Of course, that *does* present a problem if you happen to be dealing with a snapshot of really exceptional quality, or perhaps that of an amateur photographer, since it would be impossible to determine what was covered under copyright and what was not. These days, EVERYTHING that is created, including my comment post here, is covered by copyright, whether you put a copyright date on it or not. The same was not true in 1955. The laws have changed several times over years - more than once, even, since the 50s. Even those who deal in copyright daily have arguments over what is legal and what is not.

However, I have to side with the Walmart clerk. I sympathize with the folks who were going to attend the funeral - it's hard to have your idea sent through the shredder like that when your intentions are good. But did these folks even try to find out about the photographer(s) in question? Likely not, given the small window of time offered in funeral planning. I suspect many portrait photographers would be understanding in the situation and would have allowed their work to be used if asked, but I'm sure it never occurred to these folks to even ask. Ahh...the joys of copyright law. They've learned a hard lesson and I wouldn't wish it on even my worst enemy. But unfortunately, while funerals and other solemn events do often garner special favors and treatment for those involved, and deservedly so, they don't exempt one from following the law.

Having lost my own mother-in-law this year, I'm truly sorry for your loss, Mike.

The photographer owns the copyright of any photo, the subject has nothing to do with ownership of the image unless a transfer of copyright was signed by the photographer. The duration of the copyright is the life of the photographer plus 70 years.

In the case described above, it gets complicated. If there is a copyright notice on the image such as a watermark or logo, then permission is needed for 95 years from the published date. If there is no watermark or logo, then it can be copied legally if it was created prior to 1978.

"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."

I understand that really sucks because of the situation, but if your place of employment has policies that they expect you to obide by, then your hands are pretty much tied.

Some of these friends - including my best friend - were accused by Wal-Mart employees of "making up" the letters themselves to circumvent copyright law. "Here's my photographer's card - let's call her right now," isn't a phrase you should ever need to utter to a Wal-Mart cashier when you have a letter-in-hand. The Wal-Mart employee saw that some of the photos on the disk were formatted to 5x5 and said there was no way anyone but a professional photographer could do that, and a professional photographer would not have given her the disk so she must have scanned the photos at home and then came to Wal-Mart to illegally copy the pictures, and the letter from the photographer was all part of the ruse.

After having a Wal-Mart employee question harass my mother when she went to pick up photos I had taken and sent for her to pick up, I refuse to bother with blue-smocked corporate shills who claim that the photographs *I* took are too good and must "be copyright". It is beyond worth it to me to pay a little more money and wait a little longer for prints in order to avoid being treated so poorly by a service employee.

>>>Wal-Mart (and other copiers/photo developers too, for that matter) has no way of knowing copyright status of most photos.

I agree. That's why they should just have everyone sign releases.

>>>you seem to be confused.

I'm not confused at all. Walmart has tools available to them to obviate the need for their nonsense. Release forms are even posted on their own website.

And, despite what you say, every decision WalMart makes about photo printing is them "playing copyright cop". How do they know who owns the rights to the picture from 1956? Copyright in a 1956 picture might not have even attached (no (c)). It might have transferred via a release, anyway. How do they know who owns copyright to the "professional" looking pictures that amateur people are bringing in? How do they know who owns the copyright to the crappy looking pictures people bring in? It's PATENTLY OBVIOUS that there is copyright in most pictures floating around out there, especially ones made after 1976. My beef with WalMart is that they have their worries misplaced and it's based on a misunderstanding of copyright.

>>>I'm not talking about the greater issue of copyright, only the pragmatic side of respecting copyright

Those go hand in hand: one can not even begin to talk about the pragmatic side of respecting copyright if you don't know the greater (or even specific) issues involving copyright. WalMart's statements to the OP about copyright are simply mistaken and misapplied. If they are so concerned about copyright, they would have a system in place that is better than a clerk's eyeball judgment about a photo.

BTW: I understand how work for hire works. No need to reiterate it.

On the plus side, it's another example of copyright law crushing creativity We should go back to the founders' intent and have copyrights last 20 years or so and require explicit application and renewal.

Actually, by subscribing to "National Geographic", you are actually joining the National Geographic Society, so you really do own a part of the photos in the magazine.

Unless it says on the photo somewhere "copyright of BLAH BLAH STUDIOS 1955" I don't think the minimum wage earning Walmart employee has any right to say anything unless she has a law degree.

Maybe the walmart's employees husband works for HP and she was trying to increase photo printer sales because stories like these sure make me scared to print photos at walmart

Back in 1993, I had the same thing happen when I went to print up copies of my brother's HS graduation photo after he passed away. We were going to hand some out at his funeral, and have a larger one in a frame by his urn.

I got the same "Copyright infringement" from the photo lab. Even after explaining that the photographer was no longer in business, and we needed the photos for the funeral, she wouldn't give in. Finally, I just broke down and cried, because of the frustration.

At that point, she gave in, mostly because she was tired of me weeping.

WalMart handled this badly. There are legal ways for a copy shop to absolve itself of responsibility. In my opinion, the best way for a copy shop to release liability is to either require written permission from the original copyright owner; or if that isn't possible, then a signature from the customer on a document with their name and contact information stating that they have permission to copy the document and are assuming all legal responsibility and liability (and any legal fees) in the event of any infringement litigation. (Of course, I am not a lawyer, and specific liability assumption laws may vary by location.)

Needless to say that I've been on the other side of the counter in situations like this, and have had to tell people that we can't use copyrighted materials without the above. The very difficult situation that a business faces with copyright is that it only can only take one successful infringement case to take your business completely down. Many places just simply say it's not worth it.

That doesn't, however, excuse the WalMart employee's cavalier attitude toward this, especially at such a terrible time.

Maybe it collapsed on its own...
We can't take that chance!
You always say that! I WANT TO TAKE A CHANCE!

I admit that those facts are a stretch. But, it's happened.

1) Obtain some school letterhead (either by swiping from the dept office, or mask and photocopy any of the many forms in the admissions office.

2) Using a word processor or typewriter (yes, it was a long time ago), type up your own "authorization"; don't use your real name, of course.

3) Take the "authorization" into a key shop along with the key(s). Ask to have the keys duplicated. Only show the "authorization" if they ask (many times, they do not, esp. if busy and many people are waiting). Pay in cash, and ask for a receipt (make sure to mention, "so I can get reimbursed" or "they wanted to make sure I got them a receipt"). If they ask for a credit card, tell them you don't have one. If they ask for ID, you're probably sunk but that only happened to me once.

4) They'll stamp the dupes "DND" but who cares? Return the originals and use your new keys to get into the steam tunnels, take shortcuts to the pool, or whatever.

Well, to be fair, sometimes they're not "your" photos to have a right in. Somebody else has the copyright, and *they* have the "right," not you...right?

>>>not being more understanding under the circumstances

What's the problem with that? WalMart doesn't have to provide this service if they don't want to. Why would they?

>>>b) The photos in question were OBVIOUSLY going to be used for a PRIVATE viewing - and thus, not likely to be sold

This isn't the issue at all. WalMart doesn't want to be the party who copies what might be a copyrighted photo. Copying a copyrighted piece could be a violation in their eyes. They might be wrong about that, but if they're right, they don't have to put themselves out there if they don't want to.

c) MENTAL and EMOTIONAL ANGUISH !
SOMEone has to bring out the whip and sear into Wal*Marts backside that they are NOT the copyright police and/or the masters of the universe.

First, what WalMart did doesn't even come close to causing anguish. And, so what if WalMart thinks they are the "copyright police" or the "masters of the universe"? It's not anything anyone can win a lawsuit over.

Look, this article is about WalMarts deep misunderstanding of copyright law. That, by itself, doesn't make this something that would make a plausible suit court. If that's all it took, YOU'D be in court for your misunderstanding of copyright law.

Everyone knows I am the real HankScorpio. The real HankScorpio would not bother finding a picture of himself for his avatar.

However, if there's a watermark (like portrait studios stamp and most professional photographers either mask or expose in the lower right corner of the print), and they have reason to believe that the people presenting the photos for duplication do not have the permission of the person who watermarked the photo, there's no plausible deniability. Just as keys that are issued to the worker ants who have no business making copies are stamped "Do Not Duplicate", a watermark on a photo is essentially explicit prohibition against duplication to a photo shop. It's only feasible to play copyright cop that when it's PATENTLY OBVIOUS a photo print has been copyrighted, whether it was clipped from a magazine (or calendar, or other commercial publication) or has a watermark, and the person presenting it for duplication is almost certainly not authorized to do so.

Also, you seem to be confused. I'm not talking about the greater issue of copyright, only the pragmatic side of respecting copyright. No, watermarks or copyright statements are indeed not necessary to maintain copyright, but that's not the issue. Negatives are usually a good sign that whoever owns them, owns the rights to any prints made with them, but there are always exceptions. I'm talking about general rules of thumb, nothing more. Put another way, copyright law doesn't matter in regards to a creative work if the rights holders don't care about infringement. I seem to recall that Olan Mills, in particular, is very aggressive when it comes to enforcing their copyrights. That's why people respect their watermarks even at the expense of "being human".

I'll also reiterate: you contract with a photographer to print photos out for you (photos which you typically have to make a minimum purchase of that makes it worth the photographer's time to take them, photos which may or may not have even been taken yet), or you can hire a photographer to take photos for you. These are two very different things. On the former, there's no "hiring" involved, you have NO rights to any of the photographer's copyrighted material whatsoever, and it all remains their property aside from the print package you received per the contract. Only under the second scenario does work-for-hire come into play. Most pro studios have long contracts that explain what you're contracting for and who holds the rights and all of this. This is the fine print on the crap that parents sign while queuing-up to get photos of tots sitting on a Mall Santa's knee.

Wallmart wouldn't let our daughter print photo's from the disk she purchased from her wedding photographer, even with a release from the photographer. It's just to easy to go somewhere else or have pictures developed from an online store to deal with their over zelous photo lab personel.

I understand the situation where there wasn't another option possible but, I tend to stay away from Walmart and their reciept checking door guards anyway.

my family copied them anyway, my schools photo company , at least we thought was overpriced and not that great of a quality for the price they where offering, we usually needed extra 4x6's for family but they wanted $20 for 3 extra 4x6's

Second, WalMart's in-store policy makes no sense in light of the fact that their own website indicates that if there is a question about who owns the copyright, they'll just make you sign a release:
[photos.walmart.com]

It seems to me that the people who work in their photo centers got the first part of their training correct ("be suspicious of professional-looking photographs") but fouled up the second part of their training ("have the customer sign a release").

Makes no sense. One of the reasons why a private shop LOVES the ability to retain copyright is because it allows them to retain the ability to sell copies (or sell off their copyrights for value). That's a strong argument that Fair Use doesn't apply here b/c of the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

There are Fair Use arguments to be made about making copies for personal use, but that's a very case-by-case issue.

As to the statements in your second paragraph, copyright statute and lots of caselaw explains how work for hire operates: there's no need for conjecture; just follow the law. The watermark statement is bogus, too: copyright attaches and can be enforced despite watermarks. By the same token, the owner of the original/negative has nothing to do with who actually owns copyright.

[www.pmai.org]

It seems that the way they get around having to surrender any copyrights to the photos is that you never actually are paying them for the photo shoot. You only pay them for sets of prints. That's why they're watermarked with their logo. It would seem that the rule of thumb with photography is that whoever owns the original/negative, owns the copyright. When my sister hired a wedding photographer many years ago, she had the option to just buy albums and prints, or she could spend several hundred dollars more and get the negatives and copyrights to everything as well.

Intellectual property law is a hairball even for the attorneys who specialize in it. How exactly is some minimum-wage, part-time high school kid working at Wal-Mart supposed to be qualified to interpret and apply those laws?

I've also been hassled for being too good of a photographer. I've had them tell me that pictures of fish that I'm getting printed to enter in my aquarium club's monthly photo contest "must have been scanned from a magazine." My freaking pictures. Taken with my freaking camera. Of my freaking fish. And yeah, I'm good for an amateur (I almost always win), but I'm not THAT good. But apparently, Wal-Mart thinks if your picture doesn't suck, it's "professional" and therefore not yours. I've taken to bringing along the whole photo session on my thumb drive, so I can show them "Look, here's the one I took where the fish moved so it's all blurry, and here's the one where all I got was a departing tail" so I can prove the good one I picked out of the lot is really mine.

That doesn't hold a candle to one Kinko's, though. At the time this happened, I ran a one-person software company, and I was selling some of my products at an expo in Milwaukee. I ran out of a particular product, or more accurately I ran out the header sheet that went into its little plastic clamshell pack with the disc. So, I stopped by the Kinko's down the road from my motel to have them copy off a bunch on the special granite paper I used for them. Well, they wouldn't do it; that was commercial and copyrighted. I explained that I owned the copyright. That wasn't good enough. (remember, we're talking about a package header here, with the name on one side and a listing of contents on the other -- not exactly a hot piracy target) I talked to the night manager. After the situation was explained (including the fact that it was a one-person company and I was in town for GenCon) she said I could copy them if I faxed my "home office" and got permission in writing. I asked her to repeat it, because I couldn't believe what I was hearing. She repeated it; I'd heard her correctly. I lost it at that point (this had been going on for about half an hour). I believe I was screaming when I explained that a) There was nobody to fax, because the entire company, consisting of me, myself, and I, was standing in her Kinko's, b) the computer that served as my fax machine was down in the MECCA center (yeah, this story is kinda dated) to run demos in my booth, c) it was 2 am on a Saturday, who would have been in the office even if I worked for Microsoft, and d) I owned the company, who the hell was going to give ME permission? I should mention, by the way, that I was wearing a company logo polo shirt, a company logo cap, had clipped my company business card (title: president) to the print order, and I was paying with a company check. What kind of doublethink was going on in her tiny little mind that would allow her to believe that I was authorized to sign company checks but not authorized to copy some package headers? For, remember, my own one-person company. I had some software manuals with me (offset printed, not photocopied, btw) that had my quality pledge, with my name and signature, printed inside them; those weren't good enough to prove I had any connection with my own company either. I really have to wonder why someone would think that any person would paste up fake mechanicals, have a shirt printed, have a hat printed, have business cards printed (professionally, not the DIY type), forge or steal company checks, and even track down a supply of the unusual paper I used for the headers, in order to make ten bucks worth of pirate copies of a product whose sole purpose was to label the contents of a package.

She finally dredged up some paper for me to sign that said, in essence, if I sued myself for copying my product labels, neither of me would sue Kinko's. I do wonder if they kept that on file, because I probably used more profanity in filling out that form than I do in the average month.

And then, after an hour of this (and me being surprised they didn't call the cops), I finally got my copies. Ten bucks worth of package headers.

The next year, I was ready. I wrote myself a letter on my company letterhead giving myself permission to copy my stuff. I didn't have to use it. There was also a different manager working. I suspect there was a connection.

As a photographer, personally, I often sign over printing rights to my clients, but hold the copyright as far as selling the images to publishers. I have never been able to get behind having someone pay ten times the cost for a print to buy a 8x10 from a photographer. I'd rather they have all the final pictures I came up with and enjoy them.

I feel bad for the people in the story, but technically wal-mart was following the law and we (photographers/and our associations) can and have sued companies like wal-mart for violating our copyrights. Does sound a bit like an employee on a power trip though if she was going above and beyond clear cut studio images.

Believe me - walmart is a lawsuit magnet and any jerk with a camera can sue them for this then I would probably have a no tolerance policy as well.

But, I got a chance to think about it, and I realized it's not that stupid of a question (I mean, we had to be trained on the issue, after all).

It also gave me a chance to remember a bit of that training. (Remember, this was a long time ago.)

So, besides the obvious things like books, magazines, professional photos, etc., the distinction was anything that had a copyright notice on it. If it had a copyright notice, we had to have the customer sign the form. If you brought in a picture you took yourself and wrote "© bigandfw" on it, you had to sign the form.

If there was no copyright notice, no problem.

Also, since we're on the subject, there were other, less obvious things we weren't allowed to copy. Like union bugs. If someone brought in something that was on a pre-printed form (like an invoice or something), and that form had a union bug on it, we had to cover up the bug before making a copy.

a) not being more understanding under the circumstances (since it was OBVIOUS they weren't going to be 'selling the photos in question' for a profit)

b) The photos in question were OBVIOUSLY going to be used for a PRIVATE viewing - and thus, not likely to be sold.

c) MENTAL and EMOTIONAL ANGUISH !
SOMEone has to bring out the whip and sear into Wal*Marts backside that they are NOT the copyright police and/or the masters of the universe.

I sure hope this goes to trial - AND that the jury sees what a pile of steaming crap Wal*Mart is trying to pull on these people.

@KCChiefsFan: If they can't make an obvious determination you shouldn't have to sign squat ? Especially an unknown individual . Who made Walmart or anyone else for that matter Magnum PI ?

I take it Walmart got sued for something similar .

Bullshit. You must certainly can "sign away your copyright".

"(d) Transfer of Ownership. -

(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession."

US Code, Title 17, Section 201.

[www.copyright.gov]

I view photographs as commissioned art, and therefore it is I, as the person that commissioned it, that owns the copyright, and not the original photographer. I paid him to take it, he took it and gave it to me, therefore it is mine. In essence, I am paying for his services, with the end product being the photo. I am not paying him for a single license to use the photo once, I am paying for full ownership of the picture. (If the photographer maintains ownership over the pictures, with just a single license to me, then he could sell my picture to whomever he wanted, and we all know that intuitively makes no sense). Does Michaelangelo get residuals for the Sistine Chapel? No, the Vatican paid him to paint it, he painted it, and now The Vatican owns it.

Can we stop making poorly paid workers act as judge, jury and executioner for copyright holders?

Buy a printer and do it yourself. Walmart is obeying the law.

We were asked to sign releases stating we were personally liable if anybody wanted to sue over some of our nicer shots before they'd give us the prints that "seemed" copyrighted.

@Wireless Joe: As a photographer, I've had my own gripes about Walmart & their inconsistantly enforced photo policies. One employee may practically allow you to make dozens of 8x10's of the Mona Lisa without a second thought, while another makes it their personal mission in life to prevent a potential copyright violation.

Walmart actually has a brochure (.pdf format) that you can print & complete when you go to make prints...essentially a release that says you the consumer assume all liability for making the prints & that you have permission to do so.

Personally, I've given up on printing anything at Walmart because I'm tired of explaining repeatedly that the reason the pictures look professional is because I took them.

For my pay jobs, even though I retain copyright, I provide a signed letter to the buyer granting unlimited reproduction rights for personal use (prints, blogs, social networking, etc.) Friends, relatives, etc. are still required to purchase their prints from me.

You can, however, LICENSE the work to someone else. So, for example, if I take a photo of you, I own the copyright to it. But I can give you a license to do whatever you want with it. Or I can give you a license to only do certain things with it. The point is that I still own the copyright, and there is literally no way for me to give or sell the copyright to someone else.

Needless to say my sister now owns some pretty decent photo printers.

That being said, US Copyright law is pretty clear that the copyright of a photograph ALWAYS belongs to the photographer and not the subject. And actually it's insurance to the freedom of the press.

Nope. Copyright is ALWAYS owned by the creator unless the creator explicitly surrenders it.

Unfortunately, attorneys would have a field day with this one.

When in college, I switched from pre-law to education.

So freaking glad.

As someone who has had the displeasure of knowing attorneys in colloquial and *ahem* professional capacities, I've seen first-hand how the profession turns normal, intelligent people into cold-hearted S.O.B. greed demons.

An opportunistic lawyer would have taken this clerk's good intentions, threw a lawsuit together via some boiler-plate computer printout, and slammed the company unnecessarily just to make a 25% commision for sending out their dirty little letter and filing suit.

Yes, I loved this planet, too, when it was inhabited by humans.

Maybe the person at the counter does not understand the intricacies of copyright law and that every photo would be copyright but the true issue is ownership. However, I am sure that the policy is somewhat based around the ownership issue.

Public display is not defined as fair use. It might be fair to allow use, not to mention just plain human.

I'm interested in what Kinko's considered to be "copyrighted material" since copyright attaches automatically to just about everything once it's put in fixed form. Did you have to get everybody to sign the form for everything (and I assume "I own it" would also be a reasonable use, not just a fair use exceptions).

The last point you make is absolutely perfect:

EVERY PICTURE brought to walmart by a customer is copyrighted...by the customer! After the revisions to the copyright act, the MOMENT a work of art is created, it is copyrighted by the person making the art (with a few very well defined exceptions). Technically, a picture taken by one spouse, printed at walmart by the other spouse, is copyright infringement.

To get around this you just need a letter from the photographer/copyright holder saying it's okay for you to duplicate. And in the case of this family, if the photo is so old and the photographer is dead/the company is defunct, you might be able to provide your own letter that says the same thing. (If you know what I mean). Walmart cashiers aren't the smartest lot.

I would have placed the responsibility on her to prove there is a copyright on any of those pieces...if she could generate the copyright, and show that I am violating someones copyright, then no problem...walk away...but if she could not produce it ... considering I was heading to a parents funeral.... I would have ripped her a new one...just from grief alone. That is a difficult place to be in for all parties associated with it. She couldn't have lost her job...unless someone deemed it necessary to be litigious in light of a funeral...now that would be crossing lines...but we are Americans..and we love being litigious.

I think that the employee was very misinformed, or that Walmart management/corporate is getting into something they really don't need to be involved in.

@theblackdog_FeelingRandom: Post? Yes?

public school fotos, if taken for the purpose of yearbook or to sell back to the family are not covered by copyright laws. Private photo shops (e.g. Olan Mills), even if taken for the purpose of public school year books, can retain copyright...

Wait...what the hell am I babbling about?

First and foremost, copyright law is to protect the rights of the copy holder against infringement. This duplication of photos was for private, family use and is not prohibited. There was no resale and the use of the photos were in a public domain use (fair use). Jeez.

Well, this will thwart newlyweds. A lot of wedding photographers these days will give you a cd of pictures for a cost ($500-1500, depending), along with copyright. So what now- showing a notarized form to print at Wal-Mart?

Boo.

A copyright violation results when there is an unjustified copying not an unjustified refusal to copy.

Wow, if my local Costco would act that way none of my photos would get printed, I am by far not a professional (it's just a hobby) but I do shoot on medium format and occasionally even large format cameras and do the post processing at home.

Companies, as I understand it, have no right to refuse printing as long as you acknowledge that you do hold the copyright to the image. If in doubt she could have just had him sign the piece of paper.

What justification does Walmart have to police other people's rights? Isn't that sort of thing technically an assertion they have control over someone else's copyrights?

They're not policing, they're covering their own ass, because technically they would be selling copies of copyrighted material. They are the ones who could get sued.

Having said that, when I worked at Kinko's (dig through the comments below for more), we had a form to make customers sign stating that the copies were fair use and the customer accepted all responsibility.

But copyright attaches automatically to all such works. How can Wal-Mart claim to have a policy to not print copyrighted photos if their policy is to only not print photos that "look professional"

It sounds to me like Wal-Mart is a den of copyright violations and, under normal circumstances, they make absolutely no attempt to prevent such violations from taking place. They're only interested in protecting copyright in terms of what they deem to be worthy of copyright protection - not what the copyright law actually protects.

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered
before January 1, 1978: up to 95 years with renewals

Walmart can be sued if they reproduce a copyrighted photo (it sucks in this case but thats the law)

Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights

kelby training has a great video on it: [www.kelbytraining.com]

@katstermonster: 4:04, beeotches!

I was probably in one of the last cohorts of college students who received these blatant copyright infringements...

They are saying this - we are afraid the real copyright owner will come after us so we are going to be jerks about it to protect ourselves.

@Oranges w/ Cheese has 2 cats! ahahaha.: I struggle with this, too. Why doesn't the burden of proof lie with the store to prove it's copyrighted, not the other way around? Anybody know?

Aren't there loopholes for personal/private use and viewing? I know movie copyrights are except for certain private viewings (i.e. your home including with guests present). In fact, as long as attendence is not open to the public and not for profit, it's private within reason. So wouldn't copyrighted pictures have similar exceptions? I mean it's a flippin' funeral.

Also, most copyrighting grants you the legal right to make one copy for personal protection (i.e. copy a DVD just in case the original is damaged in use). I imagine the same goes for pictures.

Bottom line, there must be private use exemptions to copyrighted pictures.

@katstermonster: Two minutes! *|PANIC|*

You are a MONSTER who cant even reset a modem successfully.

Because it's a legal issue, and not a customer service issue, these large chains will have no hesitation in dismissing the employee that made or contributed to the violation. And if the person works at Walmart, that's probably the last thing they need.

Had to get the last little bit in before 4 PM!

Walmart would love to sell those prints - after all, they printed them, and then shredded them, so there's cost, but no revenue.

Fact of the matter is, they won't, because their liability would be clear, and neither will pretty much any photo shop. They err on the side of caution, since 1 infringement lawsuit outweighs the revenue from a lot of print sales.

If it appears to be a professional photograph, we are not allowed to copy it in any way without a written copyright release from the photographer (unless it is more than 75 years old, in which case it will pass into public domain).

Incidentally, I am a photographer and have had a photo processor (Costco) refuse to print my stuff. Usually most places will have some sort of waiver you can sign, but other places will flat out refuse if it "looks professional"

@coren: The form really doesn't mean anything - it's to cover their butts in case someone asks. I did some photography work for a friend a while back, and even though it was in a public area in which you expect cameras (thus, not requiring photo releases or anything like that), I was told that I should get people to sign photo releases. It was a courtesy - it means NOTHING. It's so if someone gets pissy that their photo appears on a website, we can say "look, you signed this" even though they never had to for us to take a photo and use it.

It's a way for us to cover our butts. Wal-Mart did the same thing here. My question is, if it's about covering your own butt, why not give him forms for all the other photos? Certainly if she had a heart at all she would have done that to give him his photos and keep her job.

Dentists seem to be living under this same delusion that they own the xray's that you paid them to take of your teeth.

I can see how studio photos that look recent would require say, a managerial judgement call, but from the 50s? That's nonsense. And putting clerks in a position where they are required to choose between common decency and their job is also nonsense.

@coren: no, the photographer sells them. at least these days that would be how it is. back in the 50s i may have been the school.

Either way I think this would fall under fair use.

Under the copyright law in effect in 1955, works only had copyright protection if they were published and had the copyright symbol affixed to them. If the copyright symbol was not affixed when the work was "published", the work became part of the public domain.

This doesn't even get into a couple of other issues. First of all, there's no way to know what license a person has to a photograph. When my wife and I hired our wedding photographer, we paid extra to obtain the copyright to the pictures as part of the contract. We can, therefore, reproduce those pictures all we want as they are ours (and that's without even getting into work-for-hire issues).

And, beyond that, if Wal-Mart feels they have to protect photographers' copyrights, why do they only concern themselves with works that appear professional? If I take a picture of my kid, I own the copyright to that picture. If someone takes that admittedly-amateur picture off my website without my permission and takes it to Wal-Mart to get a print made, they are violating my copyright rights as much as someone taking in a professional picture with the current copyright in force.

If this Wal-Mart photo employee is espousing actual Wal-Mart policy, then they've set up a system where they're refusing to print a few photos that are probably in the public domain while letting a whole bunch of potential copyright violations go without a second thought.

If Wal-Mart's policy is to not print any copyrighted photo or any photo that might be copyrighted without regard for who owns the copyright, then they shouldn't be able to print anything at all.

If you hire a photography, then pay him for his work, doesn't that means he turned all the copyrights for the picture he took over to you?

@kalaratri: Exactly. The problem the OP faced was that someone decided to question him on it, and there was simply no evidence that could be presented at the moment to help the OP. The worker was being a jerk about it, I would say. Even if she was polite, she was uninformed. If he had had the time, I'm sure Shutterfly or Snapfish would have never questioned him on a thing.

@MostlyHarmless: she doesn't need to know if or how they can find out. I understand her reaction here, I feel for the family too though.

Management should have been able to handle this better though since they would know if and how corp. would find out.

I ended up using snapfish and a) saved a crap ton of money and b) had no hassle at all.

@Ophelia42: Yes, and this is why there's such a kerfluffle with couples planning their wedding. One of the best pieces of advice when choosing a photographer is to make sure that person will give up the rights to the photos, otherwise you have to go to them to get duplicates of your own photos. It's ridiculous, but a lot of photographers want to keep their work exclusively theirs. Our wedding photographer told us up front in our very first meeting (and it's on his company website) that neither he nor the company keep the rights to the photos taken at our wedding.

If someone brought copyrighted material in, we had to have them fill out a form saying who they were and how the copies fit into fair use. I heard shortly after I left that the form was simplified to basically say that the customer was responsible for copyright violations.

@ohenry: His general image belongs to him. The specific portrait taken by a professional belongs to that professional.

The argument is that while you may own the rights to your likeness, you pay a professional to creatively set your likeness in a scene and capture that scene. The professional then owns the copyright to that specific image with your likeness in it. The photographer can then transfer or release the copyright to you if they choose, usually for an additional fee.

As far as the heartlessness of this specific case, I certainly agree. It would be different if they were having 1,000 copies of the picture printed. Anyone photographer that would be upset over a single print being made for a funeral would be a complete tool...

@ohenry: Generally, your photo cannot be used without your consent for commercial display. This isn't commercial display - it's a family affair.

@Saboth: Home photo printers aren't nearly as good as printing at a store, though. And ink is expensive.

@bloggerX: This was what I was thinking. How would they have known? Maybe for her, it was a case of conscience? But even so - be a $%*%@! person!

And I'm not kidding.

For once I agree with Walmart. It's obvious that the employee working behind the walmart register was a copyright lawyer working at walmart for a social experiement.

LOL

What they should have told this IDIOT behind the counter is that this is for PERSONAL use, and a copyright does not protect products for personal use. Just like if I own a DVD movie, I can legally make a copy for ME as a backup. Funeral or not, I would have made a LOUD scene.

Really, all you should have to do is sign a form saying you own the copyright and that should relinquish them from responsibility. However, an employee on a power trip (much like receipt checkers) can be d*cks.

So they have a form, which I imagine has him signing to say he has the right to that photo. How can Walmart know otherwise? Hell, how would they know to begin with?

And aren't class pictures distributed and sold by the school? That tells me it's not just cut and dry "photographer owns it"

@esd2020: Actually, most professional photographers will sell you the copyright to a portrait they make for an additional fee, but the default is that the photographer owns the copyright. My dad is a retired photographer and he would sell copyright releases if a customer needed it.

He also would've been extremely upset if WalMart wouldn't print a 30 year old picture he'd taken for someone's funeral. It's not right to have a pro take your senior pictures and then go print up a bunch of them at WalMart without paying for a release. However, if anyone would be angry at a family making a single print to display at a funeral, he's bloody heartless...

I've run into the "sign this form or we won't let you have this print" situation at a few big box printing stations. I've never been told straight up that I couldn't have the picture though. The general rule seems to be that if they can't make an obvious determination as to whether or not something is copyrighted, they should let you have it as long as you sign for it, at least at the places I've done business with.

Having said that, if it is a picture of an individual, and that individual isn't a celebrity....it's a pretty damn good bet that no one cares if you make copies of it. This is absurd, and Wal-Mart should never have done it.

We had professional photos taken of our daughter in the hospital when she was born. We own the copyright to these pictures and can prove it, but we've never had to when printing them at Target or Walgreens. (And yes, they definitely look professionally done.)

Way to go Wal*Mart. Thanks for nothing.

Like a previous commenter said... Be a F#$%!@# Person.

Their solution is to print at home or go to professional mail-order services.

@MostlyHarmless: How would have Walmart figured out she was selling them the photos though? Do they keep a record of the photographs they sell to consumers? I never bought photos in my life so I wouldn't know.

@esd2020:

If you paid to have 'em taken then they're yours.

Unless the photographer signs away their copyright, that just isn't so. The photographer maintains the copyright, regardless of who paid for the picture.

Can anyone create an official web-based "copyright release form" that has fill in the blanks for people to print out and present to WalMart drones?

ONE copy of a picture should fit under "fair use". It's not like they were printing a memory book for everybody at the funeral ...

You couldn't pay me to go to a Walmart store.

I am most definitely not a lawywer, and copyright protection is confusing, but isn't there something to be said for the person in the picture? I mean, I'm sure that for most of the photos in there, her father didn't sign a waiver that says "Your image now belongs to use for use in this picture" or something like that. If it was a picture OF him, doesn't he (or, in this case, his family) have some say in how the picture is used?

I guess it just seems like the burden of proof should fall on Wal-Mart to show that the photos ARE copyrighted, not the customers to show that they are not.

I suppose, in the end, Wal-Mart can choose whatever pictures it wants to print or not print and call it company policy. I think it was a bit heartless in this case, though.

Typical corporate CYA policy against lawsuits combined with typical poor training of floor staff.

So what are they expected to do? Track down a photographer from 54 years ago and have him whip up some reprints real quick?!

"Be a F*%&ing Person".

However, this is Walmart we are talking about. I do feel for the employee's situation though. I am sure she would not have felt very good about doing what she had to do.