[Jamfke]

I think they're too lazy to cut the negatives into strips of 4. It's possible they don't even have the negative cutting machine any more.

Heck, they could roll it up and tuck it into an empty film canister at the very least if that were the case.

[photolady95]

I think they're too lazy to cut the negatives into strips of 4. It's possible they don't even have the negative cutting machine any more.

They have a negative cutting machine because they cut mine for me when I used to get just the film developed there.

[photolady95]

I think it's just that since other stores are doing this, they think it's okay for them to do so also. Probably the only ones they wouldn't do it to are the more professional photographers, like me.

[cscurrier]

I don't know... it's just weird. I understand most people today don't feel they need their negatives (or even know what to do with them) but when I worked one hour photo at Rite Aid, any negatives purposely left behind by a customer had to be treated as personal health information and sent to the pharmacy trash to be properly destroyed. Obviously, there is some value and personal attachment to film negatives where at least one corporate treated them as if they were your own doctor's notes. There are several reasons why I continue to shoot film, and archival purposes with my negatives is one of them.

Again, I hope all goes well with your pursuit. If someone brought in an SD card to make prints from, do you think it would bode well if the lab just threw out that memory card after the prints came out? No, of course not.

[photolady95]

If someone brought in an SD card to make prints from, do you think it would bode well if the lab just threw out that memory card after the prints came out?

Good point, I am going to ask them that too.

[photolady95]

Didn't do me any good. No one I talked to thought this was illegal. So, I won't be taking my film there in the future, if I ever shoot film again. Of course my choice for them isn't the same. I had them develop the film only, and they sure wouldn't like me if they kept my film after having developed it for me.

[Lowell Goudge]

the solution is simple

failure to return originals is theft of copyright material.

You should notify the copyright office and cc. the store and corporate office.

that will sort it out in very short time.

[photolady95]

I tried corporate office and got no where. I didn't contact the offices of Copyright though. I'll try that on Monday. Thanks Lowell.

[Lowell Goudge]

I tried corporate office and got no where. I didn't contact the offices of Copyright though. I'll try that on Monday. Thanks Lowell.

i believe there is no other way with the copyright office than to formally lodge a complaint of theft of property. look at their complaints procedures directly, there is no point having "discussions" with them the matter is simple , this is theft, therefore lodge a complaint. The store has no right to hold the negatives it is that simlple.

[maxfield_photo]

the solution is simple

failure to return originals is theft of copyright material.

You should notify the copyright office and cc. the store and corporate office.

that will sort it out in very short time.

Sadly, if it's stated anywhere that the negatives won't be returned, then dropping off the film would constitute acceptance of the policy, and therefore the claim of theft would not hold up. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's wrong, and foolish, and the epitome of corporate pennypinching, but theft it's not.

If I were the OP, I'd send my film off to a reputable lab like Dwayne's or North Coast Photographic Services. Those places need the patronage, and you'll get much better prints and negs back. Any lab that doesn't return negs doesn't not deserve a film photographers hard earned money.

[photolady95]

I'm the original poster but the film belonged to my sister, not me. As I said before, she doesn't seem all that interested in whether she gets them back or not. One reason I'm not pushing this that hard. If the negatives belonged to me, that's another story, I'd push it to the limit of the law.

[LFLee]

My sister has a film camera/point and shoot. She took her fillm to CVS to have them develop and print the photos. She got her photos and I was looking at them, after viewing the photos, I noticed something that made me wonder. Her negatives were missing. I asked if she removed them and she no, they told her she wouldn't get her negatives back only the photos and a cd. Anyone come across this before? And is it legal for them to do that?

YES, this is a practice like 6 months ago. I went to Walgreen and CVS and ask about film developing. They told me they still do it, but they will not give you the negative back!

[JimJohnson]

I don't doubt there is a policy available to the customer and as maxfield_photo says, processing your film is acceptance of that policy. The bigger question is how conspicuously is this policy made known to the customer? ...tiny print buried within the other fine print disclaimers on the envelope you hand back to the clerk with your roll of film? ...a verbal notice to each customer that bothers to ask? ...or a large print sign on envelope dispenser?

A hungry attorney might be willing to launch a pro-bono class action lawsuit if she/he can find a number of people with the same complaint against the same vendor. However, after attorney fees and expenses, the payout to members of the class might amount to a few pennies.

There are a number of members in Pentax Forum who only use the prints like proof copies before loading the returned negative into their own film scanner to perform the digital equivalent of darkroom work. I have yet to see a comparable digital scan from a kiosk photolab.

[DeadJohn]

the solution is simple
failure to return originals is theft of copyright material.
You should notify the copyright office and cc. the store and corporate office.
that will sort it out in very short time.

I think you're making too much of copyright. Illegal sales or other unauthorized use of the photos might cause federal copyright laws to kick in, but they won't get involved over theft or loss of a minor copyrighted work. Imagine if the feds had to get involved every time a book is stolen from a local book store because the book is copyrighted.

[monochrome]

Imagine if the feds had to get involved every time a book is stolen from a local book store because the book is copyrighted.

My wife writes novels.

Imagine if the Feds had to get involved every time the original, hand-written manuscript of a book (yes, my wife writes her novels long-hand on legal pads) was stolen or destroyed, and all the author received back from the typist (yes, my wife pays a typist to transcribe her longhand manuscripts into Word) was the hard copy printout and a pdf on a cd.

That would constitute theft of copyrighted material.