Walmart sues photographer's widow over family pictures

Does it bother anyone else that the COMPANY is filing this suit?

Oh, will the state PLEASE put Walmart through the worst possible outcome imaginable. And I hope the photographer's widow counter sues and wipes their sorry asses off of the face of this planet. Welfare mooching bunch of greedy bastards. I hate Walmart and every thing it stands for.

Just put the Law aside for a second. Is the FACT of the story of:

Walmart/Sam Waltons' Sons thought Sam's (6 BOXs) memory/ image worth NO more than $2000.

If nothing exists that specifically states a copyright transfer
then AFAIK copyright stays with shooter...

The many posts here about this are very telling. Because the Waltons have tons of money, lots of assumptions are made. Greed is showing everwhere. Most complain about Walmart. (has nothing to do with Walmart) This is a simple case of a client offering money for the rights to the photos that a photog took, and that money being offered apparently is not enough that the photog (widow in this case) will accept. So they go to court over it to try and settle the disagreement.(you can claim anything you want in court, the law may say something completely different however...)

The last time you had a client that wanted all rights to the photos you took, how much did you charge them? Did you charge them on ability to pay, or a standard amount? If so, you are just as greedy as most posters complain the Waltons are. It cuts both ways.

There is never an end to greed...the more some get the more they want and they will say or do anything to prevent a single oat from being taken from their feed bags..
Isnt that obvious from so many examples?

Screw WM. They don't own everything, but just like all big outfits, they think they are the only ones that matter.

If they go ahead with it, then you should be able to get the original files taken at a WalMart portrait studio.

Another reason to NEVER shop at Walmart.

Entitled, non-achieving, despicable inheritors who are American aristocracy doing the only thing they know how - bullying the little guy. 90% of the "American Dream" is actually inheriting the work of one fortunate family member and acting like you did something to earn it.

Walmart attract badly dress and unattractive people, so I hope Walmart also receive a VERY unattractive legal bill and a VERY unattractive bill to pay damages to the Huff family.

Here is the irony - they are offering only $2000 for ownership, yet are willing to pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal fees to litigate and intimidate? If this is not an all out assault on copyright ownership, then what else could it be? Maybe it is an exercise to see, if absurd amounts of inherited wealth can change/overthrow existing laws, buy false justice, and provide a ticket to our polarized/political Supreme Court, that has a huge pro- corporate agenda?
Time will tell...

Regardless of who got paid and who its for etc, its the freelance photographer who always owns the copyright.

For the client to own the copyright, the freelance photographer has to sign a disclaimer, without the signed disclaimer by the freelance photographer, the copyright is always owned by the freelance photographer.

If the photographer is employed full time by a Ltd company, and gets a salary, and pays p.a.y.e (pay as you earn), then the copyright belongs to the company, not to the photographer.

phew

copyright law . once image has been created by the person/photographer or artist it is protected and he has the copyrights to the image. old law and still valid

Why does the photographer own the rights to these photos?

If the photographer hired the Waltons as models for his photos, and the Waltons signed a model release, then yes -- the photographer owns full rights.

I suspect that the Waltons hired the photographer to photograph them, the Waltons did not sign a model release (why would they?), in which case the photographer does not own the rights to these photos.

I hate the huge company falls flat on their faces for trying to bully the little guys.

Helen Huff has every bit as much right to take advantage of the copyright she inherited as the Waltons have to take advantage of all the money they inherited. At least those photographs taken at Bob’s Studio didn't come at the cost of thousands of American jobs exported to the People's Republic of China.

I'll bet the late Mr Huff paid all his taxes and treated his employees decently- unlike the Waltons who apparently use every loophole available to avoid paying taxes and have pay wages so low that a large percentage of their employees need to rely on food stamps and federal benefits.

Why I don't even like driving by a Wal-Mart. Go in, out of the question!

I believe my days of shopping at Walmart is over. The stores are horrible to shop in anyway.

If Walmart doesn't Ante up and offer a fair price, and I owned the copyright, I would shred the negs in front of them. If they aren't of value to them, they are of less than zero value to me

The new concept of governments, Corporate Dictatorships

This is the same family that owns Walmart, the same store that won't let you print photos if the photos have a professional look to them, implying that the photo is actually owned by a professional photographer, and not you?

Seems like someone doesn't like eating their own porridge.

It's plain and simple. The studio owns the rights to the photos unless there's a written agreement stating otherwise. It sounds like the Walton family has also been illegally reproducing copies of these photos for some time, and they should have to pay for that. Normally, casual reproduction would be let go by a studio (it's unclear how extensively they were republished), but since the Walton family has now made an issue of it they should be required to pay for this misuse as well.

The PPA's backing of the defendant is a near-certain indication she's right. The PPA has high integrity and a clear understanding of the law. It's interesting that the other case they cite in their article involves someone else (Oprah Winfrey) who's power has also gone to her head. It's too bad - I suspect that the Walton generation which founded Walmart would never have done this, but the current generation lacks such sensibility.

Since they are all billionaires now, why not buy offer to buy the photographs for a great price and be done with it- while avoiding large legal fees! As someone who has experienced the painful loss of their family images, through water damage, they should consider themselves fortunate that high quality portrait images are still available and still in existence!

@DPReview, would you also mind sharing the verdict on this case if it goes to trial....or as much disclosure if it is settled out of court, which will likely be the end game.

Thank you....and keep up with the variety of topics posted on your site...

I'm with Walmart on this one. No-one has the 'right' to take pictures of people.

I hope she wins big, amazing that their lawyers aren't familiar with the copywrite laws or they don't care and trying to intimidate the widow. Good luck to her and best wishes.

It's obviously about crushing existing copyright laws.

Do you know what their sin is? It's greed. And they are not turning to law to find justice and they are not turning to law to find the law. They are turning to the law to find money. Lot's of money. Welcome to US, suckers...

Here in Blighty, in the days of film, copyright belonged to the person who owned the film that was put into the camera. In this case that would be the studio/photographer...I would have thought that a similar system was the norm in the USA. That said, I side with the photographer and his heirs on this one.

Should be a simple case. If the studio shot the pics, and no releases were signed by either party, then the studio owns the copyright, but cannot reproduce them for profit without model consents.

Neither Walmart nor the Walton family can reproduce the images because they do not own the copyright, and they have no legal basis to demand the pictures be 'handed over' just because they are rich and famous.

Now here is the odd thing.... the last time I tried to scan some of my children's old school photos at Walmart to get prints made, Walmart refused to do it.

They told me the copyright belongs to the photographer who took the photos, and unless I could prove that I was the photographer they were legally bound to refuse printing them.

So now the Walton family has reversed themselves because they are the ones who want a photographer's images for free.

Amazing stuff.

(continuing my previous post):
Things can get complicated because of the Walmart enormous long-term success. Therefore the original photos could be considered an "historic" document, and the Waltons loose any right to the photos picturing their images.
So, in conclusion, only the photographer has rights to the photos.
IMO

An analogy
1) an architect is hired to do a set of plans for someone who wants to build a building.
2) plans done, the architect gets paid, the plans are given to a contractor who builds the building.
3) ten years later the owner of the building, tells the contractor to build another building based on the same plans paid for ten years earlier.
4) But the architect wants to be paid to allow them to use again the same plans .
Law suit and counter law suit.
Who do you think will win?
THE ARCHITECT will win, because the plans are HIS/HER intellectual property.

Now, back to the photograps issue.
the photographer was originallly paid, but still holds intellectual property of the photos.
The Waltons do not have property of the photos, however, their consent to commercialize their image in the photos was only temporary, for the original occasion.
Now, use of the photos must be negotiated by two groups, each having some rights, none of them having the whole right of use.

In response to some of the commenters below, this actually is a political issue. On one side are photographers like us and the time-honored principle that you own what you create. I think we would all agree that we should own our photos: it's our camera, time, training, education, and our imagination to create the photos. And the current laws agree.

On the other side is a corporation trying to overturn those laws.
In the middle will eventually be the American Supreme Court led by a very pro-business/anti-public chief justice. In its current makeup the Court has been ruling largely in favor of large corporations and against individuals or small businesses. That's the way the deck is stacked right now.

So politically you may be inclined to favor one side or the other, but as a photographer it would be in your best interest to support the side of Bob's Studio. You never know what photos you have on your hard drive that might be worth real money some day.

This is an on-going case:

Wal-Mart sues Visa for $5 billion over card swipe fees

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/27/us-walmart-visa-lawsuit-idUSBREA2Q2BJ20140327

It's an old news:

Lawsuits a volume business at Wal-Mart

By Richard Willing, USA TODAY

.... By its own count, Wal-Mart was sued 4,851 times last year — or nearly once every two hours, every day of the year. Juries decide a case in which Wal-Mart is a defendant about six times every business day,..
...
...Dozens of lawyers across the United States now specialize in suing Wal-Mart;...

,,,Like Wal-Mart's product line, its lawsuits come in many varieties...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/08/14/walmart-usat.htm

Liberal trash, it is the Waltons suing Bob’s Studio, not Walmart. If you read the source, the Waltons offered $2000 for those boxes of negatives of themselves but Bob’s Huff think she can cash them for more now that the Waltons are rich and famous.

Unless the Waltons were hired as models by Bob's, Huff shouldn't have the right to cash in by selling Waltons' studio photos to tabloids.

I suppose there have always been folks who saw themselves as victims of vicious economic brutality by those who are more successful. But, the odd thing is that I can’t recall ever hearing anyone express such views before internet blogs came along.

Yes, there have always been a few muckraking press reporters who would try to blame someone’s misfortune on, “the evil rich”. But for the most part, most people saw business success as something to aspire to and emulate, rather than as something to hate and tear down.

Now, internet blogs are filled with, “destroy the Waltons” and “kill the Koch brothers”. I hope comments like these in this blog are not coming from Americans, but I know many of them are.

What a sad country we have become.

What? They didn't higher a Chinese photographer for a dollar a day?