    I went into my local Walmart to make 8x10 copies of 3 photos for a memorial collage for my dad's funeral on Monday. I was told that unless I had authorization I could not make copies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This