The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Wal-Mart Bans Old Photo Scans, Claims Copyright is 'Forever'
boingboing.net — Someone visited Wal-Mart tried to duplicate some 100 year old photos at Wal-Mart and they were informed that since the photo was taken by a studio, it was "copyrighted" which "meant it was not allowed to be copied" by anyone, at any time. These old photos were unmarked and all of the copyright holders are unknown or quite possibly dead.
MakiMaki- 1584 diggs
- digg it
- nafai, on 08/12/2008, -8/+125Mindless lemming works @ Wal-Mart, amazing stuff!
- honemasterT, on 08/12/2008, -2/+8Exactly.. why go there in the first place? you can get cheaper online,
suppose if you dont have access to a scanner then that's another thing.- ptsuk, on 08/12/2008, -0/+7Sadly this isn't really all that "uncommon". It also doesn't happen at just walmart.
the problem is that "most" people don't think things through to their logical conclusion.
Many people have a "family photo" done by a pro, you know the kind, mottled backdrop, sears/kmart kiddie photos(do they even have those anymore?) and a big old "watermark" on the lower righthand corner (or left) with the pro's name or logo.
People walk right into the store and want to enlarge pics, or make copies for various family members, etc.
This is when those people get a nice dose of "copyright law" as most places will not reproduce the photograph. Yes the photograph may be of you, but it is owned by the photographer, and in "ye olde" days gone by is how they made money after the fact.
However if you've had the foresight to scan the pic ahead of time, and either crop out the watermark or using photoshop, there is no way from them to tell you no if you use the scanned images from a cd or SD card.
being that these pics were 100 years old (if true, not sure how you could substantiate that) the copyright would be 28 years (with options to renew from the looks of it if it was taken before 1976/78, after its supposed to be 70+/life of author or 120/life of author.
in general if your not getting the service you need and the person is being a pain behind the counter go elsewhere but don't be surprised that you'll find this view elsewhere, so you may have to get a sympathetic person to duplicate them for you (or family member who can do the dirty work to circumvent this absurd law). - apothekari, on 08/13/2008, -2/+2I used to work in a Ritz Camera years ago, Here's the Deal.
If People came in to copy pictures and use our equipment {whether WE helped them or not}WE were held liable if someone decided to sue.
End of story.
YES it sucked that grandma had that picture taken at 15 and Henry Ford took it himself.
BUT people in our company had been sued/as had Wal Mart/as had Everyone at some point who'd done this type of thing.
Yes we were allowed to get someone to sign that they owned the copyright in certain cases but the big picture is this.
Most of these people are Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more trouble than its worth.
First there's an argument with Grandma that even though its her in the photo.
That the copyright belonged to the photographer "Henry Ford" whos studio mark was on the photo.
Second comes the 6 hour and 45 minute ordeal of shame wherein Grandma pesters berates and cajoles you over the dogeared,stained, degraded copy she brought in and NOW expects you to "FIX" it like her cousin Jolene's picture.{Which her grandson with a 5000 dollar photoshop, digital darkroom setup did for her}
Third is the "OH DEAR ME Why is that so expensive it's only ONE picture" ordeal in which Grandma finally gets pissed off and refuses to pay for the Bataan death march of a customer experience you just went through.
Fourth you go to prison for 5-10 for following Grandma out to the parking lot and beating the ***** out of her while explaining how copyright is copyright and how this probably affects her dismal life waaay more than the other more serious issues she "VOTES" on like gay marriage and "Goin' to Iraq to stop 911".
Finally your bitter heart seizes writing a rant about......it several years later......urrrkkk.......
!!
??
. - sh1tman, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0@apothekari
Simply excellent rant.
- ptsuk, on 08/12/2008, -0/+7Sadly this isn't really all that "uncommon". It also doesn't happen at just walmart.
- SPRFRKR, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9I agree that it is lame he was told copyright is forever, but I honestly don't expect the average Wal Mart employee to know much about copyright law and the fact that Disney keeps lobbying to extend the term every time Mickey Mouse approaches public domain. Even if they are in the photo dept.
- Hrodrik, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3They're just part of the establishment. Now go away and consume what you are allowed to.
- tacojohn48, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3Target is much more lenient on this. Also most Targets have a Kodak lab which is much better than the Fuji labs they run at Walmart. There are some other things Target is more lenient on ( . )( . )
- kiantech, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3no its really true. I went to walmart and wanted to by an Airsoft gun. I go to the register and the lady is like oh are you 18 (I'm 17), swear this is how I responded, "uhhhhhhh yeahhhhhhhhh," she says well I need to check your ID. So I'm like oh *****, so I hand her my CA ID, it's 2006 at the time, which has a blue strip that says age 18 in 2007 which is above another red strip that says age 21 in 2010. She looks at the ID and stares at it for awhile I start to get nervous, and she is like ohhh okay. And finishes. Then my friend behind me is buys the same gun and is the same age, she goes oh I already checked yours and you are here so I dont need to check his. After we left, we laughed and to this day remember, how dumb walmart employees are.
- tacojohn48, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1At Target the register prompts us to scan the barcode on the license. If the barcode doesn't scan we have to type the birthdate. So if the cashier missed it our registers would have caught it. Of course that isn't what you wanted, but is the desired way for the retailer.
- honemasterT, on 08/12/2008, -2/+8Exactly.. why go there in the first place? you can get cheaper online,
- Sheff, on 08/12/2008, -52/+6Actually this a good thing. The Orphan Works Bill would enable you to steal from other photographers and artists and they would then have pay the legal bills to prove that you stole from them. And even if they could prove it, you would only get minimal monetary compensation for them using your art without permission.
I'm an artist and I have a bunch of images that I have created over my career. Just because I'm dead doesn't mean that my copyright no longer exists anyone can use my art for their financial benefit. I intend to transfer my reprographic rights to my family. I don't want some random ***** using my art without paying for it.- Nazuel, on 08/12/2008, -20/+11Copyright is theft. If your ***** kids didn't do the art then why should they get a lifetime of ease just because you were a decent artist? Everyone should work for what they have, not just have it handed to them because their parents birthed them. That is the underpinnings of class structure. Everyone learns their base abilities in public schools and / or society. Claiming your work is just yours and no one elses in spite of the fact you benefited from the rest of society thus enabling your work is just selfish. Buried your ass for being a regressive reactionary.
- Sraza, on 08/12/2008, -5/+64You actually think it's a good thing that someone can't copy a picture of their grandparents because the artist has a copyright?
I'm sorry but that's ***** retarded.- sancho320, on 08/12/2008, -0/+7This is from the U.S. Copyright Office FAQs page
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?
Photocopying shops, photography stores and other photo developing stores are often reluctant to make reproductions of old photographs for fear of violating the copyright law and being sued. These fears are not unreasonable, because copy shops have been sued for reproducing copyrighted works and have been required to pay substantial damages for infringing copyrighted works. The policy established by a shop is a business decision and risk assessment that the business is entitled to make, because the business may face liability if they reproduce a work even if they did not know the work was copyrighted.
In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a “copy” of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the “work” – is distinct from the “work” itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer’s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a “fair use” under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. However, even if a person determines a use to be a “fair use” under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person’s assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law. - Sraza, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8Thanks for the info. The more I learn about copyright the more messed up it seems.
- sancho320, on 08/12/2008, -0/+7This is from the U.S. Copyright Office FAQs page
- kingmanic, on 08/12/2008, -0/+18Art builds on older works. If the brother Grimm's estate held perpetual copyright to their works then Disney would have been SOL. Similarly I doubt your work is 100% original as there really aren't that many ideas out there. Many great works of art are built on top of other great works of art or on other not so great work (See Shakespeare).
While you deserve compensation for you work, there ought to be a time limit else it becomes stifling to new works. No matter how hard you try to be original you will often unintentionally mimic the work of others. Thus long copyright drowns creativity. - stradf, on 08/12/2008, -3/+10Shut up, you're an idiot.
- artfiend77, on 08/12/2008, -1/+14As an artist myself, I think you're ***** retarded. First off, where is someone going to get a GOOD copy of my work that they will be able to use for their own purposes? What's stopping anyone from using my work on my own site ( which is all watermarked by the way)? What the hell can some do with a PHOTOCOPY of my work? And if someone does manage to get their hands on one of my pieces and uses it to their advantage to make money, GOOD. I'll sue them, it's as simple as that.
Don't give people access to pieces that they can use for commercial reasons and you'll be fine. Finally, if someone is taking a DAMN photocopy of your work do you really think they are using it for commercial purposes? - Travelsonic, on 08/12/2008, -1/+15"Just because I'm dead doesn't mean that my copyright no longer exists anyone can use my art for their financial benefit."
If a certain amount of time passes, then yes it does.
Read up on copyright, you'll find out a lot.- maxgoedjen, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6Just in case anyone's wondering, it's 70 years after death.
- tomarocco, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3I'd prefer you didn't refer to me as "some random *****".
- DeskFlyer, on 08/12/2008, -2/+83Why would you go to Walmart to do this when there are at least 2 nearby Walgreens in the area:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&geocode=&q=w ...- FirEnRain432, on 08/12/2008, -18/+4ok i would like to just take a moment to tell you all that i am back. i know you all hate walmart, and with mostly good cause, but you are all wrong. is walmart the best thing thats ever happened to this world? maybe but i wont touch upon that too much right now. ive been to atleast 43 walmarts in my life and i have to say that i really like to eat wood-fired pizza. it is really good, almost as good as the time that musician/actor shaq oneal commented on the future of beanie babies. if you never heard shaq's speech on the subject you are going to be in for a big surprise. i am a huge fan of the band genesis. i think fill collins is one of the greatest musicians of all time, but gym morrison and kneel young arent bad either. until next time! please dont be too greedy when it comes to purchasing newspapers!
- TrueXtremeIcon, on 08/12/2008, -0/+11I think my head just exploded.
- appleofdischord, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5Are you retarded?
- werries, on 08/12/2008, -2/+1who the ***** do you think you are? gtfo our internet!
- sh1tman, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1mad skillz
- Tomchei, on 08/12/2008, -8/+3Because Walgreens is even more SS in that regard.
Every single time I've seen someone scan, there is an employee there to ask to see the photos. - Yarmin3, on 08/12/2008, -3/+7Walgreen's has denied me printing photos due to copyright. It was a scanned copy of a studio taken photograph, but I scanned it and photoshopped out the studio logo, just they denied me just because it looked professional. Who said that I didn't take this myself? At what point does it become my own piece of proprietary art? If I scan 200 studio portraits, alter colors, crop and mix and match them into a large mosaic picture is each photo still copyrighted under each studio?
- turpenine, on 08/12/2008, -0/+10yes but you can use them because you have rights as an artist and can sell the piece as a whole but must have new prints for each sale from the original studio/vendor of the photos you used. If you aren't selling it/using it for anything commercial/ or are doing art for art-sake then you are fine and need not pay royalties
- StandardsDT, on 08/12/2008, -3/+7Having been a Walgreens Photo Tech in the past I can tell you that Walgreens has the same policy on Studio Photographs. However we were more lenient about older Studio photos.
As for the photo you said you scanned and edited in photoshop. Most of the employees like myself are very familiar with things edited in photoshop. What made my job easier was the fact I had taken photo classes. We or I should say the photo techs at Walgreens have to deny anything that looks professional and have to tell you that you can bring it up with a manager.
And if you took them yourself "professionally" then why the hell are you bringing them to Walgreens? You clearly have enough money to print them yourself if you have the equipment to take them.
The only ones we were ever really strict about were the Disney ones or anything of that sort. Again you have to understand that the technicians can't control corporate policy. Now a days even some studios give a letter with the photo's giving permission for duplication.
I know it's a BS policy and all but there's nothing we/they can do about it. Have a problem with it? Bring it up with the store manager, sometimes they are willing to make a deal with you as the customer as long as your polite. But never mess with the photo techs as they can't do a thing about it. Don't yell at them and don't treat them as if they are scum because they are every day people like you and me trying to make some kind of income and living.
Having worked there I can say that it certainly taught me to be kind, patient and appreciative of the people who work in retail and to put things back where they belong. For example once I was closing and some customer put Ice Cream in the Cereal Isle on the top shelf and no one noticed until it came time to face the Isles. It had been sitting there for a while, at least an hr I would say as all of the Ice Cream had melted.
Sure the management sucked but it was great experience and definitely teaches you some Morals and Values. - adikt, on 08/12/2008, -2/+9You just admitted that they weren't your photos..... so they did their job by not letting you copy them.
- Yarmin3, on 08/13/2008, -1/+6I took digital imaging classes in college, and trust me, you couldn't tell the studio logo was photoshopped out. The picture looked professional but with a nice camera you can make something look the same if you know what you're doing.
I just don't like the fact that they would deny making prints because in their judgment it looked professional, even though it had no indicator it was. It's kind of like stopping a Mexican on the street and asking for a birth certificate or ID because they look like they're illegal. They may be illegal but It's against civil liberties to ask just because they don't look American. You can find plenty of U.S. citizens that don't look legal. - dougmc, on 08/13/2008, -0/+7`You clearly have enough money to print them yourself if you have the equipment to take them.'
Huh? Even a basic DSLR can take *great* pictures if the person behind the camera knows what he's doing. $400 will buy you the equipment to take them. Sure, you could print them with a $60 photo printer -- but Walgreens has much better printing equipment, and at $0.10/picture, why not? - StandardsDT, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2"Walgreens has much better printing equipment"
You've never worked in the Photo Lab of Walgreens have you?
The store I was at had an Agfa D-Lab 1. The machine was crap and kept breaking and destroyed customers film. After I left they got a new machine that is top of the line, but I've seen home printers, high quality photo printers that print better then the machines at Walgreens. - greyhoundx, on 10/21/2008, -0/+0Ok, for all you amateur lawyers here's the scoop: As a photographer and non-lawyer I've studied [to my best] the aspects of copyright law that pertain to photography. I have to say the opinions here are not based in fact and not what copyright law says. And it is law, enforceable by fines ranging from $750 to $30,000 PER IMAGE. Have I got your attention yet? That does get the attention of any responsible photo processor, and explains why they can be so cautious when reproducing images.
In general to keep this short: Whoever takes a photograph owns the copyright, unless they sign it over in writing or grant a 'use' license in so form (personal, commercial, etc). The copyright is for a period of the photographer's life plus 50 years. So that can add up a large number. Not knowing when or if a person died and without a date on an old photo, how does a photo processor know when the copyright has expired? They don't obviously. There is legislation on the horizon regarding 'orphaned works' but it's not law yet in any way, so we won't go there.
Just because you're given a print of an image doesn't mean you have a right to copy it. A lot of photographers make a fair amount of their money on the prints that are produced from a wedding, party, portrait session, etc. There are times when I shoot a friend's baby for free and I give them a 'Personal Use' copyright release form, allowing them to make prints and use the photos for themselves, but not allowing them to sell or use them in any way to profit or gain from the images. Your photographer can give you the same type of release, although it can be abused by people you don't know well - so some pros don't do it. And many don’t provide digital images.
Photography is NOT a high profit business for 95% of the pros out there. 90% of their time is spent running the business. So if they work 50 hours a week that gives them 5 hours of shooting on average per week as billable hours. Selling prints is another way to add a little income. And from New Years Day until March or April is dead or slow time for a lot of photographers. If a pro clears $50,000 a year after costs and before taxes, they're doing pretty good. Hollywood paparazzi might get big bucks for a few photos, but it's akin to winning the lottery.
Photoshopping out a 'watermark' to make copies is stealing, plain and simple. Same as stealing software from work or shoplifting. Don't get defensive, either you steal or you don't.
As for the person that said they took many other photos and made them into a 'collage' that was theirs - wrong. Derivative works is the proper term here, and the copyright holder alone has the right to create derivative works from their copyrighted material, unless the right is legally signed over to someone else.
Photographers want people to see and appreciate their work. But it also is the only way for most pay all the bills and put food on the table. I'm sure you don't work for free, and neither do we. You don't go into photography to get rich, but it's a great way to get poor !
I hope this has helped clarify things somewhat for everyone.
For more information you really need to read "Legal Handbook for Photographers" 2nd Edition by Bert Krages (a lawyer specializing in copyright law for photography and some other areas.
http://www.krages.com/
- Comp1demon, on 08/12/2008, -8/+6I don;t care who took them. If It is MY PICTURE and I paid for it it's my photo plain and simple. I asked the dude who I hired who took my Wedding Photos if once I recieved the CD rom of all the Pictures if I can do with them as I pleased and he said - Yes - You are paying me to take them and you agreed to a package where I will take a certain number of photos and frame them and put them in a book for you.. but since I am giving you all the Files on a CD (full resolution like 2-3MB each) and you own the CD you can reporoduce them as many times as you want for friends and family, that what (NOW LISTEN HERE HIS WORDS NOT MINE) "So you don;t have to waste time scanning the proofs and have my logo in the pictues." I also read my contract it says that every photo given to me is MINE and I give the studio permission to use MY photos for Portfolo use only, there was a clause that I could have signed to let him use my pictutes in Advertising - but I denied that - I don;t my wife and I all over billboards and his web site. Walmart is just plain stupid - 100+ yr old photo has not copywrite anymore.
- adikt, on 08/12/2008, -2/+6That is your opinion. But just because that is how you feel does not rewrite copyright law. Nor does the opinion of a professional photographer.
- EtherGnat, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9The photos are yours to do with as you wish because he signed over the rights to you as part of the contract, something he did not have to do and in fact is atypical. Unless the rights are explicitly transferred to you they remain with the photographer.
In situations like weddings I think that's ridiculous, and I wish I had known to negotiate for that when I got married, but it's still the law. - greyhoundx, on 10/21/2008, -0/+0Ok, for all you amateur lawyers here's the scoop: As a photographer and non-lawyer I've studied [to my best] the aspects of copyright law that pertain to photography. I have to say the opinions here are not based in fact and not what copyright law says. And it is law, enforceable by fines ranging from $750 to $30,000 PER IMAGE. Have I got your attention yet? That does get the attention of any responsible photo processor, and explains why they can be so cautious when reproducing images.
In general to keep this short: Whoever takes a photograph owns the copyright, unless they sign it over in writing or grant a 'use' license in so form (personal, commercial, etc). The copyright is for a period of the photographer's life plus 50 years. So that can add up a large number. Not knowing when or if a person died and without a date on an old photo, how does a photo processor know when the copyright has expired? They don't obviously. There is legislation on the horizon regarding 'orphaned works' but it's not law yet in any way, so we won't go there.
Just because you're given a print of an image doesn't mean you have a right to copy it. A lot of photographers make a fair amount of their money on the prints that are produced from a wedding, party, portrait session, etc. There are times when I shoot a friend’s baby for free and I give them a 'Personal Use' copyright release form, allowing them to make prints and use the photos for themselves, but not allowing them to sell or use them in any way to profit or gain from the images. Your photographer can give you the same type of release, although it can be abused by people you don't know well - so some pros don't do it. And many don’t provide digital images.
Photography is NOT a high profit business for 95% of the pros out there. 90% of their time is spent running the business. So if they work 50 hours a week that gives them 5 hours of shooting on average per week as billable hours. Selling prints is another way to add a little income. And from New Years Day until March or April is dead or slow time for a lot of photographers. If a pro clears $50,000 a year after costs and before taxes, they're doing pretty good. Hollywood paparazzi might get big bucks for a few photos, but it's akin to winning the lottery.
Photoshopping out a 'watermark' to make copies is stealing, plain and simple. Same as stealing software from work or shoplifting. Don't get defensive, either you steal or you don't.
As for the person that said they took many other photos and made them into a 'collage' that was theirs - wrong. Derivative works is the proper term here, and the copyright holder alone has the right to create derivative works from their copyrighted material, unless the right is legally signed over to someone else.
Photographers want people to see and appreciate their work. But it also is the only way for most pay all the bills and put food on the table. I'm sure you don't work for free, and neither do we. You don't go into photography to get rich, but it's a great way to get poor !
I hope this has helped clarify things somewhat for everyone.
For more information you really need to read "Legal Handbook for Photographers" 2nd Edition by Bert Krages (a lawyer specializing in copyright law for photography and some other areas.
http://www.krages.com/
- hipnerd, on 08/12/2008, -0/+18Walgreen's refused to give me prints of photos that I took myself because they were "professional." While I appreciated their appraisal of my photography skills, I wanted my damn photos and I had to create a scene and get a manager involved to get them. I've had similar problems at CostCo.
That reminds me of a few years ago when I used to write for some magazines, and I was trying to put together some clips packages to send to prospective employers. Kinkos wouldn't allow me to make copies of the articles because they were under copyright -- even though my name was on the byline.
As a sometimes content creator, I actually do appreciate that they attempt to stop people from infringing on copyright, but I wish they could do their job with just a touch of common sense.- StandardsDT, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1And you creating a scene is the reason why the Photo Techs and everyone in that store has issues with you. They allowed it because you were making a scene and they wanted you out of the store so they wouldn't lose any sales because YOU made the other customers feel uncomfortable.
Next time be respectful, ask for a manager and don't treat the Photo Techs like *****. - greyhoundx, on 10/21/2008, -0/+0Ok, for all you amateur lawyers here's the scoop: As a photographer and non-lawyer I've studied [to my best] the aspects of copyright law that pertain to photography. I have to say the opinions here are not based in fact and not what copyright law says. And it is law, enforceable by fines ranging from $750 to $30,000 PER IMAGE. Have I got your attention yet? That does get the attention of any responsible photo processor, and explains why they can be so cautious when reproducing images.
In general to keep this short: Whoever takes a photograph owns the copyright, unless they sign it over in writing or grant a 'use' license in so form (personal, commercial, etc). The copyright is for a period of the photographer's life plus 50 years. So that can add up a large number. Not knowing when or if a person died and without a date on an old photo, how does a photo processor know when the copyright has expired? They don't obviously. There is legislation on the horizon regarding 'orphaned works' but it's not law yet in any way, so we won't go there.
Just because you're given a print of an image doesn't mean you have a right to copy it. A lot of photographers make a fair amount of their money on the prints that are produced from a wedding, party, portrait session, etc. There are times when I shoot a friend’s baby for free and I give them a 'Personal Use' copyright release form, allowing them to make prints and use the photos for themselves, but not allowing them to sell or use them in any way to profit or gain from the images. Your photographer can give you the same type of release, although it can be abused by people you don't know well - so some pros don't do it. And many don’t provide digital images.
Photography is NOT a high profit business for 95% of the pros out there. 90% of their time is spent running the business. So if they work 50 hours a week that gives them 5 hours of shooting on average per week as billable hours. Selling prints is another way to add a little income. And from New Years Day until March or April is dead or slow time for a lot of photographers. If a pro clears $50,000 a year after costs and before taxes, they're doing pretty good. Hollywood paparazzi might get big bucks for a few photos, but it's akin to winning the lottery.
Photoshopping out a 'watermark' to make copies is stealing, plain and simple. Same as stealing software from work or shoplifting. Don't get defensive, either you steal or you don't.
As for the person that said they took many other photos and made them into a 'collage' that was theirs - wrong. Derivative works is the proper term here, and the copyright holder alone has the right to create derivative works from their copyrighted material, unless the right is legally signed over to someone else.
Photographers want people to see and appreciate their work. But it also is the only way for most pay all the bills and put food on the table. I'm sure you don't work for free, and neither do we. You don't go into photography to get rich, but it's a great way to get poor !
I hope this has helped clarify things somewhat for everyone.
For more information you really need to read "Legal Handbook for Photographers" 2nd Edition by Bert Krages (a lawyer specializing in copyright law for photography and some other areas).
http://www.krages.com/
- StandardsDT, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1And you creating a scene is the reason why the Photo Techs and everyone in that store has issues with you. They allowed it because you were making a scene and they wanted you out of the store so they wouldn't lose any sales because YOU made the other customers feel uncomfortable.
- dudefaceguyman, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4Slightly off topic:
I kind of hate Walgreens. The people there are freagin morons. I have a brittle bone disease and was at the time on CRUTCHES after a surgery. I hobbled in to fill my prescription and the ***** tried to push this religion ***** on me and refused to fill my vicodin....Let's just say in my rage he got fired and the manager moved to a new store.
You don't ***** with a guy that's in pain and is on a prescription for vicodin. Especially when they have two large metal sticks they can beat you with...
Funny thing is I went to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT walgreens in a new town...and they did the SAME EXACT *****! Whoever hires people at Walgreens are ***** morons. I fill at Longs now...- publiclurker, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1I think a better statement would be You don't ***** with a guy that's in pain and his vicodin is wearing off.
Around here all of the Wallgreens seem to be staffed with pretty competent people, and they get all of my families business. - dougmc, on 08/13/2008, -0/+7`You don't ***** with a guy that's in pain and his vicodin is wearing off.'
Nope. You make a medical drama about him and make millions!
- publiclurker, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1I think a better statement would be You don't ***** with a guy that's in pain and his vicodin is wearing off.
- FirEnRain432, on 08/12/2008, -18/+4ok i would like to just take a moment to tell you all that i am back. i know you all hate walmart, and with mostly good cause, but you are all wrong. is walmart the best thing thats ever happened to this world? maybe but i wont touch upon that too much right now. ive been to atleast 43 walmarts in my life and i have to say that i really like to eat wood-fired pizza. it is really good, almost as good as the time that musician/actor shaq oneal commented on the future of beanie babies. if you never heard shaq's speech on the subject you are going to be in for a big surprise. i am a huge fan of the band genesis. i think fill collins is one of the greatest musicians of all time, but gym morrison and kneel young arent bad either. until next time! please dont be too greedy when it comes to purchasing newspapers!
- FotoGeek, on 08/12/2008, -18/+9I think under current law the copyright in in effect for the life of the photographer + 100 years.
So 100 years after the photographer dies, the photo passes into the public domain and is free of all copyrights- M4v3rIC, on 08/12/2008, -8/+2I thought it was the life or Artist + 20.
- rivalius13, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1I thought life + 50 in America....
- borez, on 08/12/2008, -0/+14Actually it's 70 years.
- EtherGnat, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5To be more precise:
It's the "life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier." --Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998
Don't worry, it'll get extended again the next time some of Disney's work is in danger of falling into the public domain.
- EtherGnat, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5To be more precise:
- sancho, on 08/12/2008, -2/+45You're basically as bad as the Wal Mart drone.
Currently, works are protected for the life of the artist plus 70 years. For works for hire, the copyright is 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter.
For works created before Jan 1, 1978, registration or notice of copyright on the work was required for the copyright to exist, and as the poster mentioned, there was no copyright notice on these photos. Since they were taken in 1925, the lack of a notice (I'm sure that they were not registered as copyrighted) itself is enough for the photos to be public domain.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc- rdmillar, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3If I could digg your comment more than once, I would.
- marx2k, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3Dig him down once, dig him up twice
- ileftfark, on 08/12/2008, -2/+6I thought it was 18 and Life. To go.
- fearstriken, on 08/12/2008, -1/+11I work at Walgreens and we are allowed by law to reproduce pictures if it does not hinder the original photographers chance of making a profit from the pictures, thus a 100 year image would be okay to copy.
- sinfony, on 08/12/2008, -2/+4Forgive me for questioning the mighty wisdom of Walgreens, but unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work could still subject you to liability, whether the copyright owner's ability to profit is harmed or not. Have a look at §§501 and 504(c) of Title 17.
Of course, also keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and I might be wrong. - DrPh0bius, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1I hear what you are saying, but there is the matter of copyright law to consider, and law is not open to an individuals (or Walgreens) interpretation. Can you honestly say you have checked to see that the photographer of the picture, his estate or the studio who would hold rights to that picture are not still in business?
If they are, you are hindering their chance to make a profit by having the people circumvent the photographer, estate, or studio who legally owns the photograph and coming to Walgreens to have the photo reproduced.
But I do appreciate what youre saying (and a misguided attempt to do what is right, no sarcasm intended!)... but I wouldnt want to be the employee who finds them self looking at a lawsuit for violating the copyright, because I have a feeling that Walgreens wouldnt step up to bat for you and say "Dont blame him, blame us!" - reiggin, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1I also work at Walgreens and you're ALMOST right. A manager can make a decision regarding "fair use" and you are also allowed to copy a photo for restoration if it is damaged and needs repair (which is a send-out service Walgreens offers). But Walgreens is still liable for copyright infringement (to the tune of $10,000 per offense... which means per print) and all photo techs have to agree to abide by Walgreens' guidelines.
Walgreens also has a copyright release form that includes a section in which the customer can declare that that they have either tried to contact the original photographer/studio (via the PPA phone number on the form), know that the photographer is deceased/studio out of business, are using the photograph for "fair use" (they have to list their reason and then the manager reviews it), or they themselves are the photographer and have full rights to it.
If the customer says they are the photographer and the photograph is obviously professional, we'll ask for a business card or letterhead to identify them as such.
I recently had to explain copyrights to one customer with her son's school photos and afterwards, the customer next in line thanked me profusely as he himself was a professional photographer. While plenty of customers simply want a copy of great grandma's baby picture, there are also many, many more who just want to find a way to be cheap and not have to pay their wedding photographer for additional copies.
You'd be surprised how many people think that if they submit them online (walgreens.com, Snapfish.com, etc.), no human will ever look at them and they can get away with making copies of their cruise ship pics or their bridal portrait. But in actuality, every order is reviewed before it is "dropped" for printing and processing.
- sinfony, on 08/12/2008, -2/+4Forgive me for questioning the mighty wisdom of Walgreens, but unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work could still subject you to liability, whether the copyright owner's ability to profit is harmed or not. Have a look at §§501 and 504(c) of Title 17.
- tomarocco, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1It's as long as it takes to download the torrent from the Pirate Bay.
- M4v3rIC, on 08/12/2008, -8/+2I thought it was the life or Artist + 20.
- greevar, on 08/12/2008, -26/+46That is complete *****. You hire someone to take family portraits, but the rights to those photos belong to the photographer? That's *****! Why should anyone have the right to say I can't copy photos of my family because it was taken by a studio and they own the copyrights to them?
- nogami, on 08/12/2008, -4/+39Because like anything other piece of art, the artist is the photographer, not the subject. Many studios will waive their reproduction rights, but they'll probably charge an extra fee for it. Otherwise, choose a different photographer/studio, and get the reproduction rights in writing.
Or you could just buy a high quality scanner and photo-quality printer and make your own duplicates.- poppabk, on 08/12/2008, -23/+1Because otherwise the photographer would be your employee and you would therefore have to pay their taxes, social security etc while they were under your employ.
- thall, on 08/12/2008, -0/+22@poppabk, there are other business arrangements besides employer/employee.
- cawpin, on 08/12/2008, -0/+20Almost all photo places are that way. That's why we found a freelancer to shoot our wedding. She shot in all digital and gave us all the base images and she requested no rights to them. She was also MUCH cheaper than somebody that does it for their main profession.
- flyingwolf, on 08/12/2008, -18/+1And you probably got crap photos from someone who purchased their first DSLR and just wanted the experience.
- snoozevmw, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9More and more event photographers operate in this manner; digital originals (usually converted from RAW) are passed on to party to do whatever they wish. The photographer makes his money of the albums, post processing work, and generally a few print packages that are 'included' in the base package price.
Studio photographers still, in general, operate under older business models. - Travelsonic, on 08/12/2008, -2/+12flyingwolf,
you are an idiot.
freelance != crap. Your stereotype is laughable. Thanks for blowing your credibility so willingly. - tghd, on 08/12/2008, -5/+2I'm with flying wolf on this one, being a photographer myself Ive run into a few "freelancers" (incorrect use of the word) and the majority of the time the work is crap, not always but the majority. This is all relative though as most people are perfectly content with the crap they get from said "freelancers".
- flyingwolf, on 08/13/2008, -5/+1Travelsonic,
Chances are your probably one of the "freelancers". - jstem1994, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1As in most things, you get what you pay for.
- Travelsonic, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1flyingwolf,
chances are you were dropped on your head as a kid.
"chances are you are one of those freelancers."
No, I do this retarded little thing, it's called THINKING!
- nikothefinn, on 08/12/2008, -1/+14This happened to a friend. They got a really good photographer for their wedding, and he wouldn't give them the rights NOR the digital high-res versions of the pics. Now, if they ever want a reprint, they have to pay an extortionate price and get them from the photographer (like $20-$30 per print).
To be fair, the pictures were amazing, but they were really pissed off. Guess they should have read the fine print...- flyingwolf, on 08/12/2008, -12/+6And thats why you read what you sign, they had a CHOICE when hiring this photographer, the fact they did not read the fine print, or in this case possibly the single page normal print contract does not release them from their stupidity.
After they get divorced and hire a photog for the new wedding then they will read the fine print, or not. - plummerbob, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4That's pretty much the standard way it's done. If you want the digital files, then you need to make sure that's in the contract.
- secrity, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6This is common practice with many wedding photographers.
- ColdDimSum, on 08/12/2008, -9/+5To be fair, photographers do this because they basically shoot the wedding for free or at least below cost and hope to eek out something approximating a living on the proceeds from picture sales. If you don't like it then don't sign the contract and you will pay a much much higher fee to have the wedding photographed and/or you will get crap pictures.
Also, some cheap print out at wal-mart isn't going to be nearly the same as the professional print (and for better photographers that includes a human going over the photo in detail doing touch-ups) so you can't really compare those prices either. $20-30 for a professional wedding print is cheap unless it's a very small one. - FairDinkumMate, on 08/13/2008, -0/+8@ColdDim Sum - Wedding photographers shoot for free?
I've worked in the wedding industry for over 15 years & the prices are & always have been exorbitant. There are a very few, really excellent wedding photographers that are worth every penny, but the majority are just average photographers that aren't good enough to work as photo-journalists or professional artists so they shoot weddings.
Any photographer that isn't good enough to charge enough to shoot the wedding & deliver the first set of prints shouldn't be in the business! In my expereince, the best photographers are the ones that are more likely to sign over copyright because they know they're in a service industry & 2 more jobs from word of mouth recommendations is much better than holding someone's precious memories to ransom for $20.
- flyingwolf, on 08/12/2008, -12/+6And thats why you read what you sign, they had a CHOICE when hiring this photographer, the fact they did not read the fine print, or in this case possibly the single page normal print contract does not release them from their stupidity.
- thall, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5For stupid cases like that just write up a mock permission slip and print it out on some homemade letterhead with your name & ph # on it, then pull it out when Walmart complains. Likely the employee won't follow it further than that.
- flyingwolf, on 08/12/2008, -12/+3However when the photog finds out and sues you for intellectual copyright violations you will be hard pressed to convince the judge putting the lien on your house to go easy on you.
- thall, on 08/12/2008, -0/+12@flyingwolf, the photographer that snapped a family photo decades earlier will find out that Walmart scanned it in and will sue, eh? I think your chances of getting hit by a bus are slightly higher.
- flyingwolf, on 08/13/2008, -2/+2Ok yes, admittedly for this case its pointless, this is a stupid wal-mart employee. However the stupidity of the employee does not allow you to create an illegal release.
However try that when you want your studio or lifetouch pics done and your liable to wind up on the wrong side of a legal battle.
- JFetch, on 08/12/2008, -4/+8The copyright law says the copyright for contracted work goes to who the work was done for.
- reiggin, on 08/12/2008, -3/+5Wrong. The only case in which it is not so is if you are the employee of a studio. In that case, the studio owns the copyright. But the CUSTOMER never owns it, unless it is transferred to them by the photographer/studio.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html ...
>>"The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person." - EricAnderton, on 08/13/2008, -2/+3JFetch is correct here. The key word here is "contracted". The photograph is thereby a "work for hire." Look it up.
- davecor, on 08/13/2008, -1/+2Yep, I work for hire. I sell all copyrights with the job.
Traditionally the copyright belongs to the person who took the photo, and the law supports that model.
Now that people can own the equipment to make reproductions, I think that law will have to be changed.
I think the laws will have to change, and to make a living as a photographer, you'll have to charge all your fees up front. - Vulcan, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Copyright assignment through work-for-hire by an independent contractor only happens when there is written agreement between the parties that the work is a work made for hire. Work done by an employee is more likely to be automatically considered work done for hire. Before saying "he was hired to do this, therefore he is an employee", consider issues such as who owned the equipment, whether the employer is in the business of producing such works, and did the employer make payment withholdings for taxes.
For a fuller treatment, see:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
- reiggin, on 08/12/2008, -3/+5Wrong. The only case in which it is not so is if you are the employee of a studio. In that case, the studio owns the copyright. But the CUSTOMER never owns it, unless it is transferred to them by the photographer/studio.
- DrPh0bius, on 08/12/2008, -2/+5You can always buy a tripod and set the timer on your own camera if you dont like it...
- Idietired, on 08/13/2008, -3/+3JFetch got it right -
If you shoot a photo, and you get paid for that photo, the rights to that photo belong to whoever paid for it unless explicitly expressed otherwise in writing.
I own first-rights to every photo I didn't publish at my paper, and second-rights to everything I did publish, even though I used their cameras to shoot everything while I was there.
If it's their family's photo, they have the right to make as many copies as they want.
This Wal-Mart employee (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) was probably parroting some half-assed company policy handed down by a string of middle-managers who know nothing on the subject and will do anything not to get sued considering the giant bulls-eye on Wal-Mart's back already.
Frankly, I think their biggest mistake was taking something that delicate to a Wal-Mart. You wanna save cash by shopping there? Fine, but if you've got something that old, it needs to be taken to a real print shop (oh yeah ... they still exist).- flyingwolf, on 08/13/2008, -1/+0This is how it works when your hired by a COMPANY to work for them as a photog.
When a couple asks you to shoot for them for the wedding however then they go off of that contract and the photog owns the copyright, case law supports it clearly. - Idietired, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Can we at least agree that you don't take 100 year-old photos to Wal-Mart to get copies?
- flyingwolf, on 08/13/2008, -1/+0This is how it works when your hired by a COMPANY to work for them as a photog.
- nogami, on 08/12/2008, -4/+39Because like anything other piece of art, the artist is the photographer, not the subject. Many studios will waive their reproduction rights, but they'll probably charge an extra fee for it. Otherwise, choose a different photographer/studio, and get the reproduction rights in writing.
- honemasterT, on 08/12/2008, -6/+43costco FTW! My wife was grilled to the Nth degree when we took a file I CREATED IN PHOTOSHOP that was a composite of several different photos. They kept asking 'who took the photo' She said 'my husband' (they didnt believe her) whatever..
Costco is just down the street and includes Color profiles for proofing in Photoshop anyways.
Wal-Mart != professional photography more like 'ghetto' photography, stupid- kuwan, on 08/12/2008, -2/+9You imply that Costco == Professional Photography which is not correct.
- ldkronos, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5Well, Costco is very professional about their photo lab. They take quality very seriously, going so far as to provide color profiles for each printer in each store for each type of paper available.
Because a large part of Costco's business model is centered around being a supplier for businesses, they are very understanding about professional photographers using their lab to do printing (there are tons of photographers that do so). If they have any suspicions, they simply ask for a business card and for you to fill out a form to indicate that you are the photographer and have rights to reproduce it.
- ldkronos, on 08/13/2008, -0/+5Well, Costco is very professional about their photo lab. They take quality very seriously, going so far as to provide color profiles for each printer in each store for each type of paper available.
- DrPh0bius, on 08/12/2008, -7/+2Just because it is a composite of numerous photos doesnt mean that the copyright of the original photos used in the composite is invalid.
I couldnt tell by your post if the photos were in fact taken by your husband, so maybe they were... Im just making the point that a composition of photos that are copyrighted is still considered a use of copyrighted material unless they have been altered in some way that offers them protection under another law, such as altering them in a satirical way, which would give you protection since satire and parody are protected free speech.- jbmcb, on 08/13/2008, -1/+5They kept asking 'who took the photo' She said 'my husband'
I'm pretty sure by this he means that he took the pictures.
- jbmcb, on 08/13/2008, -1/+5They kept asking 'who took the photo' She said 'my husband'
- jbmcb, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4I've heard that Costco photo developing is the best you can get at a mass-market retailer. It has something to do with the training they get, it's pretty good and tightly regulated at the corporate level. I've had a few bad prints from them, but nothing like the rolls of duds I've gotten from Ritz or the mangling of the pharmacy chains.
- omgsideburns, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1Walmart has some of the best development around here other than studio labs. The one hour places around here have terrible equipment. Walmart always has new equipment and fresh chemicals. Sad but true. =(
- kuwan, on 08/12/2008, -2/+9You imply that Costco == Professional Photography which is not correct.
- krnldmp, on 08/12/2008, -8/+59Do not give fascists money.
- D14BL0, on 08/12/2008, -12/+4Just give the competition an extra $1.25 for milk, instead.
- dagnome1984, on 08/12/2008, -9/+2Thank you idiot for the input.
- socalftw, on 08/12/2008, -16/+8those photos belong to John McCain.
- sh1tman, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0^^retard
- borez, on 08/12/2008, -8/+1I hate jobsworths, wish a passion.
- credential101, on 08/12/2008, -23/+431. Copy off consumerist.
2. Upload to own website.
3. Make front page
4. Profit- thenewkasanova, on 08/12/2008, -2/+22You forgot ?????????
- rivalius13, on 08/12/2008, -2/+41You're doing it wrong.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 08/12/2008, -0/+13Umm, this story originated on Boing Boing. The Consumerist got it from them.
- Technoidatx, on 08/12/2008, -4/+0I see what you did there.
- ryan83189, on 08/12/2008, -0/+10boingboing had it first, as noted in the first line of the consumerist article.
- sancho, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1And yet this guy keeps getting dugg up. Sad.
- D14BL0, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2I don't think you get it. Boingboing was the first to post it, not Consumerist.
So yes, digg up the guy who posted the Boingboing article. - SkippyDoorknob, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2No, I don't think YOU get it.
credential101 is complaining that it was copied from Consumerist - and he keeps getting dugg up for making that claim, despite it being wrong. - tomarocco, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Journalism is so unfair.
- sancho, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1And yet this guy keeps getting dugg up. Sad.
- slugicide, on 08/12/2008, -0/+7Go back 2 internet school.
- Vodd9, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1You forgot between 2 and 3: Be MakiMaki
- tawong, on 08/12/2008, -7/+20Dude, where's my scanner?
- fety, on 08/12/2008, -3/+1oh noes!! my newer computer doesn't have a parallel port or even a SCSI port!! nooooo!!!!1!1!one1
- imasuperDOTcom, on 08/12/2008, -12/+21Why the hell would you have Walmart scan your photographs?
And since when is Walmart smart enough to even know that a photographer could potentially own a photograph. Isn't the photo counter stocked with a bunch of retarded, couldn't even get a job at mcdonalds, teenagers?- jbmcb, on 08/13/2008, -1/+4"Isn't the photo counter stocked with a bunch of retarded, couldn't even get a job at mcdonalds, teenagers?"
Generalize much? - misterjangles, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Walmart corporate definitely knows that their employees are not qualified to make copyright-related decisions. That's why they have ridiculous policies like this just to keep themselves out of legal trouble.
- jbmcb, on 08/13/2008, -1/+4"Isn't the photo counter stocked with a bunch of retarded, couldn't even get a job at mcdonalds, teenagers?"
- angelad, on 08/12/2008, -9/+44Who the hell is this employee and why do they take their job so seriously? That is really pathetic.
- thelastcivilian, on 08/12/2008, -13/+8Wal-Mart: A place for high-school kids, old folks long past their pensions, rednecks and the mentally disturbed. I'd say the employee falls into that last category.
- docbob84, on 08/13/2008, -2/+2If those are the people it takes to have pride in their job, I say good for them. It's unfortunate that so many people look at their job as something they have to do every day. If someone can wake up every morning and look forward to going to work as a greeter at Walmart to feed their families, who the HELL are any of us to make fun of them? It's also unfortunate that they probably have a policy to err on the side of caution. In this country's legal climate, who can really blame them? There is no law that you HAVE to copy an uncopyrighted photo; if you don't like it, go to another store.
- ligyron, on 08/12/2008, -4/+16A person that has a job and is being paid to perform that job?
- whyufail, on 08/13/2008, -2/+4What's it like to define your life by your work?
- docbob84, on 08/13/2008, -2/+3Much more fulfilling than you'd think. What do you define your life by why? Athletics? Money? I'm not saying a job at Walmart is the best thing to look forward to in life. But putting people down because they get fulfillment out of their job, if you're not out there saving whales and building orphanages, I'd bet none of us are much superior.
- misterjangles, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3I build orphanages for abandoned whales. top that!
- thelastcivilian, on 08/12/2008, -13/+8Wal-Mart: A place for high-school kids, old folks long past their pensions, rednecks and the mentally disturbed. I'd say the employee falls into that last category.
- sfacets, on 08/12/2008, -2/+9This is why you should always set things straight before getting a professional photograph taken.
Will you own the photo? Can the photographer use the photo? etc.
Many if not most studios will retain copyright of any photos they take, unless they sign away their copyright rights.- Fracture98, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Be progressive. See if they'll go for a CC Non-commercial, Attribution license. I bet some of the more progressive shops would.
- trolleyfan, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4"This is why you should always set things straight before getting a professional photograph taken." Well, we'll just Tstamps know he has to get in his time machine, go back a century, and check with the original photographer then...
- Khast, on 08/12/2008, -4/+35Okay, Florida...no need to read any further in the article......*****.
- hartley, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Spring Hill isn't much either. Old people (hence the visiting of the writer's grandparents) and poor/rednecks.
Which is what most of north central Florida is. - Corte, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Thanks, now I don't have to read it at all :D
- hartley, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Spring Hill isn't much either. Old people (hence the visiting of the writer's grandparents) and poor/rednecks.
- spgass, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4The same thing happened to my father-in-law. I suppose they're somehow trying to protect themselves, but stopping him from copying really old family photos was ridiculous. I do think they ended up calling and apologizing after he wrote a letter.
- honemasterT, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5apologizing? Dont think I'd be going there in the future.. besides their quality blows from the work that I've had done there.
many of the child portrait studios now give you the option of buying the rights to the photos and getting full res .jpeg's on CD. They give you a release form that is supposed to prove that you have rights to duplicate free and clear.
Only problem is, that would require said Wally World employee to know how to read. Guess that could be a problem eh!? :-) - docbob84, on 08/13/2008, -1/+0Think about it to the extent a lawyer could push it, and would you really blame them? Say someone came in with a photo that they claimed was one day older than the copyright law allows. Would you allow them to copy it knowing you could be sued by some photographer looking to get his/her hands on Walmart's insurance money? What if it was two days past? Three? When do you start? Personally, if I was a manager covering my ass at Walmart, I'd err on the side of caution and tell my employees that if they think a photo MIGHT be taken professionally, don't allow it. People would be pissed, sure. I'd bet my job, though, they'd come back the next time they needed to stop and buy milk or something after work. They can go someplace else if they want to copy pictures I'm not sure about. Let Costco or another store's insurance cover it.
- honemasterT, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5apologizing? Dont think I'd be going there in the future.. besides their quality blows from the work that I've had done there.
- ashwinmudigonda, on 08/12/2008, -2/+17Ha! I hear you. I was in Walmart once and purchased something small like a light bulb or something. While checking out, I politely said that I would not need a plastic bag to take this. The lady looked at me as if I was a retard and said, in broken English, "This America. You no not take bag. TAKE." Perhaps, being differently skinned, she assumed I had snuck across the barbed wire and probably misconstrued that I was slightly lacking in my views about the American system. Not wanting to create a scene, I took the bag from her hands and put it into the recycle bin a few feet away.
- infiniphunk, on 08/12/2008, -1/+17But its true, I go through the same ***** all the time, not at Walmart, at other places. Remember, saying no to plastic is saying no to the oil industry. Saying no to the oil industry == supporting terrorism.
- Carrot425, on 08/12/2008, -9/+1Hahahahahahahahaha LOL! Foreigners are retarded! We should make fun of them more!
- misterjangles, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1ah sarcasm... ye shall be dugg down here.
- adkenc, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6REDUCE, reuse, recycle. reducing comes first. that's my argument and i'm sticking to it.
- G00SEISL00SE, on 08/12/2008, -2/+7My mother tried to get my baby photos copied and they told her they wouldn't let her because of the copyright, even ones that had any copyrights on them one she even took herself they made her jump threw about 5 different hoops of papers to sign before she finally got them
- fishpen0, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3through
- Teck64, on 08/12/2008, -3/+16If I was working at walmart i wouldn't give a *****, I'll even print you a twenty on high gloss paper :D
- unknownoliver, on 08/12/2008, -2/+13Holy *****! This exact same thing happened to my mom two years ago, but I just thought it was just one retarded, power-tripping Wal-Mart employee.
- arvinddeshpande, on 08/12/2008, -6/+0$10 you guys are brothers!
- nikothefinn, on 08/12/2008, -2/+19If copyright is forever, how long are diamonds for?
- AzureRise, on 08/12/2008, -0/+16However long the marriage lasts.
- kingmanic, on 08/12/2008, -0/+13Diamonds last until they are exposed to a fire, dropped at certain angles, wear away through abrasion, or sold via court order to split assets during a divorce.
- mrgermy, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Dammit!
- Bamboolemur, on 08/12/2008, -1/+13Why does the dumb ass employee assume it was taken by a studio? What if I took a picture of my grandfather myself?
Am I expected to bring in a signed release form too from my grandpapa? More harassment and curtailing of rights of photographers and anything related to photography. - kookbutt, on 08/12/2008, -1/+10Corporations like to make it where copyrights are forever. I know several music companies still hold and renew copyrights of music that has been performed and recorded over half a century ago.
- DaDrake, on 08/12/2008, -3/+4It depends if they still distribute the product and use it. Should Disney loose its famous mascots like Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, etc because they were created a liftime ago?
- fety, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3....am I the only one having Deja Vu with this reply? I swear I remember reading something just like this a few months ago. Could have been another digg article on copyright bs.
- PopcornDave, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2Can't they re-apply for copyrights on things that are about to expire?
- absurdist, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Yes.
- buddypriefert, on 08/12/2008, -5/+2I'm sure if you were creative enough to come up with something worthy of copyright, you too would be protective of it. But can't, so to make yourself feel better, it is far easier to pull out the "big bad corporations" card.
That said, the retard Walmart employee was only trying to prevent from being fired. If he/she wasn't such a retard in the first place (to know that there was no concern about copyright), they wouldn't have been working there in the first place.
And finally, the guy taking precious photos to a retard in the first place is retarded. - kelmaster1, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Music copyright term is 75 years.
- KelticKal, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0No, its much worse:
* Works created after 1/1/1978 - life of the longest surviving author plus 70 years - earliest possible PD date is 1/1/2048
* Works registered before 1/1/1978 - 95 years from the date copyright was secured.
* Works registered before 1/1/1923 - Copyright protection for 75 years has expired and these works are in the public domain.
- KelticKal, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0No, its much worse:
- DaDrake, on 08/12/2008, -3/+4It depends if they still distribute the product and use it. Should Disney loose its famous mascots like Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, etc because they were created a liftime ago?
- oddtom, on 08/12/2008, -3/+12And this is why you pull up the address of the nearest professional film lab run by people that A. Aren't minimum waged halfwits and B. Know what they're actually doing and provide a quality service.
But who cares about that when you can get your scans or prints for a few cents less, right? Vote with your wallets, people. That's the whole point of a supposedly free market. - sockpuppets, on 08/12/2008, -2/+5Who cares? Unless there's a copyright notice on the photos Walmart should just help the guy out.
- honemasterT, on 08/12/2008, -1/+6excuse me sir.. where is your signed 'Model Release' form!? :-)
oh, all the folks in the portrait are deceased? we'll I'm sorry, you cant
have your prints without a signed release- PopcornDave, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5/me whips out Ouija board to comply with employee's request
- obsolite, on 08/13/2008, -0/+0/me barely gets laid.
- PopcornDave, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Truly sorry to hear that for your sake. Try getting out more and meet some women. You might change your luck.
/s
- PopcornDave, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5/me whips out Ouija board to comply with employee's request
- vaeldas, on 08/12/2008, -4/+55You know, as someone who used to work in the Wal-Mart photo lab, we were told this was policy. And guess what. Wal-Mart is firm on that one, and none of us were about to lose our job over a 100 year old photo. The gripe belongs with the policy makers, not us in the pits who are required, often times with no support from management, to enforce it, or its our jobs.
And for the record, on multiple occasions a photographer came in, undercover, to see if we would copy their photos without a release. One employee I worked with did, and lost their job.- honemasterT, on 08/12/2008, -6/+3whatever.. like I said, Costco is just down the street bro!
- boardthis, on 08/12/2008, -0/+25dugg for "undercover photographer"
- Johnagain, on 08/12/2008, -2/+15You know, as someone that use dto work at Wal-Mart, you should already be aware that if there is no studio mark, no copyright mark, no indication whatsoever that there is a copyright on the photo, you have no right to assume that it is copyrighted, that I did not personally take the picture, or that I do not have rights to scan it.
If a studio or photographer wants to preserve his copyright, he has his mark on the photo somewhere. Read the article - there were no studio markings, or copyright markings on it whatsoever. There is no reason to believe that the person scanning the picture did not have full ownership of copyright of the picture. The Wal-Mart dude is just mis-informed, and not using his brain.- vaeldas, on 08/12/2008, -2/+7Actually Wal-Mart line was that any image bearing a symbol or copyright mark, OR bearing the likeness of a copyrighted image was not to be reproduced. As in, if you crop your photo taken at Pro-Ex down to remove the copyright they put in the corner, we still couldn't copy it.
Generally pictures with a pose, and/or background were not copied without written permission, or with filling out a waiver stating that you, the customer did take the picture.
Given the photos are 100 years old, and obviously THEY didn't take the picture, Wal-Mart policy was still enforced.
I'm not defending Wal-Mart policy, but I am going to defend the employee, who was following said policy - docbob84, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2I'll defend the policy. It's called "cover your ass" and Walmart uses it a lot. The fact is, you may well have the legal rights to a picture, I won't argue that. But that doesn't mean you have the legal right to use their machines to copy it; if they want to tell you that you can't copy it because you didn't frame the subject right, that's their right. But if it looked professional to me, I'd tell you to take your rights just down the street to Costco, like honemaster said above. It's the only absolutely sure way not to get sued, and there are plenty of people who look at Walmart as a large injured prey animal, just full of delicious money to sue their way into.
- vaeldas, on 08/12/2008, -2/+7Actually Wal-Mart line was that any image bearing a symbol or copyright mark, OR bearing the likeness of a copyrighted image was not to be reproduced. As in, if you crop your photo taken at Pro-Ex down to remove the copyright they put in the corner, we still couldn't copy it.
- ShyGuy91284, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3I once was a cashier there for the summer, and yeah, big corporations (Walmart as the main one) don't like to play around, be it an employee trying to check out that last customer in your line (the registers force you off after you've been on it for so long without a break), or letting customers scan old photos. As sick as it is, a lot of people still view the American dream as suing some huge corporation to live a life of luxury. Whether or not the employee made the right decision ethically I'm not really sure, but the policy exists for a reason.
- kookbutt, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4How did the WalMart employee know it was taken by a studio and not by a family member?
Buy yourself a good quality scanner and a good photo printer. Or just the scanner and scan them to a thumb drive or CD and take it to Walgreens or some other photo place and go to one of those do it yourself machines and print them out there or go online and send them to Snapfish and have them print it out.- D14BL0, on 08/12/2008, -6/+3Studio or family member, the copyright still automatically belongs to SOMEBODY, and copying it would be infringing on that copyright, regardless of the photographer's profession.
- kookbutt, on 08/12/2008, -3/+3BS
- D14BL0, on 08/12/2008, -5/+3It's not BS. Try researching some copyright laws sometime.
You create ANYTHING, and you own the copyright to it. No paperwork needs to be filled. You don't need to sign the creation, or anything. It's your copyright. Until seventy years after your death, in most cases. - andymadigan, on 08/13/2008, -0/+3That law went into effect in the 70s, anything before that and there is no copyright unless it was registered or had a notice on it (depending on when it was created). An image that is 100+ years old is out of copyright in any case, as there are no extensions. The Waltards were wrong, but in the end all it means is they lost a few bucks, and they really don't care.
Don't try to act like a lawyer without knowing history. - D14BL0, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1There's no way to tell the actual age of the photograph, and nobody who knows what they're doing is going to risk their job over it.
- reiggin, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1Walgreens won't print it for you. Everything is reviewed for copyright infringement. Even the "instant" machines are reviewed before you print out anything. And all of Snapfish's prints are reviewed, too.
As for claiming a family member took it, it's still considered copyrighted by that family member. And therefore that family member has to sign a copyright release form. Yes, you can lie on that form if you so choose. But it does remove the indemnity from the place that prints it. And that's what they are concerned with. So then, you and/or whoever you had lie on the form would be liable for the $10,000 per offense (print) fine... assuming you were ever caught.
- D14BL0, on 08/12/2008, -6/+3Studio or family member, the copyright still automatically belongs to SOMEBODY, and copying it would be infringing on that copyright, regardless of the photographer's profession.
- skipdog172, on 08/12/2008, -6/+4Can somebody please answer me this question?
Why do we care so much about bad service in these individual stores???
This is the 3rd front-page story I have read today that is basically "local management sucks at some store". Is it just the ignorant Wal-Mart hate or is it simply that it is fun to point out when stores screw things up? I guess I don't understand. This is not entertaining. This is not "watching out for the customer so the same thing doesn't happen to them". It is something that happened in ONE STORE because of ONE PERSON'S stupid decision!! WHY do you guys digg these stories?- legsthebass, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2for the comments
- moxley, on 08/12/2008, -1/+3Because when it's Wall Mart it's not just one store, (as you can notice by reading the comments of several other people who have had the same thing happen).
***** Wall Mart.
I think people should go in there when they have to take a *****, grab the most expensive 19.99 clothing they have, go into a dressing room, dump in the clothing, wipe your ass and leave.
***** Wall Mart.
Wall mart has a history of doing all sorts of labor busting, worker exploiting, neighborhood destroying things. Their corporate practices are heinous. - jojopumpkin, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1I'm with you but this is not a Wal-Mart only practice. I've run into this at CVS. I was just getting some quick prints off of a memory card and the clerk rudely stopped the machine on me and told me I needed proof that I took the photos on the card. He accused me of stealing photos from myspace. I was stumped. The proof was on the card MY NAME WAS IN THE EXIF. This happened on several occasions at different locations. I was getting a couple 4x6s for bands I photographed.
- fordfan485, on 08/12/2008, -3/+7I love it when people get surprised by ***** customer service and idiocy at Wal-mart. Here is a clue: it's ***** walmart for christ's sake. What were you expecting?
- Alli3388, on 08/12/2008, -0/+15Just to clear thing up for everyone, here is the law:
How Long Copyright Protection Endures
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978:
Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.- david76, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Everytime Mickey Mouse is threatened by entering the public domain, the law is amended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_ ...
- david76, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1Everytime Mickey Mouse is threatened by entering the public domain, the law is amended.
- SanyaG, on 08/12/2008, -7/+0they had professional photographers 100 years ago, it musta been those who sucked ass at farming
- rationalbeats, on 08/12/2008, -5/+22WHO THE ***** GOES TO WAL-MART FOR ANYTHING NEVER MIND PRINTING SERVICES *****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Conwaysb0718, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8i go for the overwhelming urine stench...
- PopcornDave, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1Then come to San Francisco, you can find that in most doorways downtown. You'll be in heaven.
/s
- PopcornDave, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1Then come to San Francisco, you can find that in most doorways downtown. You'll be in heaven.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8This is one of those rare occasions:
Dugg for all caps. - Serial0Hacker, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2They have cheap stuff at good prices.
- Conwaysb0718, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8i go for the overwhelming urine stench...
- Ransack, on 08/12/2008, -0/+45 years ago, no one at walmart knew the word "copyright" even existed. Now they know about things called "copyrights" but are still learning the finer points. Give them another 5 years.
- Canadian0207, on 08/12/2008, -0/+10A copyright is NOT forever unless it has been explicitly maintained by the copyright holders, which in this case, I'm guessing it hasn't.
Anything that hasn't had its copyright maintained after a period of 75 years is then considered public domain, and free to use.- michael43, on 08/13/2008, -1/+1yeah, what he said
- odaen, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1When I worked on the ADSA (wholly owned by Wal*Mart) photoshop, several of my work colleagues believed that taking a picture of a copyrighted picture removed the copyright.
I had to refuse tonnes of pretty pictures in cardboard stiff envelopes and some obviously professional prints. Older School photographs were allowed however the vast majority were recent and we do have a system in place to allow professional studios to print their photographs in store.
It's not all bad though, these small studios still need money to stay alive. Although it's kind of depressing that the only time superstores care about helping the environment and local businesses is when they could potentially lose money.
- kingmanic, on 08/12/2008, -1/+9http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
A 100 year old picture would either be considered un-copyrighted from the start or be int he public domain because the copyright elapsed depending on the definition of "published". - V0lk, on 08/12/2008, -0/+9I bet there's a "mom & pop" copy center around somewhere that would gladly do it...
- wsuvtx, on 08/12/2008, -2/+4Buy a scanner and quit whining
- PopcornDave, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1But as a photographer, could you sue Wal-Mart for selling a device which would violate both their store policy and copyright laws - assuming that Wal-Mart sells scanners.
- duckyinc, on 08/12/2008, -7/+2It's not walmart it's the American people working for it. It's not always the company that's wrong.. consumerist.
- digitallysick, on 08/12/2008, -3/+5Walmart in no way should care what you scan/copy that is up to you, not up to walmart to police.
- PopcornDave, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2You're 100% correct, but could they technically be charged with aiding and abetting by allowing it? With the way the justice system has gone so screwy nowadays I wonder.
- gedawid, on 08/12/2008, -8/+7A lot of people here seem to think that there being no copyright notice on the photo itself is the same as there being no copyright held by the photographer which is completely wrong. The fact of the matter is the photographer holds copyright unless, as has been mentioned above, there has been an arrangement made which passes it on to the customer. There also seems to be some misplaced belief that "if I or my family are in the photograph then we have the right to do whatever we want with the photo" but this is also incorrect.
As a photographer myself I must face the wrath of the 'digg down brigade' and say that the store employee had every right to refuse copying of the photograph. Whether or not you agree with it, the employee was correct.- pilot3033, on 08/12/2008, -1/+7100 year+ old photographs are in public domain. The employee is wrong because he/she assumed that copyright lasts forever.
- moxley, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5And being a photographer I also would agree with you, except for two things:
#1. The photo was over 100 years old. No copyright for the photogrpaher or anybody else, public domain.
#2. I am not so much of an ***** that I expect people not to make a copy of a ***** print which they own. The negatives are mine, but a print? Why care about someone making a print?
- brbubba, on 08/12/2008, -0/+7If copyright lasted forever Walmart better check their book collection. There are many many publishers that reproduce works that no longer have a copyright. This pretty much encompasses anything that was published more than 75 years ago.
- scotus, on 08/12/2008, -3/+6Up until 1977 if there is no copyright marking, it's not copyrighted, end of story.
- TheRhinoceros, on 08/12/2008, -1/+7Screw Wal-mart. If those are 100 year old photographs of your family, they are old enough to be considered Public Domain, and therefore Outside Copyright law infringement.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/T ...
Complicated stuff, but Wal-mart screwed this guy. Read the part there where it says 95 years from first publication.
Idiots. That's what you get when you pay people $6 an hour and teach them nothing about their actual jobs. Poor and Ignorant, Just like their bosses Like it.
http://election-coverage.com - papastout, on 08/12/2008, -1/+8Looks like they need to start paying (roll) back-royalties the guy who orgininated the "smiley face", Harvey Ball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Ball
Really, "copyright is forever"... suck it wal-mart! - siszam, on 08/12/2008, -2/+3We were trying to make prints of my wedding photos and some flunky at Walmart has a fit. The pictures were taken by family members. Not professional or copyrighted at all. The woman tried to tell me they looked professional and therefore had to be, so we couldn't print them. I don't blame the Walmart employees who have to do what they are told. I blame the idiots in management who are more interested in cya than training employees to make informed decisions.
- ethos101, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4Copyright does NOT last forever.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.htm ... - gcclarke, on 08/12/2008, -8/+3Shocking news! I can see the headlines now.
"Person working for minimum wage not expert on Intellectual Property Law!"
Man, some of you people need to chill the hell out.- andrewthrice, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Awesome! So I can plead ignorance and make decisions on subjects I know nothing about. Makes perfect sense!
- MrZaiko, on 08/12/2008, -1/+4thats *****, my ex girlfriend works at the photo center in walmart, she does the copyright thing for fun, when she feels like giving people a hard time.
- HannibalLecter, on 08/13/2008, -0/+4Then you were smart to ditch her.
- peestandingup, on 08/12/2008, -1/+13In the digital age, photographers REALLY need to rethink that old model of holding the originals hostage so the client can only get prints through them, for an, ahem, nominal fee. It's ***** & its a tired & stale model that needs to die.
I pay you for your work at the time of the shoot...period, not for my prints. Give me what I paid for so i dont have to keep coming back to your ass everytime I want a print.- flyingwolf, on 08/12/2008, -9/+4Actually what you pay for is my expertise to know how to make your non-photogenic self look good on your mantle.
You pay for my service and my expertise. For that I give you a couple of shots for free with the service.
If you would like to buy a CD or DVD of all of the images in high res no problem, That will be at least 900 dollars sir/ma'am.
Sorry but you do not pay Wal-Mart for your copy of Friday once and then have access to copies of it forever.- RomeyRome, on 08/12/2008, -6/+3Yeh? Well I scan your ***** myself & have WalMart print it. Blow me you bottom-feeding *****-sucker.
- sodariot, on 08/13/2008, -1/+3...you are ripping people off.
- ldkronos, on 08/13/2008, -0/+2Most photographers would have absolutely no qualms about rethinking their business model. The problem is, customers don't want to rethink what a reasonable rate is for a photographer. If you want full rights, its going to cost you more, but customers think they should get full rights for the SAME price (or even less). Yes, I realize there is nothing wrong with a customer wanting a lower price, but you have to be realistic. If you want more, you have to pay more.
It would be like a video store complaining that they can't just go to Best Buy, pick up 20 copies of a new release DVD and rent those copies out. If you want the additional rights to rent, you have to pay more for the license.
- flyingwolf, on 08/12/2008, -9/+4Actually what you pay for is my expertise to know how to make your non-photogenic self look good on your mantle.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is