Walmart would not print pics from D300

But, in these situations, the photos in question did not have copyright marks. This is simply a case of our legal system driving companies into stupid and simplistic policies.

My 69 year old mother was carded last week at Sams Club when buying a bottle of wine. Sams has a policy that 100% of customers are carded. She was told it was because of a discrimination lawsuit, and not because of more diligence around underage drinkers.

Thanks Nick for reminding me of the expense I go to for ink in my home printer.

I feel I need to do it because of what snegron added. You just can't trust so many places not to ruin your film. Glad I am digital. But they still overexpose or turn the photos green. Goulish........

Barb
--
thru the lens and into the world~~

Some of us have asked why print at walmart; my answers:

I was head their to pick up beer and diapers anyway
I like talking to old ladies from the fabric department who fill in at Photo
Watching newbies try to figure out what to do with an SD card is GOLD
Screaming kids lowers my blood presure.

For the real reasons:
Cheap proofs.

If I upload via internet, either onsite w/aircard or later from home, they are ready by the time I get there.
Christmas cards $.30 each
No beer or diapers, but I swear we are there 10 times a month.
For some people, the price/quality is right.

I would not use it for a wedding shoot, but did use them for a class reunion. I shot the group picture before dinner, uploaded via aircard, sent my help 2 miles down the road and we sold onsite before the night was over; got an extra 20-30 orders by having them that night. Not to mention saving me all the time of mailing out later.

actually there is a big difference bartenders and walmart-photo-booth-tenders

bartenders carding people buying drinkshave a foolproof deterministic way of, well... determing whether the folks are of legal drinking age

the walmart guys are doing this just adhoc based on their personal judgement which could be completely wrong as we have seen on this thead in several cases. i think the real question they should be asking is not whether a photo was shot by a pro or not - but whether the customer was indeed the copyright holder and move on - as all other online printing services and like someone pointed out, costco does.

i had a near-similar experience at walmart where i was asked if the photo i was printing was shot by a pro. when i replied, "no, just me", the lady just complimented me and let me proceed with the print.

I haven't read the many posts above, so I'm sure someone has addressed this.
Copyright protects the image creator, and does not mean the copy them correctly.

Wallmart, Costco, or any other lab can be sued for printing pictures without the copyright owner's permission. This is you, if you shot the pics. If they were shot by someone else, the printer needs you to provide the shooter's (copyright owner) permisssion, or at least to atest to having their permission, this allows them to avoid legal action and transfer that action to you because you authorized them to print them.

If you bring in pictures from a pro, copied proofs, etc, the pro has legal action to the tune of $1500 per infringment (EACH image) against the lab doing the printing, or you for having lied that you have their permission. So those 20 proofs from the studio you copied on your flatbed and had 8x10's printed at Walmart, leaves you liable for a $30,000.00 lawsuit that you cannot defend against because you STOLE the images that belonged to the pro.

The fact that the lab questioned the pictures you shot as "pro" is a compliment!

One way to avoid this is to add to the file info, that you are the copyright owner.
They can check the file info (which travels with every image file)

I will have costco print images and have my client pick them up and put the permission to do so in the file info so that the lab can check it.

Thou shall not steal.
--
Mike Nykoruk
http://www.MikeNykoruk.com

Personal Observation: Ok, I H-A-T-E idiotic laws because of paranoia, which is the result of the US legal system allowing such laws to be passed. Not complaining about photgraphers copyright permissions, though...to a point.

Comment: Anyway, I too have been denied photo replication at WalMart, even though the photgrapher is probably long dead and buried.

QUESTION: In the event I decide to print a few images at any photo lab and am denied the print because it appears "professional" and I AM the photographer, where or how do I get "authorization" to print my photo? (i.e. forms, etc...)

Thanks in advance.

--
Dejan Smaic

http://dejansmaic.smugmug.com

They will have a form for you to fill out saying that you are the copyright owner and you authorize them to print the pictures. Thus release them from liabilty. As in my post, put your name as the copyright owner in the " file info". Photoshop has access to the file info as well as other image editors.

--
Mike Nykoruk
http://www.MikeNykoruk.com

NickMJr said:

While I dont have much sympothay for those that chose to smoke and
then get cancer there is more to that you may not be aware of . Part
of thse lawsuits proved that the tobacco companys were lying to the
public about the danger of smoking. Those companies also were
intentionally marketing to minors and intenionally adding substainses
that were additictive to the smokers, without disclosing those
substainses.

Click to expand...

Well i know there was more to it, BUT i should be cut in glass for everybody that smoking is dangerous. If a smoker choose to believe the ones that profited in a MAJOR way from the smokers, namely the tobacco industri, welll.....

But i guess there is no law against being stupid. I honestly believe that everybody has the right to choose if the want to smoke or not. I dont pass judgement on smookers. BUT dont come crawling for financial support once you got sick.

Best wishes

Jakob

NickMJr said:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, The law requires the printers to
look for "professional work" that should not be duplicated without of
permission the original photographer and by law they can not make
such print without permission of the party that owns the copyright.
Look at the Bar/Club scene for example if a bartender serves a drink
to a minor without ID'ing the minor then they are breaking the law
just as much as the minor drinking the alcohol.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with ignorance but with responsibility. Each person should be responsible for his own acts. Walmart should never be held accountable for the act of another person. This is the way a lot of the European legal system works.

Buy a cup of coffee in Holland for example and spill it over yourself......stupid.....that is what the legal system would say. Coffee is hot, you spill it you are responsible. No matter who sold it to you. Same goes for breaking your leg while stepping in a small whole in a sidewalk. You are responsible for looking where you put your feet.

To most Europeans this makes sense so to most of us the Walmart situation doesn't make sense

I am not judging which system is better, just trying to illustrate the different philisophy.

Tom Moerel said:

Tom Moerel said:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, The law requires the printers to
look for "professional work" that should not be duplicated without of
permission the original photographer and by law they can not make
such print without permission of the party that owns the copyright.
Look at the Bar/Club scene for example if a bartender serves a drink
to a minor without ID'ing the minor then they are breaking the law
just as much as the minor drinking the alcohol.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with ignorance but with responsibility. Each
person should be responsible for his own acts. Walmart should never
be held accountable for the act of another person. This is the way a
lot of the European legal system works.
Buy a cup of coffee in Holland for example and spill it over
yourself......stupid.....that is what the legal system would say.
Coffee is hot, you spill it you are responsible. No matter who sold
it to you. Same goes for breaking your leg while stepping in a small
whole in a sidewalk. You are responsible for looking where you put
your feet.
To most Europeans this makes sense so to most of us the Walmart
situation doesn't make sense
I am not judging which system is better, just trying to illustrate
the different philisophy.

Click to expand...

It does not matter as to this conversation, how the European system works versus the US system. As to the original post oviously he was in the USA so the laws in the US is what is applicable here. And based on USA system if the employee of a company commits a crime such as breaking copyright infrindgement while at work and getting paid then the company also assumes the responsibility for the crime. Same goes with me at my employment as a Professional Surveyor and Mapper. If I was to make a mistake and stake a Boundary line, house and/or Commercial building in the incorrect location, its my employer that pays for the error and damage.

Like it or not the US system does have its flaws and advantages, lets look back at your secenario of someone breaking there leg in a hole in sidewalk. Now the US legal system would ask why was there a hole? Then an Engineer will get involved and do some investigation, was the design of the side walk adequate? did the contractor build it to the specifications. Basically its a check of the quality of work done in the USA, lets just say the contract screwed over the city by using cheaper quality of concrete or not pouring it think enough, then ultimately they could be held responsible for poor constrution practises.

The fact is that quality of contruction for the consumers are directly benifited by those lawsuits and the fear of a lawsuit.. That is why you don't here of concrete building collapsing in the USA, as you would in foriegn countries, of course, less earthquakes and other disasters.
http://nickmjr.smugmug.com/
Nick M

Dejan80501 said:

Personal Observation: Ok, I H-A-T-E idiotic laws because of
paranoia, which is the result of the US legal system allowing such
laws to be passed. Not complaining about photgraphers copyright
permissions, though...to a point.

Click to expand...

Its not called paranoia, its called preventing theft.

Dejan80501 said:

Comment: Anyway, I too have been denied photo replication at WalMart,
even though the photgrapher is probably long dead and buried.

Click to expand...

The copyright does not end in death and it will continue forever. Unless your in the last will and testament of the original Photographer you are still commiting a crime in the USA to copy or print such photo.

Dejan80501 said:

QUESTION: In the event I decide to print a few images at any photo
lab and am denied the print because it appears "professional" and I
AM the photographer, where or how do I get "authorization" to print
my photo? (i.e. forms, etc...)

Click to expand...

Most places have a form that you can fill out or you can write a letter stating that your the owner of file name and the photo was taken on this day, and your allowing (person) to print the image. then sign and date the letter.

http://nickmjr.smugmug.com/
Nick M

We had three. There are none now because of Wal-mart and Sam's Club.
When I need prints quickly, it is the only place to go, otherwise whcc.com.

--
John
http://www.johngermanyphotography.com

D - 300 Gallery @ http://www.pbase.com/johngermany/d300

Tom Moerel said:

It has nothing to do with ignorance but with responsibility. Each
person should be responsible for his own acts. Walmart should never
be held accountable for the act of another person. This is the way a
lot of the European legal system works.

Click to expand...

Those are easy words to say when you live in one of the most socialistic countries in the world, with a very well developed nationalized health care and social welfare safety net. The smugness of such an argument breaks down when you think about the entire context of the legal AND social system in which you're making it.

Tom Moerel said:

Buy a cup of coffee in Holland for example and spill it over
yourself......stupid.....that is what the legal system would say.
Coffee is hot, you spill it you are responsible. No matter who sold
it to you.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, the costs of treating your third degree burns and a two-week stay in the hospital (what the grandmother in the McDonalds case was subjected to) is NOT paid by you personally, is it? The state picks up your hospital tab, so you are actually LESS responsible for your actions than we in the US are.

Tom Moerel said:

To most Europeans this makes sense so to most of us the Walmart
situation doesn't make sense

Click to expand...

True, but because there are so many differences in the legal/social systems it really is an apples-to-oranges kind of comparison.

Tom Moerel said:

I am not judging which system is better, just trying to illustrate
the different philisophy.

Click to expand...

So am I. My objection is to the simplistic notion that one approach is categorically better than the other. Each legal/social system has its strengths and weaknesses, and we should not be too quick to criticize the one we are less familiar with.

--
My photos: http://www.pbase.com/imageiseverything/root

This has got to be one of the stupidiest threads I have read. I don't think that anyone at WalMart would care if a pro took them or not. I think somones ego needed to be stroked.

PS

I have used Costco to do comercial work without anyone questioning why I was printing contact sheets and multiple wallet etc. Isn't that the point of having work done at WalMart, Costco Etc??

Ronnie Gaubert said:

I took wedding pics for a friend with my D200. Believe me when I say
I'm not a pro when it comes to weddings. Anyway, I gave him a CD
loaded with Tiff files.
Walmart would not print because they looked like a pro took them,
RIGHT!!!!

Click to expand...

Don't know your wedding work. But if one of your insect macros or landscapes slipped in there by accident, can't blame them, for sure.

BG

Thanks. This is very useful information and will apply it to future images and prints.
--
Dejan Smaic

http://dejansmaic.smugmug.com

Jim VeNard said:

This has got to be one of the stupidiest threads I have read. I
don't think that anyone at WalMart would care if a pro took them or
not. I think somones ego needed to be stroked.

PS
I have used Costco to do comercial work without anyone questioning
why I was printing contact sheets and multiple wallet etc. Isn't
that the point of having work done at WalMart, Costco Etc??

Click to expand...

They will most certainly care when they are heavily fined by the government and sued from the professional Photographer whom work was printed without authorization.
http://nickmjr.smugmug.com/
Nick M

NickMJr said:

They will most certainly care when they are heavily fined by the
government and sued from the professional Photographer whom work was
printed without authorization.

Click to expand...

Highly unlikely without "criminal intent"

Walmart and Costco would not be in the buisness of printing photographs if they would have to worry about copyright issues as a major issue for day to day business.

Also, none of the professional photographers that I know let any sample of photos out of their hands without a copyright watermark of some sort on the photo printed or electronic.

Again, this is a really dumb thread and is someone who is having fun with their ego.

Jim VeNard said:

Jim VeNard wrote:

Highly unlikely without "criminal intent"

Click to expand...

In the real world people are judged by their actions and not their intentions...

Jim VeNard said:

Walmart and Costco would not be in the buisness of printing
photographs if they would have to worry about copyright issues as a
major issue for day to day business.

Click to expand...

I don't know about Cosco but I can say for sure that Walmart certainly does worry about copyright issues and is very serious about it. Probably due to past lawsuits.

The OP is not just making this stuff up and it has nothing to do with ego. There have been many threads here at DPreview on different forums over the years about Walmart refusing to print photos that they think were taken by professional photographers. Happened to me with a photo of my neice I took with a 4mp point and shoot...

You seem a little quick to jump to judgement without any facts...

Bob

--
Photography is more about depth of feeling than depth of field
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo

Hi Drew and all others on this thread.

Be thankful that Walmart and other stores are being that insistent. I have seen the importance and protection of copyright go to h*ll since digital photography came along.

Copyright theft of photography is at an all-time high.

Groups like PPA, ASMP and others are doing their best to fight what appears to be a losing battle.

In fact, this is likely exactly why Walmart (and others retail outlets) are being so insistent on copyright release paperwork. PPA is leading the way with busting stores that are not asking for proof of copyright.

For more information about protecting your copyright please visit organization websites, or search for "copyright" in your favorite search engine.

When I release my copyright, I provide a PDF file on the disk for my clients to print.

Hope that helps.

--
from somewhere on colorado's continental divide...

fotomatt
http://www.LITfoto.com