[Wheatfield]

Never thought I'd bump into a Wal-mart sympathizer on this forum!

You just bumped into a Wal-Mart associate. I didn't call you small minded, just your attitude towards my employer, who has never treated me badly.

[skydragoness]

You just bumped into a Wal-Mart associate. I didn't call you small minded, just your attitude towards my employer, who has never treated me badly.

I figured that was the reason...
Good to hear you are treated well.. from what I've read they treat their employees way better in other countries than here in the U.S. Nevertheless, I stand by my previous statement. Rather support the mom-n'-pop shops when possible.

[Wheatfield]

I figured that was the reason...
Good to hear you are treated well.. from what I've read they treat their employees way better in other countries than here in the U.S. Nevertheless, I stand by my previous statement. Rather support the mom-n'-pop shops when possible.

In point of fact, so do I.
However, they are not the big evil that people make them out to be, and at the end of the day, we are just people like everyone else, trying to earn a living.

[Ira]

I live in a weird part of south Florida on the eastern end of the Everglades, but not way south where it enters into Florida Bay, or in the middle of the state alongside the "cool" rivers that mingle with the vast Glades.

But 1/8th mile from me, I can go to Wal-Mart and buy live night crawlers for freshwater fishing bait, and any variety of frozen stuff for saltwater--although I'm 30 minutes west of the ocean.

The point is, you can support small, local businesses all you want--but how the hell would a bait shop survive out here? No one fishes--because all they do is wax their cars.

We can hate WalMart all we want, but basically, we all love and need the place.

[navcom]

I figured that was the reason...
Good to hear you are treated well.. from what I've read they treat their employees way better in other countries than here in the U.S. Nevertheless, I stand by my previous statement. Rather support the mom-n'-pop shops when possible.

Hmmm..sorry...had to interject here. My younger sister worked at Walmart for years, starting in college. She loved it. She met some of her best friends while working there. She has nothing but positive things to say about them. She didn't get rich but she knew that going in. What it did do was put her through college.

She liked them so much she has worked at three different ones through the years as her and her husband have moved their family around the country. She made the tough decision to be a stay-at-home mother as much as possible. So Walmart again was perfect as she could tailor her shift better to be with the kids.

And yes, she lived in the U.S.

Walmart gets a bad rap. Some of their merchandise is cheap and disposable, but for many folks, this is all they can afford. I used to be one of them. This is why they are so popular. I also have a friend who is worth several million dollars after selling his company and retiring. He always says, "if you can't find it at Walmart, you don't need it".

There is not a single "perfect" corporation. Corporations by definition are large. They employ thousands of imperfect human beings. I know there are some "bad" Walmart stores, but there are bad mom-and-pop stores too, where they treat their employees like disposable commodities no different than the claims against Walmart. The difference is they don't make the headlines when they are sued...if they are sued at all because they don't have the money that Walmart has. Walmart is also a target for those who do not "like" corporations because of this or that prejudice.

I support local shops and businesses whenever I can. Heck, I'm one of those local businesses! But understand that Walmart also employs local folks too. When you buy stuff from them, just like the local store, you are supporting jobs in the community. And for many communities, if Walmart was not there, they would have higher unemployment. Having a balance is not impossible.

[gokenin]

I did a google search and came up with this article Who Owns the Photos?

as far as the conversation goes I think the important part is the highlighted section, if you hire a company to take pictures and you get a disk would this qualify for the paragraph highlited? I could be completely wrong but was just wondering



It's all nicely spelled out in the Copyright Act of 1976 (found in Title 17, US Code, Section 100) and while I am not an attorney and would not presume to offer legal advice (or even pretend to understand such weighty matters without benefit of counsel) I have bumped up against this particular nettle enough times to know whereof I speak. According to the Act, any original creative work is protected from the moment it assumes tangible form. An author (or creator) does not have to register his copyright, nor does the work have to display that little circular "c." Protection is automatic and exists from the moment of inception. Registering the copyright with the U.S. Copyright office and displaying the little "c" only serves public notice of the copyright; it does nothing to enhance or even legitimize it.

So, what's a body to do? Must you submit meekly to highway robbery? Don't you have any rights? After all, aren't we talking about stuff you've already bought and paid for? The answer, again, is a resounding "yes," but only if you have acted with foresight.

That same Copyright Act includes a provision for "work made for hire." Under this provision, copyright ownership for certain kinds of original work is granted not to those who actually do the work, but to those who employ or commission them. Thus, if an employee of your company writes a user's manual for one of your products as part of his or her job, the company, not that individual, owns the copyright for the manual. The same provision can apply to outside contractors, such as photographers, providing both parties sign a Work for Hire Agreement in advance.

[Wheatfield]

I did a google search and came up with this article Who Owns the Photos?

as far as the conversation goes I think the important part is the highlighted section, if you hire a company to take pictures and you get a disk would this qualify for the paragraph highlited? I could be completely wrong but was just wondering



It's all nicely spelled out in the Copyright Act of 1976 (found in Title 17, US Code, Section 100) and while I am not an attorney and would not presume to offer legal advice (or even pretend to understand such weighty matters without benefit of counsel) I have bumped up against this particular nettle enough times to know whereof I speak. According to the Act, any original creative work is protected from the moment it assumes tangible form. An author (or creator) does not have to register his copyright, nor does the work have to display that little circular "c." Protection is automatic and exists from the moment of inception. Registering the copyright with the U.S. Copyright office and displaying the little "c" only serves public notice of the copyright; it does nothing to enhance or even legitimize it.

So, what's a body to do? Must you submit meekly to highway robbery? Don't you have any rights? After all, aren't we talking about stuff you've already bought and paid for? The answer, again, is a resounding "yes," but only if you have acted with foresight.

That same Copyright Act includes a provision for "work made for hire." Under this provision, copyright ownership for certain kinds of original work is granted not to those who actually do the work, but to those who employ or commission them. Thus, if an employee of your company writes a user's manual for one of your products as part of his or her job, the company, not that individual, owns the copyright for the manual. The same provision can apply to outside contractors, such as photographers, providing both parties sign a Work for Hire Agreement in advance.

I don't know exactly how it works in the USA, but I believe that the company that owns the studio will end up with copyright ownership unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
The copyright law in Canada is nice because it grants what we call first ownership of copyright to the person who commissions the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

As always, consult a lawyer before you believe any legal opinions that you read on the internet.

[Steve Beswick]

...

We can hate WalMart all we want, but basically, we all love and need the place.

Am I the only one who sees the broken logic in this sentence?

[Venturi]

"Works made for hire" definitely does not apply to studio portraits except that the studio may hold the copyright ownership of photographs made by the photographers it directly employs...

There are only two scenarios for "works made for hire" under US copyright law:

a) The work was prepared by an employee (not a freelancer or 1099 contractor) within the scope of their normal activities and assignments.

b) If performed by a non-employee the work must be specially ordered or commissioned as a contribution to a collective work (e.g. a magazine, movie, etc.). And even in this case there must be a written contract between the photographer and the client specifying that the assignment is considered "works made for hire".

If neither of the above is not satisfied the work, and the copyright, belongs solely with the creator of the work. This applies to photography, software, creative writing, recipes and everything else that falls under the definition of "intellectual property".

[Steve Beswick]

...but for many folks, this is all they can afford. ...

Actually, more often than not Target and K-mart are cheaper than Walmart for the same/comparable item.

[navcom]

Actually, more often than not Target and K-mart are cheaper than Walmart for the same/comparable item.

Yes and no...depends on where you live. I know around here that Walmart beats Target most of the time...not by much but it does on a specific product. Of course, the selection of products is a bit different too between the stores.

I'll rephrase to say this type of discount store versus just Walmart.

[TaoMaas]

What I was questioning is why go to them in the first place? They are awful and they are not a camera store/specialists.

That depends quite a bit on who is running the printing machines. One of our local camera clubs endorsed a specific WalMart mini-lab because the kid who ran it took great pride in turning out quality work. His lab was as good, or better, than any in town....and his prices were cheaper to boot.

Had some family pictures taken at Sears (yeah yeah) a while back. Paid a good amount of money to get the pictures and full rights put on a CD instead of getting prints. Fast forward - I am at the Kodak self serivce kiosk making prints today, and when I go to the photo lab to get a receipt, the lady tells me she can't sell me those pictures untill I get a release because they were "obviously taken by a pro".


I can't find a release at this point and time - Can Walmart hold these pictures? There is no "proof". Yeah, they have a backdrop and look like they were taken at a studio, but who says I don't have one setup at my house? Good greif!

If you haven't got the copyright Walmart are right to not print them. I will also add good for them. I know you say in your post that you have got 'a release' as a pro tog I don't want people copying my work as and when they feel like it.

[gokenin]

If you haven't got the copyright Walmart are right to not print them. I will also add good for them. I know you say in your post that you have got 'a release' as a pro tog I don't want people copying my work as and when they feel like it.

so you are saying that the person who hired you to take a photo of them has no right to make additional copies of their picture? Do you give them a disk with the pictures on it? I ask only because at what point does a photo that has been paid for and is only taken because it is being paid for stop being "your" property and become the property of the person who purchased it?
What would your stand be if the OP took the disk copied the images to his computer and then copied them again to a jumpdrive that he took to a CVS and used one of there self printing machines to make copies of the images would he be wrong? Do the machines have the ability to know if he wasnt the original photographer ?

[séamuis]

so you are saying that the person who hired you to take a photo of them has no right to make additional copies of their picture? Do you give them a disk with the pictures on it? I ask only because at what point does a photo that has been paid for and is only taken because it is being paid for stop being "your" property and become the property of the person who purchased it?

when you give the purchaser the rights to the photos you took.

you pay for the services of the photographer and to have the photographer give you and agreed upon number of prints, you aren't paying for the rights to the photos, unless this is specifically agreed upon. therein you need to have proof that you own the rights to these photos.