[Wheatfield]

That's the key matter I raised. If the pics bear some copyright notice I have absolutely no problem with the employee's action.

However it'd appear there's no copyright indication. As such the employee has made a subjective judgment based just on what's in the photos. That's why I called for proper training. How would you feel if you urgently need your own photos printed but are refused service because someone makes an incorrect judgment that they were shot by a studio?

All photos are copywritten. There doesn't have to be an indication on the image.
As soon as you push the button, you have a copywritten image.
So, it goes back to content. If the associate has reason to believe the image may be copywritten by someone other than the customer, they will refuse it.
This is how they are trained to respond.
It's a PITA, but it's just the way it is.
People go out of their way to sting companies like Wal-mart, so companies like Wal-Mart take a very proactive position regarding things that can cost them money.

In the situation with the OP, he has taken studio pictures in for copies.
This raises the red flags immediately.
Perhaps the associate recognized the backdrop as one used by Sears.
Add that to an associate who is in CYA mode, and yes, there will be problems getting prints.
Wal-Mart isn't in business to get sued, but people try to catch them out on stuff, so you need to have your duckies all lined up in a row. That means having a release of copyright, even a forged one, on paper when you go in.
Read the DMCA sometime, you might get a better understanding of why they are so cautious.

[Kguru]

All photos are copywritten.

I am aware of this, but question is where does it say some studio has exclusive copyright of these particular pics?

I understand normally studios only provide printed photos to customers. If they give out negative films or digital files they have explicitly agreed to let the customers get their own further prints.

Is Walmart suggesting that the OP broke into the studio and stole these files?

[Wheatfield]

I am aware of this, but question is where does it say some studio has exclusive copyright of these particular pics?

I understand normally studios only provide printed photos to customers. If they give out negative films or digital files they have explicitly agreed to let the customers get their own further prints.

Is Walmart suggesting that the OP broke into the studio and stole these files?

Where does it say that the OP has licenced rights to the photos?
Franky, I do find it somewhat bizarre that a person couldn't get images from a CD printed, but, if course, they could have scanned them themselves at home and are now trying to get prints, so even there, the possibility for a violation exists.

[TaoMaas]

It doesn't even have to be portraits to be questioned. I got quizzed once over some of my landscape stuff. Basically, if they think the picture is above amateur level, they're going to question it. I can't really blame them, either.

[Kguru]

Where does it say that the OP has licenced rights to the photos?

The way your argument goes, society will progress to the stage where to bring your car in for repairs you will need to show the garage your ownership papers else they fear they get sued for harbouring stolen property

[skydragoness]

What I want to know is why did you go to Walmart to get photos processed?
I'd drive out of state to a local camera shop or any other place before I gave Walmart a dime (hate that company to no end, they are evil). Or sent it off online to Mpix or Adorama.

I did what could be called "professional" nude photos for a studio lighting class at college and took them to my local camera shop to have big prints made for critique. There was a backdrop, props, etc. No questions asked and got it printed in short order.

I hope you told them your'e never going back there again after they hasseled you (I don't care if it's in their legal right either, that company can kiss my posterior).

[Wheatfield]

It doesn't even have to be portraits to be questioned. I got quizzed once over some of my landscape stuff. Basically, if they think the picture is above amateur level, they're going to question it. I can't really blame them, either.

Unfortunately, the law holds the lab responsible for copyright violation as a publisher, and doesn't address the finer points of who instigated the crime in the first place.
A customer who gets printing done isn't responsible for the violation, it all falls onto the lab.
It would be a lot easier, and I think more sensible if the law made the individual responsible for the crime rather than the lab.
Places like Wal-Mart quite frankly don't want to deal with this kind of picture, or professional/advanced amateur photographers in general.

Here's a scenario that could play out: A professional photographer gets studio enlargements done at a Wal-Mart. Another customer sees his/her's pictures at some point during the sales transaction, or sees the work on a kiosk screen.
Said customer is a nosy troublemaker (one of the world's skydragoness types with a slightly larger than normal chip on her shoulder) who calls the authorities for a suspected DMCA complaint.
That lab is scrutinized by the investigators, possibly having it's machinery confiscated for the investigation, the company takes another public relations hit, and the lab is disrupted by the entire affair.
All this becuase someone was getting pictures that they own printed.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 04-29-2009 at 10:10 AM.

[Wheatfield]

What I want to know is why did you go to Walmart to get photos processed?
I'd drive out of state to a local camera shop or any other place before I gave Walmart a dime (hate that company to no end, they are evil). Or sent it off online to Mpix or Adorama.

I did what could be called "professional" nude photos for a studio lighting class at college and took them to my local camera shop to have big prints made for critique. There was a backdrop, props, etc. No questions asked and got it printed in short order.

I hope you told them your'e never going back there again after they hasseled you (I don't care if it's in their legal right either, that company can kiss my posterior).

This is exactly the type of small minded attitude that causes the Wal-Marts of the world to feel that they have to take a pro-actively defensive stance regarding their business practices.

[Wheatfield]

The way your argument goes, society will progress to the stage where to bring your car in for repairs you will need to show the garage your ownership papers else they fear they get sued for harbouring stolen property

I took my computer into the shop to have a new hard drive installed and to have the OS reinstalled.
It wasn't enough that I have a genuine WinXP CD, I also had to have the piece of paper which proved I owned the license for that CD before the shop would talk to me.
Why is it so hard to understand that because of the way laws are wrtitten and enforced, that a company will refuse work which has the possibility of getting them in trouble.
The post a few up from the professional Wal-Mart hater is exactly why that company is so careful.
It's not a long stretch from despising a company to going out of your way to cause it grief, which is sad, because the only people the professional haters are hurting are the store associates.

[Venturi]

The bottom line here is copyright law is law. Violating said laws carries stiff criminal and civil penalties. Copyright covers a wide range of intellectual property, photography being just one area. Reprinting and/or copying photographic works without expressed written permission from the creator of said work is theft of their intellectual property.

Getting upset because Sam Walton's operation plays it safe on such matters is ridiculous. I don't much like the corporation either, but I can't fault them for protecting their business and shareholders' interests by simply avoiding any reasonably potential dispute over copyright infringement.

I'm not saying the OP wasn't granted a usage license for the works in question, but without proof in writing to present to Walmart - or any other print lab - the complaint is unfounded and irrational. As a photographer themselves I would think, or hope at least, that the OP understood the value of the work a working photographer produces and respects it in kind.

[khardur]

Wheatfield is correct, and Venturi too, and everyone else on the retailer's side here. If you take professional pictures in to get copies made, the burden is on you, the consumer, to prove you have a release.

I managed a 1-hour photo lab back before digital cameras killed most of them. At least once a week someone would bring in copyrighted pictures to try and have us make copies. Many simply didn't know about copyright laws, yet others tried to still get us to print them even when we showed them the sign on the front counter.

Think about it. Should I, as a retailer, take your word that you have permission? If the photographer didn't give that permission and I was taking you on your word, then as said above by Wheatfield I would get the sued for lost compensation. Especially a big target like Wal-Mart, they're eager to keep the lawsuits to a minimum.

All I know is, if I were still in the retail business and I was presented with the same story, I would say "I'm sorry, you'll have to contact Sears and get a signed release form so I can work on these."

[Ira]

The other thing is, there are a ton of scammers out there who would actually set the retailer up--especially one with such deep pockets as WM. You know--the kind of people who sue because they claim they slipped on a banana?

Kinkos has major problems with this too in regards to repro of book pages and such.

[skydragoness]

This is exactly the type of small minded attitude that causes the Wal-Marts of the world to feel that they have to take a pro-actively defensive stance regarding their business practices.

Never thought I'd bump into a Wal-mart sympathizer on this forum!
Of course they're protecting their asses, they're Wal-mart that's all they do.
I never said I disagreed with what they did either, that's their legal right.
What I was questioning is why go to them in the first place? They are awful and they are not a camera store/specialists.

[séamuis]

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

they aren't a specialist in anything. he went there likely for the same reason everyone else does. because wal-marts are everywhere and they are normally cheaper than anyone else. knowing wheatfields thoughts on photo stores vs supermarket/wal-mart processing and printing. I wouldnt call him a wal-mart sympathiser. just one who understands why things are they way they are and how they got that way.

[skydragoness]

I wouldnt call him a wal-mart sympathiser. just one who understands why things are they way they are and how they got that way.

I shouldn't have been called "small-minded" either but eh..some people don't care about Walmart's "ethics" and supporting local shops.