var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
HankScorpio
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Walmart should never be determining who owns copyright on a picture. I have had many professional pictures taken by someone else that I own the copyright to.

Reply
17 replies
\"user-pic\"
SamsClubCOS
March 4, 2010 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I presume that Wal-Marts Policy is the same as ours at Sams Club. All you have to do to have your pictures printed is sign the form stating that you own the copyright. If you tell the clerk that you did not take the photos then they ARE NOT ALLOWED to sell the pictures. There is a $10,000 penalty that can be recieved for violating copyright laws. As a general rule of thumb most pictures that come through Wal-Mart/Sams Club are not \"copyrighted\", but if it \"looks\" professional then they have to have the copyright form signed. I think the main story here could have been handled differently with the pictures being so old. But as for newer stuff the law is the law and they have to have the copyright form filled out for anything \"appearing\" professional. I know there are people who take the form out to their car and it magically appears back to me in 15 min \"signed\" by the photographer, but as long as we dont see it we dont know its not their signature. But the biggest thing is the fine...that is what they are avoiding and all you have to do is fill out the stupid form.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
iamjames
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HankScorpio:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1863650
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HankScorpio: Wal-Mart was just following the law. Many portrait studios such as Olan Mills are apparently rather aggressive at enforcing copyright. They're in the business of making prints. You don't \"own\" the copyright to a single photo they take, any more than you own the glossy photos in the National Geographic you bought on the newsstand.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cowboyesfan
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1863650:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1863650: If Wal-Mart were \"just following the law\" they would question EVERY picture that comes in, not just the ones that look professionally done. Unless copyright has expired, someone or some corporation owns the copyright to a picture (even crappy ones). When I take a picture, I own the copyright to that picture, but Wal-Mart doesn't question it. THAT's where they completely misunderstand their duties in terms of copyright.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1863650
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: Okay, it's simple, really. Wal-Mart (and other copiers/photo developers too, for that matter) has no way of knowing copyright status of most photos. They can generally assume that nobody is going to sue them over amateur photos when there's reasonable probability that the people presenting them own the copyrights or are authorized agents. If there's no watermark, at the very least, they can plead ignorance. How were they to know? It's plausible deniability.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1863650: I'm not sure why you are arguing with me here.

>>>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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bravohotel01
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1863650: Haha - when I was in college, I made plenty of copies of school keys marked \"do not duplicate\" thusly:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HankScorpio: My Father is an amateur photographer, but good at it. His stuff looks better than that of a lot of professional photographers. I've occasionally taken film and image files out to be printed (his photo printer isn't capable of making poster size prints), as a favor to him. It'd really suck to have a signed release to be able to help him out (and how would Walmart know the signature was really his?)

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Difdi: Wal Mart is just protecting themselves. They have a right to not sell items and this falls under that right.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hank Scorpio
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Difdi:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
esd2020
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HankScorpio: Indeed. Unless you specfically signed away rights to your pictures, if you paid to have 'em taken then they're yours.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
secret_curse
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TCama
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@secret_curse: You cannot \"sign away your copyright.\" If you created it, either you or the company you work for (if you work for a company) always owns the copyright, until it expires.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Red_Flag
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama:

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]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
soundreasoning
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: And yes you can \"sign away your copyright\" you can sell or gift any property of value at market price, including intellectual property. you can also alternatively license it if you'd like.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ophelia42
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ophelia42: I think you are right in most instances however the determination would be largely fact driven. The photos could be a work for hire in some instances.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kalaratri
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RPHP: I own the copyrights to all my wedding photo (instead of prints, we purchased the rights), getting them printed at a brick and mortar shop was an epic pain in the ass.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I think this is Wal Mart policy. They are jerks about this type of thing because they are afraid of a copyright owner coming after them. They therefore put up really ridiculous guidelines for what can be printed at their stores.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rushevents
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RPHP: Shouldn't they be afraid? How many time does it take for Olan Mills to win a lawsuit before Walmart decides to cut its losses?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kalaratri: True - even if you actually own the copyrights a brick and mortar store may not believe you and to protect themselves they may refuse to make prints for you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AirIntake
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ophelia42: Under Canadian copyright law, the copyright of the pictures transfers to the person who paid to have them taken as soon as payment is made, unless you sign a contract stating otherwise.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AirIntake
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AirIntake: Here's the text from the act: \"(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
soundreasoning
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AirIntake: This is the work for hire rule and it has a large number of components in its analysis, including agency law considerations, employment relationships, etc. It is not as simple as you think.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ophelia42: If a photographer signs a work-for-hire type contract to take the pictures, then the copyright ownership would default to the employer, not the photographer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HankScorpio
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hank Scorpio:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hank Scorpio
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HankScorpio: Watch it, now. I have the Doomsday Device, you know! And just so you know I'm not bluffing...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bainelaker
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hank Scorpio:

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just like every other time when I am face with a difficult question, I look to ONE MAN for guidance. Jon Stewart. In his immortal words:

\"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.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
JennQPublic
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Word. We should just let Jon Stewart rule the world.

And I'm not kidding.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ArcanaJ
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Yes! Be a f*%&ing person! If they were able to sign a release for some of the photos, why not all of them?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
katstermonster
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: SNARK SNARK SNARK! SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK SNARK! You're a moron and I disagree with you!! WAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@katstermonster:
*|NAMECALLING|* *|QUESTIONING_OF_YOUR_CAREER_CHOICES|* *|QUESTIONING_YOUR CHARACTER|* *|QUESTIONING_YOUR_MOMS_CRED|*

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: Hey look! I am so leet! I can still comment!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: You forgot that it's supposed to be l33t!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theblackdog_FeelingRandom: Actually... this is getting rather boring. CUT THE COMMENTS OFF ALREADY!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bloggerX
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bloggerX: Me neither. But I suppose the worker had sufficient reason to fear her job security, i guess?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How can you tell what's copyrighted just by looking at it? What if the person printing them is a professional photographer?

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
Scoobatz
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese has 2 cats! ahahaha.: It's copyrighted from the moment it's fixed in tangible form. Arguably the moment the shutter button is pressed, but certainly (beyond any doubt) the moment the film is developed. No registration of any kind is required.

This post I'm making, for example, is copyrighted. The instant I hit post, it's saved on some form of digital media somewhere. The post you made is likewise copyrighted. There's no need to post a notice, or file a registration, it just is. The terms of use of this site modifies the ownership of the rights to the post, and by signing up for an account and making the post I (and you) have agreed to those terms. But the post is still copyrighted. Making any kind of post on the internet, regardless of where or what the site's terms are, implies consent for certain types of copying (an email, for example, is copied each time it is transmitted, and each hop it makes on it's way through the net is another copy). But aside from those forms of copying, the email is still owned, and not public domain (the only way for something published on the internet to enter public domain is if the author explicitly places it there; The act of publishing does not do so).

Registering a copyright with the government grants certain additional evidence, if the time ever comes (such as a lawsuit) where you need to prove your ownership. But the registration isn't necessary to own a copyright.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
johnmerrick
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese has 2 cats! ahahaha.: My wife is a graphic artist, and we faced a similar problem having prints made of her work. The kid behind the counter didn't believe that she had produced it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Cheat
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese has 2 cats! ahahaha.: A photography forum I am on has threads on this with pro photographers unable to print their own work because a cashier has determined that they don't own the copyright to their own work.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Cheat: That sort of thing makes me wonder. Since Walmart is, in essence, claiming the pro photographer doesn't own his own work, and denying ability to copy, would there possibly be a lawsuit potential there against Walmart, for copyright violation?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Difdi: There is no copyright lawsuit for not allowing someone to make a copy on your machine. That is just refusing to service a customer.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KCChiefsFan
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Cheat:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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 .

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kuchen
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese has 2 cats! ahahaha.: Yeah, that is kind of shady to say \"Well, it looks copyrighted.\"

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.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jfielder
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
iamjames
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jfielder23: What if the photographer died and the studio went out of business, does the customer have to bring in a death certificate or does walmart just refuse to print the photos forever?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
VA_White
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jfielder23: No, what they want is a written release so they have concrete permission to reprint. But it's still unreasonable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@VA_White: In other words, go around the corner for an hour or two, and come back with a \"written release.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I guess this is where those home photo printers come in. How can Walmart possibly determine copyright?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ohenry
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ohenry: Actually, every photograph is copyrighted, without exceptions. The instant it's taken, someone owns the rights to it.

If you are in a public place (no expectation of privacy), I can take your picture if I want to. You would have no legal recourse against me for simply snapping a picture on a street that happens to have you in it. I wouldn't need your permission to publish that picture in a portfolio of my work.

I could stand on a street corner, taking pictures of traffic (both vehicular and pedestrian) all day long. No permissions needed. Little kids, old people, police officers, taxi cabs, trucks. It's all out in public, no expectation of privacy. And I'd own the copyrights on all of those photos, whether I asked the people in them to sign a waver or not, or if they objected or not.

Don't like it? Don't go into public places.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
secret_curse
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ohenry: Wal Mart is not a judge, a court, or something they just do not want a copyright holder to come after them for aiding in a copyright violation. Therefore, they have an extra stringent policy but it really falls under the category of company policy and Wal Mart can do what they want.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bigdandfw
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RPHP:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bigdandfw: I am not sure since I do not work for Wal Mart why their policy is as it is. I do agree that all the photos would be copyrighted however the question is one of ownership. They are trying to prevent lawsuits. They assume a picture that \"looks\" like it was taken by you was taken by you and therefore you own the copyright. A professional photo they assume you do not own the copyright and then they get nervous about lawsuits. That is what I think they are doing.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CoJeff
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hasn't walmart never heard of amateur photographers? Or someone with an expensive camera?

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
EllenRose
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like Kinko's - which has been stern on copyright violation ever since they got nailed as an example. Which is why I go to CopyMax.

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 ...

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Hank Scorpio
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EllenRose: I used to work for Kinko's (this was more than 15 years ago, so I don't know what it's like now), but we had to take a class about what could and couldn't be copied, both in regards to copyright and things that just weren't legal to copy (like money). We also learned about fair use and other exceptions, like lawyers can pretty much make copies of anything if it's for a trial.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hank Scorpio: This was probably after the Basic Books case, which stopped copy shops from making course packets of readings for college classes.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bigdandfw
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hank Scorpio:

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).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hank Scorpio
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bigdandfw: Good thing the comments went down before I got a chance to reply, because I was going to accuse you of being deliberately obtuse. ;-)

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
The_Red_Monkey
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Its not the job of WalMart to determine copy right. I would have said that I own the copyright to all of them and then carried on.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The_Red_Monkey: Wal Mart does not have to sell you the prints you made there though. They can just say - ok you own the copyright but we still are not going to make prints for you.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

this is why I, uh, print my own photos at home.

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
Wireless Joe
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They should just make the guy sign the same release paper he did for the med school picture for the rest of the items they were unsure of.

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?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
dprowitz
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Difdi
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wireless Joe: Wouldn't be hard. Just a statement of \"I acknowledge that 's photo center is not responsible for any potential copyright violations that may or may not be committed in copying the images I provide. Any such violations are wholly my responsibility, signed , Witnessed, .\"

That would probably do it...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RPHP
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wireless Joe: I admit that I forget the specifics to aiding copyright violation but I do not think a release is necessarily going to protect Wal Mart. For instance, say a customer says they will indemnify Wal Mart from any copyright violation they may have helped commit. The plaintiff then sues the customer and Wal Mart and wins. Who do you think the plaintiff will go after to protect - the customer with very small pockets or Wal Mart with ultra deep pockets. What if the customer is insolvent - how are they going to be able to pay of a judgment against Wal Mart if one should be entered?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
iambeaker
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Working at kinko's (before FedEx bought them), I would routinely break copyright law if I knew the person was copying the pictures for a death in the family. I remember a mother and father come in who has burying their son after a car wreck. I knew the son as I graduated with him 2 years prior. The only \"good\" picture they had was their son's senior picture. The parents wanted their son's picture on the funeral program. No Problem...

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mandathebear
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Way to go Wal*Mart. Thanks for nothing.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
ecwis
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, this is definitely not how the law works. I would've fought this up to the manager, then corporate. It's the copyright owner's responsibility to assert their rights, not Walmart's.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ecwis: Well, it is Walmart's responsibility to ensure that they don't act as an enabler of copyright violation, because they can still be sued by the owner. Another example of a legal department and our lawsuit-happy society screwing up common sense.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
esc27
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'd be sourly tempted to print 500+ copies of the \"copyrighted\" pictures and then walk away without paying a dime since they can't sell them...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
coren
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"After some insistence on my part, the lady let me sign a form and keep that one.\"

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\"

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: For us individual pictures (when you got them) were via a company but school pictures were through the school, at least to the point where we still got them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SlimDan22
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: @pecan 3.14159265: @coren:I graduated high school last year and i remember school pictures had copyright logos and warnings all over the pictures such as \"Do Not Make Copies Of Purchased Photos, Contact Us To Purchase Extras\" printed on the back

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coren
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: That's kind of what I'm getting at - if he had to sign a form to get that one picture which they doubted, why not the whole 9 yards, yknow?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jedipunk
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Walmart is bein a pain in the ass about it cause they got nailed once when someone had walmart make prints of copyrighted photos. Walmart picked up the tab. (That is what I heard)

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
johnrhoward
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's absolutely no reasonable way for Wal-Mart to determine the copyright status of any picture. They shouldn't even be looking at them at all. If the service they're selling is photo printing, then they should print whatever pictures the customer wants printed. They should just keep track of how many there are to determine the price. It would probably be better if the machine that printed the pictures took the payment as well, then you don't need to worry about involving cashiers in the the process.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
lacubsfan
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
arimer
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes your right. The guy could have reproduced it on his own and it would have been fine. What happened though is that walmart would be reproducing it and selling it which would break the copyright laws.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
CaptZ
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Staples does a better job and cheaper than Walmart. I needed a large picture for my sisters funeral and Walmart could only do up to 11x13 for $8. Staples can do up to 16x20 for $3. And they did it on the spot!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
pridkett
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually, it's doubtful that the picture from the 50's is copyrighted. Prior to 1976 there were requirements about placing the notification of copyright and registering copyrights. That's why Night of the Living Dead is in public domain. It's doubtful that in an era when it was nigh impossible to reproduce a photo without a negative that school photographers bothered to do that.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
arimer
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

AS a former WalMart photocenter employee they are very strict on copyright. EAch month we have to sign off on a legal document stating that we will not reproduce and sell any copyright material or images that even appear to be. This is punishable by a 750,000 dollar fine. If you came to my counter with that I would do the same thing. Take them from you and cut them up, Inform you that I can not sell you the item but that you may copy it on a home printer, and if you became upset I would then talk crap about you. At the Walmart I worked for the photocenter employees were some of the highest paid in the store and non of us were willing to give up such an easy job so you could have an old school photo of JOe blow.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
richtergasse
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@arimer: Highest paid at Wal-Mart is still an absolute pittance, and relishing in talking crap about people whose photos you just shredded before their eyes is a pathetic power trip at best. Explain to me how you can feel like you are within the realm of the law to say \"I cannot copy this photo for you, but I can sell you a few hundred dollars worth of equipment and paper and ink so you can go home and do it yourself.\" Your position puts on the mere facade of caring about copyright law; in fact, your position is less about protecting Wal-Mart from fines and more about upping Wal-Mart's bottom line. Corporate fed you a line every month about the importance of being the copyright police to protect the company from fines, but they were really brainwashing you into being on-the-floor product upsellers.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Colonel Jack O'Neill
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How the hell can it be copyright infringement, there're family photos.
And how can Walmart determine copyright?

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?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
bd0g36
November 25, 2009 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

you are incorrect, the creator (photographer) owns the copyright to any work, even family photos. The copyright can be transferred in writing to the family by the photographer and usually for an additional fee. This is copied from the U.S. Copyright Office website:

\"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.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AirIntake
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Colonel Jack O'Neill: Unfortunately, American copyright law is a dick about commissioned photographs. In Canada, as soon as you hand over the money for the pictures, you own the copyright.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bigdandfw
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Since the copyright laws underwent a fairly large overhaul in the mid-1970s, there's a pretty good chance that a school photograph from 1955 is not currently under copyright.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tjrchicago
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bigdandfw:

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
justsomeotherguy
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The path to hell is paved with stupidity.

Either way I think this would fall under fair use.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tjrchicago
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@justsomeotherguy:

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

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
smokinfoo
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't care if they were taken by a professional photographer. Print out my damn pictures. The fact that I'm holding the memory card means I own.

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

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
notanignoramus
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

From what I understand, a person owns copyright to his or her own image unless said copyright is explicitly surrendered or waived at the time the photograph is taken.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tjrchicago
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@notanignoramus:

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
vmxeo
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Found an interesting thread here regarding a similar incident at Wallmart back in 2003. One of the replies is from a Wal-Mart Photo Center Manager who explains the policy. In short:

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\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
richtergasse
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: Wal-Mart also makes a pretty penny selling at-home photo scanners, printers, paper, and ink. Is it worth it to shred $3 worth of merchandise to sell >$100 worth of merchandise? That $3 worth of prints turns out to be a fantastic loss leader.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Lin-Z [linguist on duty]
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As much as it sounds stupid, this is the reality of working in a photolab. The employee who is responsible for the reproduction of an image that is under copyright can be personally fined $75000. I worked in a photo store for three years and we all we're trained about this. Does that mean you can never make an exception? Of course not, but this is the sort of thing that the employee has in mind.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
sb01
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I worked for Staples for a short while. They were incredibly strict on what can and cannot be photocopied. If a customer had what would be considered \"copyrighted\" or \"offensive\", we were not to copy it. Self-serve photocopiers were different, however, since the employee of the store is not making the copies. I guess Staples would still be considered an accessory though, if it ever got that far.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jedsa
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Unless someone signed something that said otherwise, I'd argue that these were works for hire.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Loias calls you out if you can't RTFA
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
doctor_cos wants you to remain calm
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Loias: You are allowed one copy of a DVD. You are not allowed to break the copy protection to make the copy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@doctor_cos: That statement is overbroad. Nothing explicitly \"allows\" someone to make one copy of a DVD.

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

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
theblackdog
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, that clerk...what a bitch.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MostlyHarmless
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can still comment. I am SO 1337.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Nick1693
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MostlyHarmless: I think most people can still comment. =)

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
pguyton
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

from [www.copyright.gov] : Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978 = life of creator +70 years

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]

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
thedarkerside.to
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\" because apparently if they even look professionally done, that's all the criteria they need to cite copyright.\"

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
WonderKatGoBoom
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
richtergasse
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WonderKatGoBoom: That is exactly what happens, I'm in my mid-20s and the majority of my married friends have either sprung for the \"negatives\" CD or have had a family friend with an excellent dSLR take the pictures and give them the CD. It's important to make a couple backup copies of the CD (safe deposit box, parent or relative out of state, etc) and to keep extra copies of the letter with every copy of the CD.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cupcake_ninja
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's nothing new. I know people w/the same experience at Walgreens. And then there are places who can care less about copyright. I request my copyright notice printed on the back of photos and most places just hand them off to whoever I have pick them up without question.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TheMonkeyKing
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
EdWedig
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's not Walmart's job to police copyrights on images, is it? How are they to know who owns the copyright on the images? You could have permission from the copyright holder (or be the copyright holder yourself). Plus, the \"even if it looks professional\" bit really irritates me. What if I'm a pro-level photographer? I can't have copies made of my images at Walmart?

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
cf27
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EdWedig: Here's Walmart's problem: you take in a picture that \"Bob\" has the copyright to. Walmart prints a copy and sells it to you. Bob now sues Walmart for copyright infringement, since they did the reproducing.

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

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
menumbers
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
NoWireHangers
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

All Walmarts do this. It's a sad story, but Walmart was just following Copyright Law, and as much as it may be a pain in the ass, it's the Law and it's meant to protect artists.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Naame
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't blame the cashier for making this decision, but I most certainly believe Walmart is wrong for enforcing this policy. They are not the copyright police.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
xkevin108x
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you've paid to have a picture professionally taken, the copyright should belong to you, not some asshole with a camera, and reproductions you've printed yourself and unassisted certainly shouldn't be regulated by some blue-smocked cashier.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
riroon
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@riroon: Sue them for what? Not providing a service they don't want to perform? Walmart can refuse service if they don't believe they are legally allowed to do it...even if they're wrong.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My sister ran into the opposite issue. She had taken up professional photography but did not have equipment to make proper prints. So she was going to Wal-Mart to have some of her work printed. They kept confiscating HER work because it looked professionally done. They wouldn't even accept her word that they were photos she had taken.

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
arly
November 25, 2009 1:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why would any professional photographer or someone studing photography in college go to walmart to print photos in the first place. You go to a professional lab and they will print them for you with no problems.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DimTwinkle
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can Wal-Mart not just have the customer sign a waiver stating that they either own the copyright or have obtained copyright permission for all pictures they are having printed? That puts the onus on the customer, not Wal-Mart as far as copyright is concerned.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TheGildedBeaver
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wish like hell Target or somebody would step up their game a bit so I could shop elsewhere. They're crazy abt this topic in my area as well.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
beckzach05
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's only to protect Walmart from copyright violation suits. The employee was definitely not up-to-par on her job though..they have a form that a customer can fill out that says the customer assumes all liability in the event a claim is made against Walmart for reprinting copyrighted material. Same goes for Walgreens. Good friend of mine is the head photo tech for a Walgreens, so I've learned quite a bit.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bweezy21
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My brother and I experienced this same issue. A co-worker of his is a free lance photographer and as a wedding gift he took all of the photos at the wedding free of charge, my brother just had to provide the memory cards for the camera. A few days later we went down to walmart to print the photos and had some cashier say that the pictures \"looked\" professional and they could not sell them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wbeem
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A lot of the folks commenting here are well-meaning, but ignorant. Walmart is a major corporation and a target for lawsuits. Saying that copyright doesn't apply for personal use is laughable when you're talking about making a sale from a corporation like Walmart.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AtomicDan
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I had to play 20 questions with a Walmart clerk for some vacation photos. The clerk thought he was being sneaky by surreptitiously asking me the name of a mountain in the photos but I knew what he was up to. He quickly relented when I started mentioning specific details about the area where I took the photos but I'm really not sure how he would have figured out if I was lying or not because I wouldn't expect someone from the East Coast to know the details of the Sierra Nevadas.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pdx090
November 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would have expected nothing less from this soul-less corporation

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Al Swearengen
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
bd0g36
November 25, 2009 10:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

well, that's not how the law views photographs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tjrchicago
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Al Swearengen:
Yeah, but unfortunately, you would be legally wrong.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
pika2000
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Time to revise the copyright law then? I will never shop at Walmart, but really, it's easy to bash Walmart, but the real problem is the ridiculous copyright law. I wish people would wake up and face the real issue. Support Creative Commons!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
EyeintheLAsky
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

i'd say SUE the B*****Ds for

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EyeintheLAsky: I hope nobody hires you as their attorney:

>>>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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
VouxCroux
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The statement about the negatives in the post hit me. My parents were married in the late '70s, and b/c of the film in use at the time a lot of their wedding photos are fading faster than normal. But they can't get new ones since the photographer had destroyed the negatives. Apparently they needed the space, thought my parents had split up (nope), or it's just standard practice. Either way, they should keep the negatives. At least slides or something. Small price to pay to be a professional photog.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
dtrots
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Walgreens did this to me with pictures I took! The reason: \"They look too professional\" I will never do business with them again. Everyone seems to forget the term \"Copyright\" has the word \"Right\" in it. We do have rights to our photos. I went home hit the order button on iPhoto on my mac and they were at my home in days.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dtrots: >>>\"Copyright\" has the word \"Right\" in it. We do have rights to our photos.

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?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
corinthos
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sure its not legal but couldn't you just get a form from online and fill in the blanks with a fake name. Thats what I plan to do if I ever need photos done.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
JingleTTU
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is why I check myself out at the computerized checkout. I don't have to deal with unhappy employees.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DoctorMD
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Promoting the arts and science.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
JeromeEso
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just want to point out in all the discussion going on in the comments: the photographer owns the copyright to the photography unless he signs it over to you in writing, even if you paid him for his services. There seem to be a lot of people that are thinking they own the copyrights because they hired the photographer. Unless this is in writing, it's not so.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Worldwalker
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

(warning: Great Wall of Text)

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
bentcorner
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The cashier did the correct thing. Wal-Mart has long had a policy about reprinting photos that bare the mark of either a studio or that of the photographer. Doing otherwise would open them up to lawsuit from the owner of the work. The PMA has a lot of info concerning copyright of photographs:

[www.pmai.org]

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

>>>There was no resale and the use of the photos were in a public domain use (fair use). Jeez.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

First, for those who insist that any picture you've hired a photographer to take is automatically yours, please Google \"work for hire\" as to why that's simply not correct.

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\").

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SeanFromIT
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've never had a problem like this. I go in with my pictures on a thumb drive, use one of the self-print kiosks, and it prints a receipt that I hand the cashier. Walmart has no business inspecting your digital photo prints. An employee somewhere needs fired.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
dougp26364
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
baristabrawl
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hate Wal-Mart so much.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jasonhackwith
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm a graphic artist who works at a busy printshop that also does copies, and I sympathize with the lady trying to get copies made.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TessTalks
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am disgusted by this story. When did Walmart become the boss of EVERYONE? I can't stand Walmart, they are the worse. I never go to Walmart, and a story like this just RECONFIRMS why.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jasonhackwith
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

(My apologies, in my previous comment I said that \"I sympathize with the lady trying to get copies made\" ... I was thinking of another article and mistakenly thought that the submitter was female.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kanderson321
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
kent909
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Everyone is talking about the copyright issue. This is not the issue. The issue is that we have another event involving Wal-Mart that describes bizarre behavior. When will the world wake up and realize that everything Wal-Mart sells can be purchased elsewhere. When is everyone going to realize that these huge corporations exist only because they grow their revenues each year. If just 2 out of 100 people who shop at Wal-Mart stopped then Wal-Mart would experience a dramatic and damaging fiscal event. If only 10 out of 100 would stop they would begin to go out of business. Then and only then could the consumer actually cause Wal-Marts behavior to change. But screw that, I just want the sick f*@ks to go away forever. I never in my life have shopped there and never will. So people wake up and go to Target.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kent909
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Envision the scenario. The photographer of the pictures from the 1950's is out in the parking lot in his wheel chair sucking on his oxygen mask. Just waiting and waiting for someone to come out of Wal-Mart with stolen copies of his pictures. That is when the FBI and Homeland Security kick in. The couple is shoved to the ground and the pictures confiscated. The old photographer peruses the pictures and determines that yes, some of these pictures are his and states, that he never gave the couple permission to make copies. With that statement the FBI storms the Wal-Mart and arrests the clerk and the store manager, charging them with copyright violations. Other FBI agents begin seizing files and making arrests at Wal-Marts corporate headquarters in Arkansas. All guilty parties go to jail for a very long time. Now you know why Wal-Mart has this policy. Who would want this to happen to them. What a sick sick society we live in. Must be something to do with the contrails.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
jenjen
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What's really stupid is that Walmart lets the consumer spend store resources to create the prints, THEN won't let the customers spend their money. Really bad business thinking. What needs to happen is thousands of people need to go in and print pictures that look professional. If WalMart spends enough money printing things it has to shred and eat the cost, perhaps they will figure out how to create a waiver form for customers to sign a la the Kinkos one referred to above. Libraries have stickers on our photocopiers that basically absolve us of the responsibility for checking copyright status and push it onto the user.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kaleberg
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I imagine that Walmart is particularly sensitive to this since their corporate videographer retained copyright to all of the videos made for the company at picics, parties and other events. The original deal was a Sam Walton handshake type of thing, but now the video archive is a gold mine for lawyers suing Walmart.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
C0mdrData
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Far be it for me to defend Wal-Mart, but in this case the clerk did what the law requires. The copyright law is absurd...but don't blame a working stiff for the law.
Yes, she has to act as the copyright police...because that's what the law says she must do. It doesn't matter what releases are signed. The law says that Wal-Mart is responsible if copyright is broken, even unknowingly. I feel bad for the family, but if the clerk had sold the pictures, Wal-Mart would basically have to fire her, to protect themselves from possible lawsuit. Its easy to say \"be a person\", when it's not your job on the line.
Many people feel that it's wrong that a person can fight and die for their country, but can't buy a beer. However, we don't get angry at the clerk who refuses to sell the beer to that 20 year old. If you don't like the law than work to change it. Unfortunately in this case, many lawmakers are going the other way. They actually want to make the law stronger, so that copying ANY picture would entail a risk that photofinishers could simply not afford to take. If this happens, many would simply close up shop, and the argument would become moot.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Winteridge2
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There are plenty other stores out there who offer the same service. Why not go to one of them? Walmart will not care.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
C0mdrData
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The fact is that the law applies to all stores. Therefore most stores will refuse to print these pictures. Those that will print them will not be around for long. Sooner or later somebody will put a stop to it.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
shayden
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
arly
November 25, 2009 1:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Use a home computer or ask a friend to scan and print anything. And stay away from Walmart at all costs. Copyright is not permanent on work for hire, which is what a school photographer or those type of photographers that do hundreds of portraits a day. In this case they are employed by the school so the school holds copyright. But works created after 1 January 1978 are protected for the creator's lifetime plus 70 years after death; before this it is for less than 30 years, but could be extended. I doubt school portraits copyrights are extended by any parties.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
bd0g36
November 25, 2009 9:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

First of all, the creator of any work owns the copyright. For photography that is the photographer, the subject of the photos DOES NOT own the copyright. The only time the subject has any control over the image is if the image will be used for commercial use, in which case the subject must sign a release form or the photo cannot be used. The subject has no rights to copy or distribute the photos. Currently for photos the duration of the copyright is the life of the photographer plus 70 years http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html#duration . Most companies will not copy any photo that has the possibility of being professional for fear of being sued. Secret shoppers are often sent in by professional photographer organizations to check how well the clerks uphold the law. The secret shoppers use all sorts of reasons, many of them appeal to the clerks sympathies. At a camera shop that I worked, we would be written up for copying any professional photo. If you want to skirt the law, get a scanner and do it yourself so that the clerks will not be at risk. This situation is a tough one, but the clerk is just following the law. I think I would have let this one slide though.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
bd0g36
November 25, 2009 10:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There is a general ignorance about copyrights as it relates to photography. So to make it simple, currently the law states that;

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
arzuniga
November 29, 2009 3:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

As much as I'd like to say that they should've been given those pictures, IT IS LAW. I work in a retail photo dept and can be fired for reproducing copyrighted work. As well as my company being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars if any professional photographers chose to act. If it was my choice and there were no repercussions, then copy your photos away. It sucks to turn customers down for this reason, but I'm sorry... my job is more important. Print your pictures on high gloss paper on your home printer next time.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LALady
December 2, 2009 5:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What real photographer would object to the use of one of their photos in rememberance at a funral??? JUST another stupid Walmart incident... We need to shop anywhere BUT walmart, and stop their abuse of customers, by NOT being their customers any longer.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
carlogesualdo
December 5, 2009 11:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I realize I'm way late to comment, but I haven't been able to log in since the move. So here I am and here's my comment...various organizations are working with Congress to improve legislation regarding orphaned works, which could be the case here (where you don't know who or where the artist in question is). Until then, the law says if you don't have permission, you don't reproduce. And it isn't Walmart's job to determine who owns the copyright and get permission - it's the person who brings the photo in to be reproduced. If that person doesn't have permission, Walmart won't do the job.

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.

Reply
","");