What is Digg?37 Comments
- Dirtydog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Walmarts quality sucks any how.
- augsod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"There is no silver bullet"
Well, you better find one before we all become professional printers too. - Ssullivan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wal-Mart
thats all that needs to be said... - mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Two things:
1. I am pretty sure there are enough small labs in them strip malls that will print even dollar bills.
2. I always thought "professional" photography is a scam, glad experts from Wal Mart agree with me (laugh. it is a joke) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And what's the lesson here boys and girls?
Don't put a © on your photographs if you are a ***** soccer mom and get your prints developed at Wally World. - Qenton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All you need is a copyright release form. Since you took the pictures you have the right to release them. So wheres a good copyright release form? Problem solved. And if they don't honor that, then sue there butt back to the stone-age.
- chosenone-, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a simple solution to this: everyone signs a form that states that they claim that all photographs they have developed are by them and/or have permission to produce copies of the photographs submitted.
This removes the liability from the processor and firm to the person who requests them to be printed. That's how it always should be, and I hope this mess is cleared up because it looks like a burp from the old vs. the new battle.
I agree with all of you: you cannot draw a line between "pro" and "amateur" by face value. It even shouldn't be an issue, because what is asked is so ridiculous. How come Wal-Mart suddenly forgot the reason they have TERMS OF USE (which no one reads of course, but is still a legal document). - jediboytj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you live near a Costco, they do great pictures from digicams, and dont care how professional they look. My friend who ran a photo studio got them printed there, and they always looked excellent.
- a_greer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0who determines "too professional" My mom is a digital photo hobbiest and I say the following: A: everyone gets a few superb shots, and b: photoshop elements is cheap and can make things look insanely great
- aplardi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hey Glen.Leaf. You are IGNORANT. Becaues guess what? They dont care if it © on it or not. If it looks professional they will not print it.
My friend tried to get her wedding pictures printed there and they declined. Even tho they were from some cheap camera, they said they looked too professional. This happened even to me a few times.
That is why I'm going to Eckard Drugs from now on for my photos.
I can understand wanting not to break copyright laws but that is insane. This isnt exactly a "new" peice of news, but interesting none the less. - dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A pro Photographer I know uses Costco for larger prints, they do a a great job, And hey if you can print a Photo YOU took of Mike Tyson in a studio there, then I'd say it is safe.
- Ian_Dass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0just use the do it yourself photo copy machine infront of the film drop off. it will usually print straight off a memory card or disc...problem solved. hell get your headshot from a professional and take it to wally world run off a hundred copies. its a do it your self copier. only interatciton between humans is when you pay for the pics.
- JohnJacob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mutant: Not true. The "onus" is also on the developer. The developer is the one actually reproducing the photo, not the customer. Not only is WalMart liable, but so is the individual who actually sells the photos.
Ian_Dass: Photos printed/copied on line and from the DIY machines both fall under the same copyright policy. The developer will look at the photos before they sell them to you. Well, they are supposed to, anyway.
Your best bet is to not copy anything "professional" in the 1Hour lab. The 1Hour stuff is hand checked. If you use the regular service (2-5 days). They get sent to a large photo finisher, where things aren't hand checked.
Bottom line is that the copyright law needs to change or at least cleared up so that it's obvious who is liable for what.
You need to remember that WalMart is just trying to cover their own ass. They aren't some little mom-and-pop that if they have a copyright violation no one would know about it. This story is all over the web, and WalMart hasn't even broken any law. Imagine the bad publicity if they did get accused of copyright infringement. - amwmedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I helped my mom do some photos in Photoshop and she had them printed at Wal-Mart. The people made her sign a document stating that she understood that it's illegal to make dups of copyrighted work, blah, blah, blah. Hehe, she just took as a complement on a job well done ;-)
- djspike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I go to Office Max... or Kino's...
- jmccorm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Is this why WalMart.Com won't print my pron collection?
Sweet, succulent, delicious prons. Who could object to that? - shroom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In these days, anyone can produce a professional looking picture. Thats the point of the technology and its evolution.
People can be so stupid, its rediculous. - imtigger2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0***** 'em all. Get a Sony DPP dye-sub for $130 and you'll have BETTER than Costco or Wally Mart photos, on demand. I know, they cost a little bit more, but trust me, you don't end up printing all your photos anyway.
On the same note, I gotta go buy a key-cutter now so i can make copies of my OWN office key that's marked "do not duplicate". Just dealt with that yesterday. I'll tell ya... if it weren't for min. wage employees who are bitter and don't give a rats ass, I'd never get anything done! ;) - r00t3d0ut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why the hell would ANYBODY go to Wal-Mart in the first place?
- rewqas, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0Wal-Mart
http://walmart-locations.blogspot.com/
thats all that needs to be said... - ST_Lawson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yup...gotta love the 'mart. I am the manager of an independent photo retailer, and we run into this pretty much daily. The reason Walmart had to stop doing it is because of lawsuits...they may be the biggest retailer in the world, but if they could even save a few pennies by screwing people over, they'd be all for it. I would recommend getting your prints done at a local independent photofinisher (I know, I'm biased), typically much better service, better quality, and generally more willing to work with professional or semi-professional photographers, I know we are.
- VladDrac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0JohnJacob: I don't buy it. ISPs aren't liable for copyrighted materials hosted on their servers by users. Flea Market owners aren't liable for copyrighted materials sold by vendors. This is no different. ISPs, Flea Market owners, and film developers are all providing a service. They all have no idea what is and isn't copyrighted. And none have any statutory duty to know what is copyrighted.
Sure, Kmart settled such a case. But it was for a nominal amount. Kmart probably settles a $100,000 lawsuit everyday. It's nothing but slapping a mosquito.
And lastly, all Walmart has to do is make customers sign a waiver/indemnification agreement. That'd impose all liability on the customer allowing it to print any picture it wanted. - leotar1, on 09/13/2008, -0/+0I agree. The quality of WM pictures just horrible. I did try them several times with different locations -the same bad result.
Well, I would recommend www.FortoFoto.com. The quality of pictures is great and prices even better. I use them already couple years and have no problem. Hope it will help - IraqManiac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0has anyone here noticed how there is a steady increase on how many stories there are having to do with someone with some level of authority over you making up some stupid policy that always goes to your disadvantage or something???
3 words - new world order - dinki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would hardly call Walmart not developing your pictures the New World Order . You can certainly find someone else to develop them.
- larfus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0whats even scarier is that a Walmart employee is judging the pictures. I have friends who have worked there and not a one went through that kinda training.Walmart needs to go under anyways if you ask me.
- brainspout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does anything symbolize coorporate f_cktard better than the unholiness that is Wal-Mart? If you give Wal-Mart even one cent of your money for ANYTHING, from photo processing to toilet tissue, then the terrorists have already won.
- uzibeatle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 Everytime you enter a Wal-Mart store your IQ drops. Over time the effect can be permanent. Best to avoid them completely just to be safe.
Just like Ripley suggested in the first place , remember? Nuke the site from orbit...... - roger_lew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Reason number 2,213,235,186 to dislike Wal-Mart.
- IraqManiac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0andrew... I think you mean CIA not CYA
but anyways this is really ***** stupid anyone who will not print out pictures because they are good pictures is a ***** goddamn bitching ***** - Dark_Star, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0F**k Wal-Mart, damn idiots....
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I known people who went to walmat with pictures I took and they wouldn't print them. They are so stupid. Just make everyone do everything by yourself on the machine if you are so worried. Kinkos doesn't get up in your face when you copy entire books there on your own. Walmart shouldn't either.
Eric Wilson - mutant, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3This has never happened to me, but holy ***** would I go ***** on anyplace that denied me service because it thinks I didn't take pictures.. The onus is on me, not them. ***** retards.
- andrew_m, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0This is nothing new, i've been asked many times at Wal-Mart "did you take these photos" and thats all. And if they want more proof they make you sign a peice of paper saying they are your photos. Just a CYA for Wal-Mart. And Cheirdal, A photo is COPYWRITED when the SHUDDER OPENS by the PERSON WHO TOOK IT.
- Cheirdal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0F*** the photographers that think they own the images of you and your loved ones that you paid them to take. I always thought that was one of most retarded uses of copyright law in existence.
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0by the way, I hate walmart more than anyone, but it is so hard to avoid it. Besides, if I didn't go to any company I hated and I didn't use any of their stuff, I would have to go way out of my way. Lets see, companies I hate,...
SCO
Microsoft
Walmart
Officemax
RIAA
MPAA
Software alience
Gateway
Apple
HP
Disney
UN
YMCA
Uncle Bills
I know I missed a bunch of organizations and businesses that I hate. It is impossible for me to boycott them all.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is