"So Walmart's legal department probably sent out a memo saying don't touch copyrighted material at all, and the workers are stuck following it."

Since Copyright attaches automatically for works produced within the last couple of decades, Wal-Mart wouldn't have much of a photo department at all if they refused to touch any copyrighted material at all.

I had a similar problem at Walgreens where a clerk wouldn't let me scan a photo that had clearly fallen out of copyright but would let me copy all sorts of snapshots taken by people other than myself (and since I was in the photos, it was obvious that I didn't take them) to my heart's content.

These photo places have a very inconsistent policy in regard to protecting copyright. It boils down to often refusing to copy any photo that looks professional, as if professionalism had anything to do with copyright.

With no due respect, no one here knows anything about copyright law.

Go here to learn more... [www.copyright.gov]

[www.copyright.gov]

Then go here for the Chapter 17 of the federal satutes:
[www.copyright.gov]

Also to the people who think they "own photos," if you pay to have photography work done, UNLESS it is "Work Made For Hire," or have a "written" agreement stateing that the copyright is being transfered, then you do NOT own copyright to the reproduction of that work. This includes weddings, studio portraits, etc.

Also, "scanning" a photo at home of a copyrighted photography IS illegal even if it is for your personal use. Any and all rights whould be clearly stated by the photographer.

Even if you get a signed document by the photographer saying you are the new copyright holder, the photographer does have the right under "recapture" to become the copyright holder again after 35 years.

Know the law, LEARN the law and don't assume anything!

Lastly, don't blame Wal*Mart and others for trying to cover their rear ends. They are just trying to protect themselves. It may be a hassle to provide releases from photographers, but you limit your exposure to federal lawsuits, too.

§ 303. Duration of copyright: Works created but not
published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978

(a) Copyright in a work created before January 1, 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or
copyrighted, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for the term provided by section 302. In no
case, however, shall the term of copyright in such a work expire before December 31, 2002; and, if the
work is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before
December 31, 2047.

It IS illegal to alter, change or claim copyright to something you do not own:

"(c) Removal of Notice. - Protection under this title is not affected by the removal, destruction, or obliteration of the notice, without the authorization of the copyright owner, from any publicly distributed copies or phonorecords."

I brought a picture to walmart once to have it copied, blown up and printed better then I could do at home.

I scanned the picture and it printed out and I put it in the envelope with the original. I went to the counter to pay for it. The woman said she needed to see the picture before I could pay and leave. I asked why and she said the BS copyright line.

I said "No you cant see it" she kept insisting and I kept saying no. Finally I asked her for a metal waste basket. She asked why and I told her that the picture had to be burned as my photo that she could not see was on the paper. I took out my lighter.

She stood there for a few seconds and rang it up for me.

/it was a picture that I paid for and owned of me and the family.
//had the BS copyright printed all over the back of the photo
///glad I have a better photo printer now

My wife gets pictures of our son done at Pictures Plus or something like that at the mall. She has a couple of times asked them to sign something so she could get a picture they took copied at Meijer and they have never refused. My mother in law runs the photo lab there and it is a liability issue. But she's had customers complain enough to the store manager and he's relented many times.

It's similar to a business paying a designer to make a logo. The designer doesn't own the logo, the business does.

So you bring in the digital version of negatives and they tell you no?

Shenanigans.

If there wasn't a clear date watermark on it, I probably wouldn't have let her do it either.

Not that the Walmart crowd is supposed to be the smartest bunch around, but surely they should know that much about copyright law.

And yes, it is quite ironic that a company that has generated so much wealth from plundering public domain works would work so hard to keep creations out of the public domain. It certainly gives cause to question their ethics and integrity, at the very least.

My mom also had this problem; she was doing a photo album for her parents 50th wedding anniversary and had a lot of pictures that were, well, over 50 years old in it.

My my. It appears many posters have not read the previous page of posts.

Just to respond to some of the worst offenders.

@WraithSama:
We are talking about works that fall under the 1909 act not under the current act. There are different rules.

@sean77:
Kind of right. This was discussed in an earlier comment. I posted a whole law review article on it as it gets complicated depending on when the work was published. You will also want to see Rubinows link.

@CaliforniaCajun:
The works under the 1909 act were not created at time of creation but needed publication. So you are right under the current act but the article is about an item that would be under the 1909 act.

You are SURE the photo is public domain? Put a tiny little black mark on the photo in the bottom corner. Claim it is a derivitive work, then copyright it yourself. Then write a letter releasing it to yourself.

But this is the Internet, where everybody is an expert on intellectual-property law because they read about it on Wikipedia or something.

@XStylus: Actually, I believe that's exactly the argument the Supreme Court upheld when the issue of retroactive copyright extension was brought before them (eldrid v. ashcroft)

@tom2133: IIRC, current copyright regs are life of the creator + 95 years

It is for this reason why Apple II and Pet software are still subject to copyright. Hope no one minds history disappearing, all for the sake of Mickey.

Picture: literally from 1941. Walmart says "No." even after I told them "The photographer DIED in 1968! His shop has been CLOSED since then!"

If it has a copyright notice on it, that copyright won't expire until 2036.

In this case, walmart is covering their asses. And as @rubinow: stated, you can just fill out the forms.

Individual works: Life of author + 70 years.
Corporate works: 120 years from creation date

Anything before 1923 is public domain.
However things get tricky after 1923. If it was published between 1923 and 1977 it depends on several things. If it has a copyright notice, it definitely is copyrighted. If it doesn't have a copyright notice it might not be.. but that's no guarantee.

If it was published between 1923 and 1977 without the notice, they had 5 years to register the copyright. If they did so, then the original work is copyrighted, even without the notice!

The fact that most people in this thread are wrong tells me that Walmart made the right move by erring on the side of caution.

You see, they know how American politics works, and this is just a display of their remarkable foresight. They know that even though the US Constitution states that copyright lasts for a "limited time", Disney will just coerce the Legislators to write a law that extends it.

After all, 99 billion years is still technically a "limited time". So, it might as well be forever, right?

They are actually being responsible in trying to uphold the artistic credibility of photographs.

I wish the US Government had such a sense of decency, even though I am fully aware Wally World is just trying to avoid litigation and heavy fines.

Copyright is a scary thing for an aspiring artist to think of, especially the concept of "Orphaned Works".

Some dude's diatribe with links to proposed legislation.
Source watch's article.

This is a really scary debate for those in graphic arts and design, both about the legality of their work if they use public domain/orphaned works and the status of their own work in the future.

My wife's music business professor was a noted copyright lawyer who worked for many big names including "Wierd" Al Yanchovic and Metallica (whom he screwed out of $100,000 on a contract just to see if he could, but that's a hilarious story for another time). Anyhow, he says that copyright protection only lasts until the 75th anniverssary of the copyright-holder's death. Therefore, if the copyright holder of the photograph has been deceased for at least 75 years, the portrait is now public domain.

I had a Wal-Marter * tell me that I could not copy a photo because the Kodak paper was copyrighted, at that point it just became a tennis match:

Me: So Kodak has a copyright over a picture my dad took?
WM*: The little (c) is on the back it's copyrighted!
Me: The paper backing is, not the photo!
WM*: No the photo is!
Me: So how can you develop film with Kodak paper and sell it to a customer without breaking copyright law, which by your definition, you can;t do!
WM*: uh....uh....

The previous exchange took place at the Wal-Mart* in Murphy, NC. I haven't used Wal-Mart* since (neary two decades).

It goes farther than that at my local Wal-Mart.
There doesn't even have to be a COPYWRIGHT MARK.
They just have to THINK they are professional.

I am a wanna-be photographer, and any time I take my best photos in for print out (from my smart card or jumpdrive) on the Kodak machines -- the employees go through them, give each other knowing glances, and start to tell me I can't have them.
I try to explain that *I* took them.. but because the pics look professionally taken to them, they don't usually want to believe me.
I even had to sign a special release that is supposed to be on file -- and employees have refused to check for it.
One time I had to detail to an employee how I used photoshop action "x" then "y" then "z" to achieve my result.
Then she seemed to believe me.

@rubinow:

Your 60 year limit is to broad at best. Everything written today will have a much longer limit. As for previous works the website you give is interesting and informative. However, you need to know technical knowledge which I go over above to use the website ie what is means to "publish".

@tom2133: No incorrect mainly as the other poster said- Disney. Disney, the company that raided and continues to raid public domain fairy tales for many of its film subjects, has been instrumental in stretching out the copyright time limits. They want to protect their millions and spend millions doing it. If you get a hair, research how heavy handed they have been with getting passage of US Laws extending copyright time limits...

Hahaha. As native speakers we say/write phrases like this all the time without thinking of it, but when I read that sentence, I LOL'd thinking about what a relatively green English-speaker would make of that auxiliary verb chain. Sorry for the tangent, but if you read that carefully you might be amused too.

And it WOULD generally apply to all copyrightable works (books, movies, AND photos, drawings, etc.) Copyright law makes no distinction between types of works...again, generally.

I worked for the wonderous Wall-Mart for two years as the department manager of the photo lab in a smaller store. And, yes we were told that copyrights on photos were forever and if we allowed those photos to be duplicated, we could lose our jobs. THE major threat of business to it's lowly employees (or associates, as they lovingly call us). I would copy people's pics if I was alone and could get away with it. But we had one hard nose lady who would go to the mat with the customer on that copyright thing(of course she was a pain in the ass, anyway). Retail is a bitch, and Wal-Mart fits in very well with it's outdated approach to management.

Sorry 'bout the confusion.

@rubinow:

I could not agree more. In fact I said a slander case would be absurd. I am not sure if your response was meant for me because you basically agree with me.

As a general rule of thumb, if the work was made before 1989 and doesn't have a copyright symbol on it, it's probably in the public domain.

And this "general rule of thumb" comes from WHERE? No kidding you need actual lawyers to weigh in on this. Merely being on the Internet doesn't confer legal expertise. Hint: if you find yourself feeling the need to say "IANAL, but...", you probably have no idea what you're talking about.

US Copyright Office FAQ here: [www.copyright.gov]

Buying a scanner is fine, if you're in it for the long haul. But if you have some time? Take a walk around the store. The shift will change, and you have a decent chance of power being transfered to someone who knows better, or doesn't give a shit. I say this as somebody who used to work at Target Photo lab though, so maybe your chances of working the shift change are better there than at the Walmart lab.

@crashfrog: In that sense, he's not..

The hope is that at some point Congress will resist the lobby, and stop the stupidity.

Wow, now that you think about it, I think that this Wal-Mart employee is a sophisticated copyright theorist.

BTW: Here's Walmart's policy regarding printing photographs: [photos.walmart.com]

It's in line with everybody's anecdotes. But on the other hand, if you just fill out the forms, it holds Walmart harmless for copyright infringement. I don't see why people don't just do that.

@mjschmidt: Reeve's point was that you didn't read any of the other comments.. specifically: @ mrgenius who posted the exact same thing well before you.

My understanding is that the original work is in the public domain, but you can copyright any modifications or variations you make on it. Thus, the cover art and any review work inside that Tom Sawyer you buy at Wal-Mart may be copyrighted by Penguin, but the actual content of it is in the public domain.

In this case, if she were to somehow alter it then she could copyright that, for example if she restored it or something.

If I am wrong about this, someone correct me, please.

IANAL. YMMV. BYOB.

Cheers!

I worked at an Eckerd photo lab when I was younger, then worked for a locally owned photo lab for many many years restoring old photos and all kinds of other stuff. I know countless of times people come in complaining about Walmart and how picky their copyright policy is. I understand they have to be strict about it, but it drove me nuts how Walmart would treat these people. Plenty of people would come in saying Walmart wouldn't print their own pictures that they took because it looked good enough to be copyright. So if you're even a decent photographer don't take your pictures to Walmart (terrible quality anyway). Not only would the Walmart employees turn them down, they'd treat them like criminals. But! That would only happen if the person burned their pictures onto a CD. If it was on a memory card (which is just as easy to transfer copyrighted pictures on) then they would print it.

This one professional photographer we deal with a lot stopped by Walmart once to get a few prints he needed quickly (Walmart is cheaper). They refused to print his pictures because there was a name and address written on the CD. It was HIS name and address, and he pulled out his License to prove it. They still wouldn't accept it, and told him that he needed a release form. He said "So... I need to write a letter stating I will release the copyrighted pictures I made to myself so I can get them printed?" They said yes so he started writing the release on a random piece of paper, and they continued to tell him they couldn't accept it. He came to us shortly and apologized for using our competitor =)

I woman wanted to make a copy (in this case a digital scan) of an old photo, and that which I posted literally answers the question "My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?"

That's almost like refusing to allow a blu-ray exchange for a DVD of the same title... If you ripped the blu-ray version somehow, why return it to downgrade to the DVD release? Just convert the blu-ray version, viola!

Just because someone claims a photograph is old, it doesn't mean squat. There are several studios that take old-tyme photos in period dress for children and families.

Second, just because the image you are presenting at the counter doesn't have a copyright logo/studio name on it doesn't mean it didn't three minutes ago. If I have a picture from 1958 that *is* marked with a copyright logo in the bottom corner and I cut off the bottom 1/4" of the photo, is this photo suddenly no longer protected by copyright?

As this very article says, Wal*Mart associates aren't trained worth crap - so don't expect them to be experts in identifying a copyrighted photograph. No employee is trained in carbon dating a photograph to determine the age. The employee is going to play it safe because that employee's job is on the line. Wal*Mart is going to play it safe because they can (and have been) sued for such violations.

@Difdi:

It is not shaky to sue Wal Mart libel/slander in this case - it is just plain absurd.

I don't get my photos printed at Wal-mart any more. I was recentyl married and our photographer included all the hi-res digital images on DVD and signed over the rights as part of our package.

I uploaded to Wal-Mart to have some printed and when I went in to the store to pick them up they wanted me to produce evidence that I owned the reproductive rights. Now to get the pictures I had to go home get the piece of paper from my photographer and go back. Quite an annoyance. Walgreens, Longs, and CVS have never asked for proof.

@mjschmidt:

I wish people would stop posting the same exact comment. Anyway, that post mainly has to do with fair use. This is one issue. Of course one need not resort to fair use if a copyright does not exist which was covered in one of my previous posts.

@Farquar:

I agree. Very difficult to copyright the description of a character.

@Farquar:

Sorry the above was for Orv.

@Reeve:

You can copyright a visual depiction of a character without any problems at all. Its much more difficult to copyright a textual description of a character. For example.. the description of a well-intentioned husband/father who is selfish, stupid, and prone to screwing things up, but in the end tries to do the right thing.

It's a stock character. It's Homer, Peter on Family Guy, Ralph Cramden(husband, not dad), Archie Bunker, the dad on Roseanne....

The copyright comes in the visual representation, which is much easier in the cartoon medium.

Trademark is used to identify the maker of a good. It's a source identifier. Mickey is the goods (as far selling things with Mickey on it). The trademark is the Disney logo. Not to say that this line isn't getting more and more blurred. It is.

"My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?
Photocopying shops, photography stores and other photo developing stores are often reluctant to make reproductions of old photographs for fear of violating the copyright law and being sued. These fears are not unreasonable, because copy shops have been sued for reproducing copyrighted works and have been required to pay substantial damages for infringing copyrighted works. The policy established by a shop is a business decision and risk assessment that the business is entitled to make, because the business may face liability if they reproduce a work even if they did not know the work was copyrighted.

In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a "copy" of a photograph - the tangible embodiment of the "work" - is distinct from the "work" itself - the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the "work" is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer's will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a "fair use" under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. However, even if a person determines a use to be a "fair use" under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person's assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law."

[www.copyright.gov]

There is to much misinformation above to correct everything. I will tell you that specifically talking about this photo it would have initially fell under the copyright act of 1909. Under the 1909 Act copyrights were afforded to works which were published and had a copyright notice affixed. It is likely that this work was never published and certainly not published at the time of taking. The 1978 act provided that works would not go into the public domain until at least January 1, 2003 (this is EARLIEST though assuming the author had been deceased by January 1, 1933). HOWEVER, the 1978 Act provided an incentive to publish works whereby a work could be published and the copyright extended until December 31, 2047. There are other nuances such as if a work was created in 1920s and published say in the 1960s. It is unlikely this photo was ever published so it is true that it is probably in the public domain. There is a possibility it is not though. Since the law is so confusing it is understandable why Wal Mart would be reluctant to copy this photo.

For an article which discusses how the law works on these unpublished works see [www.cardozoaelj.net]

Well, signing someone else's name to a release IS fraud. If you only use the photos at home or give them to family there is small likelihood of getting caught, but that's not the same as there not being any fraud.

@TechnoDestructo: Because most people don't bother to read the contract they sign with the photographer before handing over their cash. Photographers want to make sure that you have to go to them to get reprints.

I have a stack of those WalMArt release forms at home. I fill them out with the names of whichever studio/photographer I want them to make a copy of. What are they going to do? I only use them at home or give them to family so there's no fraud.

Walmart eats the repacking charge and labor to reshelve the unit as used.

You get your precious pics on CD/DVD to print out at a quality operation that gives a damn.

The problem isn't with old photo's though its' with people bringing in those stupid glamor shots photo's and then wanting dups made or scanned to a cd.

NOOOOO stupid that's why when they asked if you wanted a cd for however much money they charge, you should have said yes.

but whatever people are generally stupid about copyrights anyway so i would say that this is a non issue with walmart. (though i still hate them).

Forever less one day.

I hit the same thing and I patronized a local shop, true a tad more expensive but I got copies of my pics off a CDROM that I took faster than wal-mart was willing to do it for.

Beg your pardon, that's 1923, not 1929.

Ok, on topic...

AFAIK and IANAL, something done in 1929 isn't copywritten unless there's some exception (e.g. it's part of a larger volume that is copywritten). See the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

I like the suggestion put up on BB: buy a scanner at Walmart, go home and scan the photos, return the scanner for a refund.

@Orv:
You can copyright a drawing of a character.

@mopoke2:

I agree with Farquar. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what is going on. Disney's rights to early Mickey Mouse drawings does not have to do with Trademark law. True Disney may have some trademarks on early properties but that would not protect a whole 30 second cartoon.

That is almost always true, but there are other works made after 1929 that are also public domain.

So Wal-Mart employees are idiots?

Noted.

From www.copyright.gov:

My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?

Photocopying shops, photography stores and other photo developing stores are often reluctant to make reproductions of old photographs for fear of violating the copyright law and being sued. These fears are not unreasonable, because copy shops have been sued for reproducing copyrighted works and have been required to pay substantial damages for infringing copyrighted works. The policy established by a shop is a business decision and risk assessment that the business is entitled to make, because the business may face liability if they reproduce a work even if they did not know the work was copyrighted.

In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a "copy" of a photograph - the tangible embodiment of the "work" - is distinct from the "work" itself - the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the "work" is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer's will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a "fair use" under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. However, even if a person determines a use to be a "fair use" under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person's assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law.
____________________________________________

So basically Wal Mart looks like it is doing the right thing here... I never thought I'd be typing that Wal Mart was doing the right thing. I need a shower.

@cockeye:

Decent printer with ink = not cheap.

When I went to reprint them, KodakGallery automatically refused to reprint some of them because they were "professionally done." It seemed that they were refusing some of the larger reprints based on resolution. I called and explained the problem and offered to fax them a copy of the letter the photographer's wife had given me. This was not enough for them - Kodak wanted a copy of the guy's death certificate and proof of identity for his wife. Since they had only put a hold on a few of the 8x10s, I went without instead of putting the burden on the photographer's family.

[papers.ssrn.com]

One of my favorite articles.. because I'm a nerd. A lengthy paper on the status of the "Happy Birthday" copyright, in the end arguing that "Happy Birthday to You" long ago fell into the public domain, yet still brings in over 2 million in licensing fees.

It's a little obnoxious to pull up. Click download locations, then download anonymously.

Fuckery and douchebaggery at its finest.

On the flipside of the ridiculous meter, the same employees who blandly tell you can't scan something... will accept a copyright release form that says practically anything, written by anyone.

It's just like when you sign your credit card purchase. I always draw little stick figures and pictures on the screen. No one cares. No one cares what it says on the release form, they have no way to verify it and nor will they ever.

They are just told that's what they're supposed to do.

@tom2133: That would be incorrect.

@mopoke2: That would be grossly incorrect to the extent that it appears you are just making things up.

Most of the classic Disney stuff is still under copyright because the copyright term was extended. The term was extended in no small part because of Disney's lobby to have the copyright term extended to avoid having Mickey go into the public domain.

None of this has anything to do with trademark law.

Disney actually pushes legislation through Congress to extend the duration of copyright protection, which is in fundamental opposition to the principles of what copyright protection was intended to do.

Copyright (very loosly, IANAL) is intended to protect great ideas and allow companies to profit from them. This protected period of exclusivity is based on the assumption that at some point, the copyright will expire, and the invention or idea will be disseminated into the public domain for the development of future works, and the general benefit of society.

Some of Disney's most important copyrights are based on works that had become public domain at the beginning of the century, just in time for Disney to adapt and develop their own ideas on. So, Disney is essentially acting to eliminate the basic principles of copyright, the very same principles which are responsible for their own initial success.

I believe everything before *1923* is now out of copyright. As for 1928, it would have had to have been registered and had notice on it. By virtue of *not* having a copyright symbol, it's public domain.

Anything produced before 1964 that did not have its copyright renewed is out of copyright. As of 1989, copyrights started renewing automatically (and covered things produced Jan. 1, 1964 and forward). So, the photograph would have had to have been renewed, too.

Copyright in the US is unlikely ever to extend past what it is now; the *big* reason all the lobbying worked is that Germany's copyrights were this long, so the rest of the EU extended their copyrights; we have reciprocity agreements where we have to give as much protection to works from EU countries for US creators to be covered there.

The federal statutes, while a touch ridiculous (and we need some of the personal copying flexibility you see in EU law), are less the problem to me than the arbitrary, know-nothing attempts at "enforcing" them by corporate owners and third parties. The former are trying to pressure people with the knowledge that most won't take them to court over it, where they might have to prove themselves; the latter are too scared of the same kind of pressure (and, again, probably wouldn't be harmed, but don't want to go to court in the first place).

There are various copyright laws depending on when the image was taken. In the earlier photos, there is also language about the people who are in the photograph, and whether they are still alive. When I worked in museums, we had to be extra careful with this. If a photograph from say, 1913 had a small child in it, then there was a chance the person was till alive, and the old law kicked in. Thanks to rulings that favored media companies, the rules changed from life of the creator, to life plus 70 years, and there are other ways to extend it. I used to do this for a living, and I couldn't quickly find the appropriate law online in a quick Google search. With copyright violations costing $100,00 per violation, I can understand Walmart telling its employees they last forever. You cannot afford to train $10.00 hourly workers in copyright law.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is and what is not public domain not in the public domain. Even if the studio that took the picture of Grandpa and Grandma is gone the heirs to the studio may have rights.

Does the law really affect you and me on a day to basis, no, but to businesses it is a real problem area.

If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the lobbyists, lawyers, and trade associations for the major studios / labels.

Just like Sonny Bono would have wanted. Sure, it may be unconstitutional, but it's not like that's stopped Congress in the past.

walmart almost wouldnt let me make copies of my own pictures i made with a rebel dslr. they said they were professional. i thanked her and made them anyway.

But this is the sort of violation of copyright law that is perfectly OK because corporations and others do it all the fricking time.

I'm not a lawyer but I played one in a mock trial back in highschool and I've stayed at a holliday in select...what was i saying again?

@savvy999:
Actually it isn't that they renew their copyright. Before the copyright was up, Disney went ahead and trademarked all of their IP properties. And trademarks are forever.

I can never figure out which topic has more misinformation in the public domain: copyrights or high definition television.

Besides, if I were interested in copying movies I buy only to return them, I'd buy my own heat gun and shrink wrap, keep the security stickers, and play it that way.

Of course it isn't like the preceding 100 or so reasons aren't good enough... exporting jobs, facilitating the movement of wealth out of the country, marginalizing small business, killing down towns, abusing employees, abusing the law, abusing taxpayers, abusing suppliers, abusing... well everyone...

@savvy999:
That is because Disney keeps renewing the copyright on it's properties.

So Walmart's legal department probably sent out a memo saying don't touch copyrighted material at all, and the workers are stuck following it. As much as it pains me to say this, Walmart is not really at fault here - blame the confusing and complex copyright laws. The US really needs to fix them, especially when it comes to photos.

At most Walmarts, there is a Kodak kiosk. Use that to make your copies. When done hand the photo tech your slip, and they'll get you an envelope(and price sticker) for your photos.

So the photo tech doesn't notice, hold the photos to where the white backing is always showing to the tech.

When you get the envelope, just put the photos in that, and there ya go.

*Yes this works.

Walmart, Walmart, Walmart...why don't you play nice. Still the legal eagles are watching so best to behave and refer granny to Target.

I hadn't even left the store 10 minutes ago and went rushing back up, getting there within 20 minutes of purchasing it. The lady behind the counter said she couldn't return it because it had already been open, and due to copyright law they can't let me return it because I might have copied it, either that or they could only let me exchange it for another Full Screen copy and not the one I wanted. I left, mad as ever.

Luckily I'm friends with some guys who own a local video game store, and after hearing my story offered to re-shrink wrap it for me! I took it back, remember it has no stickers on it at all, and ended up dealing with the same lady as the previous night.

"Did you buy another copy?"

"Uh, no, my mom bought me another one because she felt bad for me and your stupid rule, but she too grabbed the wrong version."

She looks it over for a moment. "Alright, go grab the one you wanted."

Score one for me!

My mom and I ran into this same thing at Walmart a couple years ago. The only info on the portrait was the studio's name. My mom tried explaining to them that this studio hasn't even been in business for 50 years (don't know if that matters in copyright issues)but they still wouldn't let us scan it.

Maybe I'll look into this and try again, although I don't foresee being able to intelligently argue the point with the Walmart workers in south Georgia.