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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they should just go somewhere else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry
Leave a email, we will contact you with special offers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Yes, they have a time limit"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do it yourself!
Plus many others like it for even less money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
that would also make you a semi-amateur photographer
... Big Ole GRIN ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hence semi-pro... you got paid.... but ........not really.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Weird. Looks like the link changed. Updated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't call myself a 'pro' when I only do shoots two or three times a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Terrorist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just fill this out when you go in
duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just fill this out when you go in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had this problem all the time
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I had this problem all the time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've agreed, you've accepted legal liability. Why does the poor Walmart wage slave need to get involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid...
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid...
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'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Childhood pictures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capricious
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad for business...
With all the competition around, who the hell needs "Walfart" anyway? " }:> "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad for business...
I'd say that's a very unusual situation. Just where do you live?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad for business...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vintage Family Photos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad for business
Where I live Walmart put all of the local shops out of Business with the cheap-ass prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why?
The laws may seem ridiculous but they are designed to help protect people who make their money from taking professional photos from being stolen from.
I'm stunned at how often I am faced with someone who has gone to Olin Mills and had professional (if that's what Olin Mills is) photographs done and then come into my store asking me to reproduce the proofs for them, blow them up, etc. because they don't want to actually pay for the prints. As an artist, I think it's disgusting.
Support the business that you've gone to for your family portrait rather than trying to rip them off and get something for nothing.
And be flattered when they ask you to sign a release for your photos that look professional. Be happy they are trying to protect your work.
Every time I run into this with a customer it's the same thing.
"But I paid for them"
You may have paid for them but you didn't buy the copyright so you don't have the legal right to reproduce them. If you want more of them pay the person who took them for more prints.
People get upset and I don't care. It's the law and it's perfectly fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
sorry you had a bad day and crappy customers and worked in the JAG office and now work at wal-mart, apparently manning the photo kiosk and stocking light bulbs.
but seriously.... so many retail employees give customers that look... that says "omg what the eff does this biatch want? can't she see that i have a migraine/need a smoke break/have a sore throat/gotta take a piss/am hungry/need a nap/miss my kid/am horny/just dealt with a douche bag?" and it sets us up to be defensive... that pendulum swings both ways...
i'm certainly not saying it's okay for people to scream and call you names.... i sold cars for years, and you wouldn't believe some of the crap customers say and do. the only people worse are patients who tell you what they will and won't allow you to do to/for them when they're in the dang ER... i swear... one more person to tell me that if I miss a vein they will stick a needle in my eye and see how i like it... dude. i didn't miss your vein. the girl at your doc's office did... *smh* we have to learn to shake it off. one awful douche of a customer/patient/student/teacher/cop/parent/spouse/in-law does not make all of them douches.
and seriously, that rant up there? it's All. Over. Your. Face. every time you put your name tag on... and we see it. (or those that won't patently refuse to walk in that store do) and we react to it. it's angry. and patronizing. and intimidating. and unpleasant.
you gotta shake it off... or it will just recycle on through infinity ad nauseum.
plus... have you ever seen someone who's being a real dick try to scream and yell and you *don't* respond? Just breath slowing and calmly and smile like he's the nicest person you've met all day...
zomg nothing, NOTHING makes them madder... that in itself is sooo much fun...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
digital
I understand she's just following the rules but the rules should be more clear. I would have gotten a release and brought it with me if I had known. We already got some printed earlier this week with no issues. The employee's attitude was also uncalled for - she acted like we were complete idiots. Now I just know that next time I'll have them mailed to my house instead of going to pick them up and being denied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have old family photos that I found at my dads house after passing away. wanted to view them you could see the icons and know there names but they were not viewable. so I went to walmart to see if they had a program or viewer that I was missing and they also claimed it to be copyrighted material and they would not assist in recovering these files.
JUST PLAIN STOP USING WALMART
IT IS ONLY A MYTH THEY ARE CHEAPER
Only lazy people go to walmart There products are junk and way over priced. Ever since Sam Died walmart died with it
the most savigs on the few items I did find worthy of buying was only .15 to .25 cents there are to many better quality places to buy from than walmart and that really care not only about there employees but there customers as well. Walmart dose neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: only lazy people go to walmart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And i would like to add..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is crap....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I mean is, they have even less money than corporations, since most of them work as a small business. Given as such, when you pay to purchase pictures from a photographer, you're paying for that ONE TIME USE--as in ONE TIME, and that's it--UNLESS you buy the copyright.
And the reason being is, the bit where it's the same as taking someone else's work, copying it, and then going down the street and passing it out--you're taking money away from someone for services rendered. Sort of like if you're at a restaurant and you walk by a dozen empty tables, and swipe the tips from each one--it's not kind of sort of wrong or kind of sort of stealing, it's you doing something you shouldn't be doing.
And so it doesn't matter that it's your face, or your family, or belongs to the departed, or any other factors--because all of that is out-weighed by the bit where it is a FEDERAL LAW. You own the picture, sure--just like you own the movie or the song--but you don't own the right to replicate an infinate amount of copies without the original artist's permission.
And so it's been my experience working in a photo lab (albiet not for Walmart) that it's the general public's fault more often than not. Firstly, for being unaware of the guidelines and thinking the poor sap behind the counter (or the company they represent) is just trying to be a jerk-face--and then second, by thinking the guidelines don't apply to them, once they realize what they are. But, what can you expect from a society where those who complain the most get what they want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This came up with music, specifically, because of MP3 players. We buy CDs and then upload them and put the MP3s on the ipods, etc. That's not copywrite because you own the music for YOUR use. So your argument is wrong here. otherwise, we would have no way to load our ipods and specifically other mp3 players, especially early on in that technology.
And usually, copywrite for music/movies/etc has to do with making money...
it seems to be different for pictures, but i'm not sure that i agree it should be. not for standard family/personal portraits anyway...
if i pay someone to take my family portrait, obviously i'm not going to be standing on the side of the road selling copies of it to make money...
and if you have the CD, you obviously have the rights to print the images.... otherwise what the heck would you do with the CD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You made your case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about photographers having their own work printed out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about photographers having their own work printed out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walmart's Copyright Policy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uhm...
I even buy it on my kid's school pictures. It's $5 and you can print it right off from the CD the pics come on... Why isn't everyone doing this?
Better yet... buy your own printer and handle this at home? For $300 (it was actually free with my camera after a rebate?) I got a really nice canon photo printer that prints up to 14x18 or some such size... way more than I'll ever need probably...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
printing your own pictures
They are not trained individuals that are taught what to look for. They are just going by their own judgement. I send the same pictures to Shutterfly or even a professional lab for printing and them print them with no problem.
I even had professional pictures that were given to me on a CD sent in to Shutterfly and a professional lab and wasn't questioned about copyrights.
I hate walmart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Give his old school a call and ask who took their school photos 9 years ago. Probably the same company that did them since.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying pics at walmart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not giving us our family photos.
Wal-Mart literally just told my wife and I that we can't have our children's school pictures without consent, even going so far as to try taking the disc our photos were on, claiming they have to keep them for their files. Now we have to jump through hurdles just to get our pictures from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not giving us our family photos.
Wal-Mart is correct. You paid for prints, you didn't purchase the copyright to their artwork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]