WalMart Tries to be the Photograph Copyright Police - Ignoring Customers Rights

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html' target='_blank'>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Amateur photographer Zee Helmick encountered that problem when she went to pick up photos she had ordered at a Wal-Mart near her home in Henderson, Nev. She had taken the photos of her son that morning to use as head shots for an audition for a TV commercial. She had used her photo-editing software to add his name, information about him and even her own copyright to make the image look more polished, Helmick said. She uploaded the 8-by-10-inch photos to Walmart.com, which prints photos sent to the site at a nearby store for customers to pick up. At the store, Helmick said a clerk told her, "We can't release the pictures to you." "What's wrong?" Helmick asked. "We can't release the pictures to you without a copyright release form signed by the photographer," the clerk replied, according to Helmick. The clerk said the photos looked like a professional had taken them, Helmick said. And no matter how much Helmick protested that she, an amateur, had snapped the shots of her son, she said the clerk wouldn't budge."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/ptech_josh220.jpg" /> <br /><br />Has this ever happened to you? It has with me at Walgreen's with some pictures of my wife and I on our honeymoon. There was nothing I could do to convince them that I took them as I didn't have the negatives, just the jpegs from my digital camera. What I have to wonder is why WalMart would be doing this. If they just print the photos they can say it is not their duty to enforce the copyright, but now that they are being "vigilant", they'll be liable for the times when they don't catch a "professional" photo.<br /><br />What is the best way to handle something like this when you have no clear proof?

[Doug Johnson]

Well it certainly means that I won't be using Walmart for any developing... Most of my pictures "look professional."

[Tim Williamson]

Well I definitely won't be going to Walmart when I need a photo printed.

[Filip Norrgard]

What is the best way to handle something like this when you have no clear proof?

Make an über-official looking "proof of photograpy copyright ownership" document that lists the photo's dimensions and subject(s), lense(s) used, date of photography, color count, and finally a signature plus fancy looking stamp... ? ;)

[Ed Hansberry]

Personally, I am amazed people go to stores for this. I am too lazy and I would never feed my memory card into a kiosk like that. I upload to online sites and order. I currently use www.smugmug.com

[Damion Chaplin]

Whatever happened to if-you-have-the-envelope-tag-they're-your-photos? (I know that doesn't really apply in this case) Next will people start policing dry cleaners? "I'm sorry, this suit looks too nice for you. It must be someone else's." Or car valets? "There's no way this Mercedes belongs to you, so I'm not going to release it to you." :roll:

It seems to me that the clerk is using their own subjective definition of what a professional photo looks like. Sound like grounds for a lawsuit to me. Yes, 19-year-old Joe said the photos looked too professional and Wal-Mart is taking their word for it? Do they now hire teenagers with an eye for photography? They have a machine that says "Nope. Too in focus. Reject."? Boy, I'm getting angrier about it by the second, so I'll stop now. :?

Just chalk it up to one more reason why you will never see me set foot in there...

[sub_tex]

I currently use www.smugmug.com

Nice prices for their mugs and other items compared to most online vendors.

Thanks for the link!

[Phoenix]

What's the best way to handle a situation where you're having to deal with a Walmart "retard"?

Well, let's see... a stun gun sounds about right. :lol:

One little zap and she would've been free to leave with her photos in no time! :P :lol:

[Mike Temporale]

This isn't just a problem with Wal-mart. This has been going on for a long time. Print shops won't even colour photocopy a professional picture. Regardless if you are the professional or not. The problem is just becoming more and more common since today's software allows everyone to be a pro. Well, almost everyone. ;)

[Jason Dunn]

Ok, that's utterly insane. 8O I can't believe Wal-Mart would do this. Why not assume it's ok unless someone complains? Oh well, all the more reason to have a good home printer right?

[Littleshmee]

I'm not exactly sure of how Walmart works, but I know how Black's (in Canada) works. If something "looks professional" (and that's actually what the law says), then the photo lab isn't allowed to print it without a release signed by the photographer (until 50 years after the death of the photographer). Anything can be printed from a negative or a digital file - it is assumed in this case that the photographer gave you the rights to reproduce it. The reason the law is there is to avoid people doing things like scanning wedding proofs and enlarging them (you'd be surprised how often that happens). The store gets the blame/fine/slap on the wrist if they get caught.

That said, the Walmart story sounds pretty stupid if you ask me. First off, it was a jpeg, and there should be no problem, and secondly, she should be able to sign a form saying that it's her photo, and it'd be out of the hands of Walmart.

[Darius Wey]

Well, that's ridiculous. 8O

I don't have a Wal-Mart in my area so I guess I don't have to worry about stupid principles like this. But there are plenty of other options out there for digital camera users to get their photos printed - whether it be online or through another store.

[cameron]

Sorry everyone is getting all up in arms about this - but read the whole article.

The trade group sent a wake-up call to the photofinishing industry when, in 1999, it sued Kmart Corp., alleging that the discount store violated federal copyright law by copying images without the permission of the copyright owners.

In 2000, Kmart settled the case by paying $100,000 and agreeing to implement procedures to guard against the unlawful copying of professional photos.

Photofinishers are in a damned if you do - damned if you don't situation. Customers get mad when they don't get prints, but they can also be sued (yes, under US copyright law they are liable) if the make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material.

Read some of the forums where pro photogs hang out (like www.sportsshooter.com ). You'll see plenty of examples of the other situation, where peoples who's livelihood is at stake are losing money because of the ease of copying/printing photos. In our litigious society, a deep-pocketed organization like WalMart has to be extra careful. I may not be able to get a lot of money out of Joe's Photos on Main St., but you know there are armies of lawyers waiting to sue WalMart for any little thing possible.

So what's WalMart to do? Only they can make the risk/reward decision (lawsuit risk vs. addt'l photo sales) that's appropriate for them. Sure they'll lose business, but to them that probably pales in comparison to the potential lawsuits.

[James Fee]

Yea what you say is true, but I doubt WalMarts method of determining if it is professional or not won't hold up on court. Believe me, I'm fine with them not wanting to make sure the photos are not professional, but having a one of WalMarts minimum wage "associates" make the decision is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. This who article isn't about whether copyrights are a good thing, it is about a company deciding what looks like it might be professional rather than actually determining if it is.

[cameron]

but I doubt WalMarts method of determining if it is professional or not won't hold up on court

Ok - so what's the better way? I'm a semi-professional photographer, and to be honest with you, WalMart's "minimum wage associates" probably stand as good a chance as I or anyone else does in picking out a "professional" photograph.

[bikeman]

While I would have a problem in general with clerks deciding that something is too professional to print without a release, I have little sympathy in this case. The lady put a copyright on the photos! Well that makes it easy for the clerk to say "these are professional." If you want to put a copyright on the photos, you better be able to prove that it is your copyright.

That seems to be a relatively simple solution for serious amateurs and pros alike. Register your copyright with the appropriate agency in your country, keep proof of the registration, use your copyright on your photos, end of story.

For those who don't use a copyright, complain to the manager. If that is store policy, then they had better have signs posted.
Dan

[Jason Dunn]

You'll see plenty of examples of the other situation, where peoples who's livelihood is at stake are losing money because of the ease of copying/printing photos.

I think this is happening because most photographers haven't re-aligned their rates with the way our world works currently. When I had a photographer shoot my wedding, I didn't get a single print: I hired him to shoot, nothing more, and he gave me a CD with all the photos. The days of a photographer making $20 for every 8 x 10" print are over. They should be charging more for their time and know that they won't make $$$ off the prints.

[cameron]

I think this is happening because most photographers haven't re-aligned their rates with the way our world works currently. When I had a photographer shoot my wedding, I didn't get a single print: I hired him to shoot, nothing more, and he gave me a CD with all the photos. The days of a photographer making $20 for every 8 x 10" print are over. They should be charging more for their time and know that they won't make $$$ off the prints.

Jason,

In many situations, what you mention works perfectly. Wedding photography is a perfect example. The problem with that is that, in many instances, a fixed-fee type of pricing structure doesn't work.

Example - I shoot mountain bike races. I make money by selling the prints to the participants. Theoretically I could charge the organizer, who would then increase the fee charged to the participants and everyone would get a free print. Problem is, not everyone wants a print, and some people want big prints, small prints, mugs, etc. I put proofs up on the web, low-quality, with a big "PROOF" across them, but I've known people in the past who didn't care and just printed off my proof.

We're not just talking event-type photography here. Let's say I sell the rights to use an image to a corporation for use on their website, or in a magazine (note: I'm not selling the image itself, just the rights to use it for a specific purpose - I still retain the copyright). What's to stop anyone from downloading that picture from the web, or scanning it from the magazine, and then printing it?

There's no right answer here. As I mentioned in my first post, everyone involved has to make a risk-reward decision. What I don't like is when people ridicule and criticize a person or organization without realizing that, most likely, there's a very logical, well-thought out and valid reason for the decisions that were made or actions that were taken. It's easy for the internet quarterbacks to criticize and ridicule, but much more difficult to come up with viable solutions to a very real and difficult problem.

[cameron]

I think this is happening because most photographers haven't re-aligned their rates with the way our world works currently. When I had a photographer shoot my wedding, I didn't get a single print: I hired him to shoot, nothing more, and he gave me a CD with all the photos. The days of a photographer making $20 for every 8 x 10" print are over. They should be charging more for their time and know that they won't make $$$ off the prints.

Sorry - one more point.

While people can agree or disagree on your point (I do happen to agree when it comes to wedding photography), it doesn't change the fact that, even if the photographer has made a bad decision and is still charging on a per-print basis, he still owns the copyright. This means that WalMart is still liable under current copyright law if they print those pictures without permission from the copyright owner. Of course the question now is how do they know for sure who the copyright owner is or if the permission (i.e. a signed release) is actually valid?

[Jason Dunn]

Example - I shoot mountain bike races. I make money by selling the prints to the participants. Theoretically I could charge the organizer, who would then increase the fee charged to the participants and everyone would get a free print. Problem is, not everyone wants a print, and some people want big prints, small prints, mugs, etc.

Why wouldn't you charge the person who wants the print a fee that would give them the right to use that for whatever they want? A high-res digital negative, and you'd charge $50, $100, or whatever you think they'd be willing to pay for a great photograph. From where I'm siting (and I don't know anything about your business model), you're selling the analog way: "give me some paper money and I'll give you a paper with an image on it". The first thing I'd do if that was my only option? I'd scan that print and then do what I wanted with it - I respect your right to earn a living (I really do), but we live in a digital world and things that aren't digital just don't have the flexibility that I need. I'd much rather pay a reasonable fee for your picture and know that I have the right to use it as I see fit.

[Jason Dunn]

While people can agree or disagree on your point (I do happen to agree when it comes to wedding photography), it doesn't change the fact that, even if the photographer has made a bad decision and is still charging on a per-print basis, he still owns the copyright.

Most people don't understand or respect copyright - especially if it's a photo of themselves. We can argue legalities all day, but any photographer that doesn't price his work based on the assumption that the person is never going to order another print, is going to be left high and dry. The analog age is dead.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Personally, when selling photos, I'd never ever give away the RAW file. That's like giving away the goose that lays the golden eggs. For starters it makes asserting copyright a whole lot easier, and let's you have some control

Secondly cameron is doing a volume business; it's hard to make money if you don't sell by prints. If you just sold the digital JPG file what will happen is that you will need to sell the digital file for a higher price, however from experience most people simply aren't willing to pay a higher price, and while (for example) it's the same if 10 people paid for 10 prints vs 10 people chipping in for 1 digital image, the fact that 10 people need to chip in means canvassing for the pool of money might be enough to put people off.

That said I think entities like Walmart simply shouldn't be liable. They merely acted upon a customer's request, and while the customer is breaking the law, why should Walmart be at fault? This is like suing the car company because some nitwit killed a few people while driving in a drunken stupor.

[cameron]

A high-res digital negative, and you'd charge $50, $100, or whatever you think they'd be willing to pay for a great photograph.

Ideally, this would work - the problem is that not everyone wants a digital file. The large majority of people out there just want a picture. It's also hard enough to price these to get someone to buy a picture (and that's at an average picture cost of around $12 - what it takes me to make a shoot profitable). It's amazing how much the revenue drops off once the price increases from the $12 number.

One of the major event picture hosting sites out there (I think it's photoreflect) does allow you to sell the "hi-res" image itself. Before I started shooting - I used to race. I ordered the "hi-res" image once and ended up with a highly compressed POS.

I just recently got started doing this as a weekend thing. I'm not really doing it for the money - rather I'm getting too old and slow to race any more (and not motivated enough to train, really) - and I've seen the crappy product that was out there for the events in my racing days. I enjoy it, and it allows be to still be a part of the "scene". I'm well aware of the fact that someone can buy an 8x10, scan it, and print it all day long. Honestly, the price per print would be lower if people couldn't do that, because I'm sure the volume would then increase.

Like most of us here, I shoot primarily because I enjoy it - not to try and make money. I'd hate to be a pro photographer today, with the advent of digital, both the scanning and printing we've been discussing and the sophistication of the modern camera (any idiot can be a "pro" - look, I'm doing it) it gets harder and harder for them to make money.

[cameron]

That said I think entities like Walmart simply shouldn't be liable. They merely acted upon a customer's request, and while the customer is breaking the law, why should Walmart be at fault? This is like suing the car company because some nitwit killed a few people while driving in a drunken stupor.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think that the photofinishers should have some standard of care that they need to follow. If the image is marked "Copyrighted" they should absolutely not print it. As the article (and an earlier poster pointed out) - the woman in the article was dumb enough to put "copyrighted" on the picture.

However, what any of us believe about what Walmart's liability should or shouldn't be doesn't matter. The law is clear - they are. Let's stick the blame where it should lie - the trial lawyers. :D

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Hmm, ok, I think our approach to this topic is down to the way our laws work. In a country where the Berne convention is ratified, the "Copyright" notice is not needed; the act of taking the photo is . Once in court if I can prove the photo was taken by me, the courts will side with me.

It's amazing what happens when people start percieving as what's too expensive. Orders for photos drop rapidly once that magical threshold is reached!

OT, mountain biking is neat. You XC, downhill, or freeride?

[cameron]

OT, mountain biking is neat. You XC, downhill, or freeride?

XC all the way. The last couple of years I've been doing endurance races (100 miles, 24 hours, etc.) - but I'm just not motivated to train that hard anymore. Now it's just what it should be - a fun thing to do on the weekends.

Agree on the topic - I think I've added all I can at this point.

[bluemax]

I don't have a Wal-Mart in my area

Lucky you :D

Bill B

[bluemax]

you better be able to prove that it is your copyright. ..
Dan

From this discussion, it doesn't seem to matter who owns the copyright. It is just an arbitrary decision by a Wally World employee that they won't print the image. Their excuse, "it looks professional". Facinating you can be insulted and praised in the same breath.:roll:

How does Wal-Mart determine who the copyright holder is - or do they even care?

Bill B.

[James Fee]

How does Wal-Mart determine who the copyright holder is - or do they even care?Who knows, it probably depends on each associate. Is having a JPG of the photo good enough? Probably not....

[klinux]

Going back to this - I would make as much fuss and noise as possible. By that I mean I would call the manager, call a TV station, call the police etc. See if they prefer handing me my photos or take the publicity.

[mrkablooey]

Ofoto is at it too

more here (http://www.corante.com/copyfight/archives/2005/06/07/a_photofinish_for_copyrights_unintended_consequences.php).

http://wendy.seltzer.org/media/nofoto.gif

[elitedata]

I had the same bad experience with a Wal-Mart photo center in June of 05.
I took some pictures of my Son with my digital camera / purchased at Wal-Mart by the way. I fixed up and edited the pictures to my liking on my computer / not bought from Wal-Mart. I went to Wal-Mart with my flash memory stick and used Wal-Mart Fuji kiosk
to submit the photos for 1 Hr processing. I went and did the rest of my shopping and browsed for an hr in the same Wal-Mart / Just like they want or hope I will do. In one hr
I returned to get my photos, the clerk very rudely says to me WHERE IS THE NEGITIVE FOR THIS PHOTO? I told her there was no negative and that I took the photo myself with a digital camera and I showed her my memory card. She rudely snatched the memory card from my figures and took off with it. Never once indicating to me what the problem was. After watching her go from machine to machine with my memory card I finally went to the far side of the photo lab and over the partition asked her to PLEASE tell me what the problem was. Finally she says "This looks like a professional photo and we can not be copying professional photos and I need to see if this photo is on the memory disk". I told her again that I had taken the photo myself and that there was 200 and some photo's on that disc and that if she would ask nicely that I would be happy to show her the photo on the disc. I showed her the photo on the disc / she never asked nicely using the kiosk that I submitted it on. She sent me on my way with my photos without so much as the slightest apology for the He_ _ she just put me through.

Who died and made Wal-Mart the Gestapo anyway? When a company acts or treats its customers as they treated me and apparently others that's just what they seem like. If they or anyone wants to just hide under a bunch of blanket polices so they don't have to use any common sense than they will just end up eventually running off all there customers.
Then go out of business and then maybe more of us will come to realize that price isn't always everything and welcome back the ma and pop shops where customer satisfaction is there lively hood. I do think I am seeing this more and more, a company just keeps getting bigger and bigger. They get so big that they can no longer take care of the customers. Soon the customers get fed up or wakeup and start taking there business else where and as it should be the company folds.

To Wal-Mart and your Employees: I was just an average Joe getting some photos of my Son done that day and you went out of your way to make me feel like a criminal in front of other customers. After just one simple search on the internet it is evident that you have put many of your customers through this. If you can not do business without treating your customers as criminals, trust me maybe you should just close your doors now while you still have some money in the bank. Maybe that way you won't screw all the share holders and lenders and go out under bankruptcy.

[brikayak]

I have had this happen a couple of times with the local Walmart :( . I usually use Adorama for my digital photo online work, but sometimes, when I want it quick (i.e. 1 hour) I use Walmart.

I have found at several Walmarts that you only need to print out a copyright release to show them. Walmart used to have a copyright release on their website, but for some reason they have recently removed it.

However, there are plenty of places on the web to find a template to use. Just do a search for "copyright release" and look for the form.