RSS
Twitter
Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims
from the a-real-winner dept
It's been many years since we first wrote about how stores like Walmart were dealing with ridiculous copyright laws by telling employees to simply not allow the printing of "professional-looking" photos, just in case they were covered by someone else's copyright. Last year, a story popped up about a Walmart employee not letting a family print their own old family photos for this reason. It looks like we've got yet another such story. greenbird was the first of a few of you to send in this story about Walmart (yet again) not allowing the printing of family photos (this time for a funeral, which makes it that much more tragic), with copyright used as the reason. Once again, the employee made some dumb statements, such as saying "copyright is forever."
But, just like last time, I have to say that we shouldn't blame the Walmart employee, who is just trying to protect her job, and lives in a world where copyright maximalists constantly push this sort of message. It's not her fault, it's the fault of current copyright law, which makes such things seems reasonable, and the ongoing effort by lobbyists and politicians to only push copyright law further in that direction.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
In fairness, 'copyright is forever' is accurate. The current laws are that copyright will last forever. Yes, they have a time limit, but that time limit is always increased before it expires. Therefore, copyright is never going to actually expire. It lasts forever.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Copyright is forever though. I mean, when it comes right down to it, right? When is Disney's Steamboat Willie supposed to enter the public domain? 2013? I think we can all expect another extension of 20 more years.
Then an artist will have copyright last their entire life plus 90 years and corporations can have their copyright last 110 years.
Repeat! Until the end of forever. Of course, copyright will be rendered obsolete in less than a decade, so, good luck.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm shocked that Walmart is not fighting for a DMCA safe harbor type immunity from printing pictures of the public. To me Walmart is merely doing what its customers are asking. It should not be Walmart's duty to arbitrarily enforce possible copyrights.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
With prices of high quality SLR/DSLR cameras dropping within the casual hobbyists budget you would expect to see a lot more requests for prints that would seem "professional". If Walmart makes a copy at the request of a customer, the responsible party should be the customer, not Walmart. We can blame the lobbyist who would push copyright so that copyright owners could maximalize their profits in court and collect from the deep pocketed corporations.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I hate to sound like I'm coming to Walmart's defence on the issue, but since they are the cheapest place around that prints on fuji crystal archive, I get most of my photo printing done there, and I never run into these problems. I just show up, use the self-serve machines, and send in my print order, and I've never had a problem with getting it printed.
And I am a semi-professional photographer!
I've recently gone in with 600 photos of kids sitting on Santa's knee, obviously they were all taken on a set, under professional lighting, and I've gotten them all printed effortlessly.
Its easy to forget how freaken huge walmart is, how many employees they have, and how stupid people can be. eventually, someone associated with the company will do something dumb.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"And I am a semi-professional photographer!"
that would also make you a semi-amateur photographer
... Big Ole GRIN ...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
They prefer the phrase "Forever minus a day", I think.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Great one!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
How can someone be "semi-professional"? Either you got paid or you didn't, right? :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
getting paid in lint and/or candy bars doesnt really count...
hence semi-pro... you got paid.... but ........not really.....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmmm, I keep getting a Page Not Found 404 error for the link the the new story at consumerist
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I do get paid for it, but I only do it part-time.
I can't call myself a 'pro' when I only do shoots two or three times a month.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Who pays in lint? Drycleaners?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What an awful situation to put all of these folks into - the employees and the customers. Appalling show of the criminally selective focus of copyright uber-protectionists.
That employee is going to spout the company line that copyright is forever, because she wants to keep her job and likely doesn't know enough on the subject to question it. What are corporate policy makers going to do when presented with the OTHER part of copyright law allowing fair usage to protect themselves, and more importantly, their customers? I'd wager it'll take the form of a class action.
I recently lost a parent, but I scanned and printed all the pictures myself for the memorial service (only because I could, didn't have to depend on a retailer for that). Many were professionally done, most done 50 some years ago. No one beat down the doors to the funeral chapel screeching about their bloody copyright. There would've been a sight more work for the morticians if anyone had.
I'm planning to distribute copies of all those scanned photos to family members so we can all have them.
And some would say I'm breaking the law doing so.
Deny me. Accuse me. Sue me. I dare you. I know this funeral home that does great work.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Part time?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Hmmm, I keep getting a Page Not Found 404 error for the link the the new story at consumerist
Weird. Looks like the link changed. Updated.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just fill this out when you go in
http://photos.walmart.com/photo/messages/51016-0_WM_copyright_EBF1D.pdf
duh.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I had this problem all the time
I used to use Walmart for printing, but I got challenged almost all the time. At first I took it as a compliment, but soon got tired of stopping by for my one-hour pick-up to be told by a high-school drop-out that I was breaking the law and they would not print my pictures.
I take portraits, mainly as a hobby and occassionally for pay. I asked how I could keep this from happening and they had me fill out a release form that they put it file. But every time I went to pick up my prints they would not be ready and I would have to tell them to pull out the release form and see that I had a release on file.
I finally gave up and now go to Wolf Camera: one-hour service by people who know me by name and have yet to accuse me of breaking the law because I take and print great portaits!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
If you use the same equipment to take both the photos that you sell and photos for personal use, then I'd say that qualifies as "semi-pro." That seems like an appropriate definition here, considering that the apparent standard that WalMart uses to decline some photographs is whether or not they "look professional."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Semi-pro or pro isn't the issue. Its whether the prints are of a copywritten work. Unless the photgrapher has embossed an overprint (i.e. Olan Mills) on the print, it is really impossible foe the staff at Walmart to make an informed decision about a print. There are hundreds of professional pictures that have been released into the public domain.
Just like the government doesn't expect employers to enforce immigration laws, it doesn't require Walmart to enforce copyright laws. This is a stupid company policy. Has Walmart ever been sued for copyright infringement for prints they have made?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Walmart tried to stop me from picking up a wedding photo recently that I submitted online for printing. When I tried to pick it up, the stupid Walmart envelope for the 8x11 had COPYRIGHTED written across it . In fact it was sitting in a pile of other envelopes similarly marked. She told me that I couldn't have the picture because it was copyrighted. Well they accepted my money online and even printed it for me, they just wouldn't let me pick it up. I asked them how they came to that determination. I explained to them that I in fact paid for and owned the original negatives. Not to mention the fact that I scanned the negative and digitally edited it (using GIMP) to make it B&W and added gausian blurr to the background. I guess I must be a professional photo editor now;at least good enough to fool Walmart. She finally came to her senses and gave me the picture.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Not that I disagree with you, Kyle, but if a musician writes one song popular song, you can bet he'll start considering himself a "professional" musician regardless if he never writes a popular song again in his lifetime.
Then again, to counter my own argument, he'll get paid for that one song for the rest of his life.
At any rate, you can drop the "semi" and I won't mind. :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm almost certain that Walmart's little photo Kiosks and website force you to agree to a legal statement that you own the copyright or have the copyright holder's permission to make copies of the photos.
You've agreed, you've accepted legal liability. Why does the poor Walmart wage slave need to get involved?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Do it yourself!
Epson - PictureMate Dash Personal Photo Lab Printer $160.00
Plus many others like it for even less money.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I have had similar issues at Wal-Mart, but they just asked me to fill out a copyright waiver form stating that I had the right to produce the pictures. Sometimes, we buy the copyright (usually by buying the CD) from professional portraits, and they include a copyright disclaimer form stating that we share the copyright with the photographer.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I like it, can we send just send the lobbyist to you or do we need to make an appointment
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Apparently Kinko got nailed before for printing AND selling professional photos.
The deal is that if you copy for yourself it's probably okay, but if a retailer do it then it's not so okay since there is profit involved.
I have to say Walmart is just looking out for it's own ass and doesn't care about anything else. But we all know that already don't we?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Kyle, I think you meant to say that you are part-time professional photographer, not full-time professional photographer.
I think people are right that if you get paid then you are considered professional, regardless of how much time you spend it.
You can stop being modest, we don't mind. ;-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Stupid...
I have personal knowledge of this type of malfeasance:
After our marriage, my wife called me on the phone in a tizzy, saying that Walmart refused to print our wedding photos.
After asking her why the fuck she was doing business with Walmart, I told her to just be firm, assert that the photographer had no copyright over these photos, (I had specifically negotiated that with the photographer, as I have a personal stick up my ass about someone retaining copyright to pictures of *me* that I *paid* them to take. What the fuck is that all about anyway?) and insist that they print them or you would have your (angry) husband come down and "clear it up"
This partially worked. I was forced to call in and raise my voice with the manager, insisting that not all photographers hold copyright to the photos they take and that was the case here. I had to belittle the manager for not knowing this as he was rather steadfast in his presumption that it was "standard" for photographers to do this.
Standard as it may be, it was not the case here, and I was finally able to get him to simply do his job and provide the service they were offering.
What really pisses me off about all this?
(1) Dumb-Ass Walmart employees presuming to know *anything at all* about copyright law, and
(2) Dumb-Ass Misogynist Walmart employees refusing to do something for a woman, based on the presumption in (1), only to relent and do it for her husband. "I'm sorry Mam, that's against copyright law and our policies...Oh, you're married? Just have your husband give us a call and don't worry your little head about it. Thanks for shopping at Walmart!"
Fuckwads.
CBMHB
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
invoice was not paid ;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stupid...
"(2) Dumb-Ass Misogynist Walmart employees refusing to do something for a woman, based on the presumption in (1), only to relent and do it for her husband. "I'm sorry Mam, that's against copyright law and our policies...Oh, you're married? Just have your husband give us a call and don't worry your little head about it. Thanks for shopping at Walmart!""
Well, yeah that sucks that they act misogynist that way, but she could have just worn a Vneck shirt and used that shit to her advantage....
Just sayin'...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stupid...
I agree with you concerning the whole issue of photographers retaining copyright over an image I paid them to take. Certainly seems to me to be a work for hire, since they were contracted specifically to take pictures of you for you and were paid for the work, but hey, what do I know about work for hire, I'm not a lawyer.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stupid...
"""(1) Dumb-Ass Walmart employees presuming to know *anything at all* about copyright law"""
You are completely missing the point. The employee is doing exactly what they are trained/told to do. Wal-Mart's stance is to err on the side of caution, and who can blame them? Why open yourself up to even the possibility of a lawsuit? Especially after the Kinko's ruling. You can bet your ass that if Wal-Mart tried to claim Safe-Harbor protections for their "Do-it-yourself" kiosks, they'd get sued for enabling people to infringe by every professional studio and their mothers.
On a side note, this is very similar to the practice of not selling liquor/tobacco to anyone who "looks younger than xx". When I worked as a cashier, if you didn't have ID, I don't care if you looked one hundred years old, and you cussed a blue streak at me, you were not buying liquor or tobacco from me. Of course, in this case, if you do sell to a minor, you can be held personally responsible and fined or jailed, but still, similar in the "err on the side of caution" front.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Childhood pictures
My wife tried to print out pictures that my father took of me 50 years ago when I was 3 years old. Walmart representatives tore the pictures up when we tried to pick them up saying they were professional copyrighted photos. Interesting, my father thought he was just taking pictures of his son.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Capricious
It's not her fault, it's the fault of current copyright law,
While I would agree that it's not her personal fault, I would argue that it is the fault of Walmart as a company. Walmart has plenty of lawyers and knows where to hire more if they need to to explain copyright law to them, so I'm not accepting some kind of "ignorance of the law" excuse. They're just being capricious.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"There would've been a sight more work for the morticians if anyone had."
Terrorist!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Stupid...
Actually, a similar thing happened to me at WalMart... and while annoying, the solution is that WalMart has a form that you can fill out which offers a way for you to declare that you are the copyright owner (presumably shifting the liability from WalMart to the consumer at the same time).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: they should just go somewhere else
fuck walmart!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Bad for business...
That's ok. No, really.. If it were me, there are hundreds of local copy shops with photo-printing machines that would be more than happy to accept my business. Oh, and my money too. ;D
With all the competition around, who the hell needs "Walfart" anyway? " }:> "
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Realist.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Vintage Family Photos
Yes, they were taken by a photographer, in the 1800's or early 1900's, but the studio no longer exists. I know with books before 1923, they are public domain. I assume the same is true of tintypes and cabinet photos, but Walmart stopped my cousin from copying....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Bad for business...
...there are hundreds of local copy shops with photo-printing machines...
I'd say that's a very unusual situation. Just where do you live?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Bad for business
...there are hundreds of local copy shops with photo-printing machines...
Where I live Walmart put all of the local shops out of Business with the cheap-ass prices.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment