Copyright infringement at WalMart!

[livin4lax09]

So I'm in Wal-Mart, making an 8x10 for a customer (yes i know, the quality isn't that great, but they actually did suprisingly well!) and I make my print, along with a few other fun prints of my friends and I lounging around in the sun. I take them to the counter for the woman to write up a total, and she takes them over to her counter. She starts to package them up, and then notices the 8x10. She stares at it for a good 10 seconds, then turns to me and asks me to show some proof of the original. I look at her strangely, and ask "what?" My friend says "haha, she doesn't think you took it!" and she responds "yes, that's right, I don't think you did. Where's your original copy?" Flabbergasted, I pull out my USB drive I printed the photo off, and hand it to her. Looking at it, she realizes she has no computer to check it with, so just turns it over in her hands for a couple seconds, then goes "ok," and hands it back to me. I say "I do have my own photo company, and this photo is for a customer," but she doesn't seem to care. She then proceeds to pick up a form that she insists I sign. This form is saying that I have the rights to reproduce the image, and that I am the original photographer. I'm like "fine, whatever." So I write my name, endorse it, and hand it back to her. She says "I should probably remind you that this is a legal document and if you don't have the rights, Wal-Mart can sue you for up to $10,000." I just give her a weird look and say "well that shouldn't matter since I took the photo."

I'm kind of flattered that she didn't think I took the photo because that means it's good, but at the same time shocked at her audacity to come straight out and say I didn't take it. I just wanted to pull out my $2300 camera and be like "believe me now?"

[JSPhoto]

Liven,
I may be part of the reason you had problems, no joke. Back in October of 2003 I had my lawyer on Walmart and CVS for copying photos. I heard several months ago from the head of the local Walmart that my lawyers letters to all the area Walmarts was read to a national meeting of Walmart photo divisions and passed on to all stores, along with the new guidelines and paperwork.
Basically, if it looks like a pro shot it they are not allowed to let it out of the store unless they get a the paperwork done, and then there is no guarantee they will return the prints to you.
Since they started this Walmart has returned 7 photos to me people tried to pass off as their own, so it working to catch people making copies.

Walmart though cannot sue you, they didn't take the photo, only the photog can sue, and in that case I'd go after both Walmart.

CVS has not been so interested in helping though, but that situation is in the "works" so to say.

JS

[Ronnoco]

Although technically you can sue Walmart or any other processor as well as the "customer" for copyright infringement, if your photos were copied, there are nevertheless numerous possible defences from the processor. "Due dilligence" as a defence for example is very much open to broad interpretation. It should also be noted that for example libraries cannot be sued for copyright infringement if photo copying machines in their buildings are used for that purpose.

A lawyer could easily argue that there is a precedent for not allowing a suit to go forward against a processor of film or electronic photos.

Ronnoco

[another view]

Walmart can get sued by (for example) me if took one of my prints in to have them copy it, and they did it. Maybe they can sue you on some civil thing having to do with the fact that they got sued - I wouldn't try to mess with a company that big who has lawyers on their staff (heck, they've even got meterologists on staff, seriously!). Everyone is so worried about getting sued that it's a big "CYA" game. If it's your shot then you're doing nothing wrong and they're doing nothing wrong. Think of it as a compliment that they think it's a pro-quality shot.

I'd suggest using a place like Mpix though - if I hired a photographer, I really wouldn't be too impressed with seeing the name "Walmart" on the back of the prints. The quality should be very good though, I have prints made sometimes at another store that uses the same machinery. It's not the front of the print that looks any different; it's the back. Prints from Mpix say "Kodak Professional" on the back. Which would you rather give to a client?

True story - I needed a print made quickly to send to a client, and I knew their regular photographer used a Sony Print Station for proofing. Kinko's here in town has one, so I made one at their self-serve kiosk. I had to wait for a new bride and her mother who were copying a bunch of wedding pictures - with the help of a Kinko's employee! In all fairness, I don't know the circumstances but I tried to be as nosy as I could without getting involved. The shots were, umm, probably not professional - or at least from a full time photographer who would be in business to sell prints. Didn't have a gold foil stamp or anything, but they did look like posed shots...

[JSPhoto]

Liven,

I am glad Walmart finaly got smart. Now if CVS would! Hmmm, the Walmart I use uses Kodak Professional paper for anything I take there and there is nothing saying Walmart on them. The only print is the file number and my name (and of course the Kodak Professional logo).

Ronnoco - Remember, your in Canada, the laws are different, the due dilligence doesn't fly here in the states.....even Walmart's own lawyers admitted they didn't have a foot to stand on in my case and made a settlement. It wasn't much but they covered it and my lawyer, never had to do anything but threaten to sue them, they actually called me before getting the letter from my lawyer.

JS

[livin4lax09]

yeah, the prints just say kodak paper on them. Nothing about walmart. Really, they're pretty good all around for being from the wal. I normally use adoramapix, but didn't have the opportunity to this time, and my customer wanted the photo quick.

[payn817]

I work in a Wal-Mart photo lab (as of Monday) and it doesn't say Wal-Mart on the back. I have yet to see anyone asked to sign the form, although I know it does exist, so take it as a compliment. Noone is trying to doubt your ability or anything just trying to protect everyone involved, including you.

[srobb]

I would say, liven, that you simply got ahold of a rude employee. My local Wally World has a form signed by me on record. They did that after I had brought in some of my first pics from the Gorge last year and I mentioned that I was trying to get started on selling some of them. It is really nothing more than them CTOA so to speak. I would take it as a great compliment and move on.

A question about this now. I will be taking the pics to my nephew and his new bride this weekend. Do I need to give them some kind of form in case they take the pics to some place like WalMart to have copies/enlargements made? I don't want them to have to go through what we are discussing here.

[another view]

it doesn't say Wal-Mart on the back.

Must have changed - saw a print a few years ago that did say it, and I've seen other stores do it as well. The prints at Adorama, Mpix and Walmart probably cost about the same and look the same - as long as you're getting standard prints from your digital file (not talking about scanning or correction or anything).

I'm surprised to see that they're using Kodak stuff though - it's always been Fuji in the past. A few years ago there were a few places switching from Kodak to Fuji (Walgreens being one) but hopefully this is good news for Kodak. They could use some!

[Old Timer]

My son-in-law had a similar situation at a Wal Mart in Nashville. He took a pictures that I had taken is to get copies of it and they told him that it looked like a professional photo and they would not copy it. He called me from the store all upset because he needed hard copies of the photo that I had sent him by email. I of course consented to the copy but it still took several minutes and him signing the afore mentioned forms before he was able to walk out with his photographs.

[Liz]

I would say "congratulations" on your "professional" photo - but sorry you had to go through all of that.

In the meantime, I'll join in just to say that Walmart here (NJ) does a good job with processing. I do the post processing at home, but you can edit your pictures in their machine, meaning crop, brighten/darken, rotate, edit color - it's not bad.

I've had some problems there at times, but most of the time I get decent prints from Walmart. The paper is good, the price is right, and usually the quality is decent especially for smaller prints. They did destroy my last roll of Ilford Delta b&w film because they processed it as color. That was a bummer!

Costco is the worst! I used them for some 4x6 prints a while back that were the worst I've ever seen. They chopped off part of the images for some reason, not to mention the poor quality. They did pretty good with film, but their digital is bad news.

Liz

[ken1953]

I have to agree with the majority here in saying congrats on the professional looking photo!! Also, even if the counter person was rude, it was a compliment to your ability as a great photographer. I personally would do like srobb and have a form on file with any company that I did printing at.
SROBB...from what the lawyer told me at the seminar I went to a couple of weeks ago, your verbal authorization is all that is needed for your anyone to copy your photos. However, that doesn't mean that someone won't give them a hassle over it, but as with the WalMart...all they have to do is sign the form stating that they have a legal right to duplicate the property in question. Then, as I understand it, this relieves Walmart, or others, of any liability and they then should have no problems getting the copies they need. Just tell your family and friends that this may happen to them and to just sign the forms and move on!!
Ken

[JSPhoto]

Must have changed - saw a print a few years ago that did say it, and I've seen other stores do it as well. The prints at Adorama, Mpix and Walmart probably cost about the same and look the same - as long as you're getting standard prints from your digital file (not talking about scanning or correction or anything).

I'm surprised to see that they're using Kodak stuff though - it's always been Fuji in the past. A few years ago there were a few places switching from Kodak to Fuji (Walgreens being one) but hopefully this is good news for Kodak. They could use some!

Walmart has used Kodak here at all their stores for as long as I have been having them print stuff (5 years). The early paper they had didn't have Kodak on it but it was Kodak paper. There is a Kodak rep who travels to all the stores (Walmart and Meijers amongst others) to supply paper and other supplies for the stores as well adjust the equipment and do emergency repairs if possible.

I do not understand though why all of you feel that the forms are an intrusion, when in fact they are to protect you and YOUR work! Having a letter that allows anyone to copy your work without paying you for it is one of the reasons pros are finding it tough to make a living in this business. Everytime someone gives away their work it devalues the profession. It's also why every year those of us trying to stay in business have to raise prices. I will not give ANY photos away for free, Walmarts around here know this and still people try. In the process Walmart confiscates the print(s) and turns them over to me, including the original that the person tried to use to copy the prints from and they do not get them back unless they are willing to pay the price which gets very expensive after someone tries to steal from me.

JS

[dmm96452]

...I do not understand though why all of you feel that the forms are an intrusion, when in fact they are to protect you and YOUR work! ...
JS

Reading the posts (particularly the original) I get the feeling it was more about the Walmart employee's attitude then the form itself. As posted the employee seemed to be accusing him of stealing the photo more then protecting anyone. Just my two cents. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[another view]

Walmart has used Kodak here at all their stores for as long as I have been having them print stuff (5 years).

I wonder if it's different by region or however they do it. A friend told me that nationally, Walgreen's was going from Kodak to Fuji. I've never seen that locally (probably five of them within 10 minutes of my house, too). I don't go into Walmart often but I've seen Fuji stuff there before, as well as at Sam's Club (their own equivalent of CostCo). Never seen a Kodak machine around here - could have changed recently but not that long ago. Same thing with the writing on the back of the prints - I know it can be done on a Fuji Frontier so maybe that's why they are or were doing that around here.

I think it was a perception problem - the original poster was surprised by the copyright statement, and the employee was probably thinking that he busted yet another person trying to make prints of photographs that they didn't take. Walmart is only looking out for themselves, but in doing this they are helping out the photographers.

[payn817]

It may be regional AV. We use a Fuji Frontier in our lab.

[photophorous]

It sounds like the employee was less than amiable about it, but I'm impressed that they have any kind of policy for photo copyrights. It's good news for all of us, and a compliment to your photo. Maybe I'll take one of my better ones down there to see if I can get a compliment.

As a side note... It's been years since I went there, but I have several rolls of 4x6 prints from Walmart that say Fuji on the back. They either changed or they're not all the same.

Paul

[livin4lax09]

yeah, she definitely wasn't kind about it. That's what irked me the most. If someone had just asked if i was the original photographer, and asked me other questions, I would have been fine with it. The fact she blatently came out and said I didn't take it got to me.

[jar_e]

*sigh* This thread makes me laugh; not because I find the topic funny, but because I worked at Wal-Mart for just over two years. The copyright thing is suppose to be set up for our protection thing, but it definitely was a hassle from what I remember. Again, I'm sure the American Wal-Mart's are vastly different than the Canadian ones, but atleast they show somesort of concern. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Wal-Mart can be somewhat at fault also? I'd have to phone and check but I really don't care anymore

[another view]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Wal-Mart can be somewhat at fault also?

Absolutely correct (here in the US, anyway). Say I'm an independent wedding photographer, and I sell prints from a proof book that I give the bride. Said bride brings proof book to WalMart, scans a couple of my proofs at their kiosk and gets a couple of 8x10's. I'm out a small print sale, plus there's low-quality copies of my work floating around for everyone to see. This is why proof books aren't a good idea if you want to sell prints - unless they're at least watermarked. If I see this more than once, I might hire a lawyer to write them a letter but I don't have the resouces to get in a legal battle with one of the biggest companies in the world...

Put it on a different scale - I copy a famous trademark for a sports team and decide to make my own poster from a couple of pictures I stole off the web (quality won't be great, but that doesn't stop some people). I want 1,000 copies. Now we're talking big time stuff - you can believe that those legal bills will add up quickly! Same issue, different scale. In this example, I've stolen copyrighted material from at least two places that probably have plenty of resources to battle stuff like this.

[Ronnoco]

Liven,
Ronnoco - Remember, your in Canada, the laws are different, the due dilligence doesn't fly here in the states.....even Walmart's own lawyers admitted they didn't have a foot to stand on in my case and made a settlement. It wasn't much but they covered it and my lawyer, never had to do anything but threaten to sue them, they actually called me before getting the letter from my lawyer.

JS

Well, you are right JS. We in Canada are supposed to be less into sueing people, but having filed a 7 figure suit, I should not talk.
.
Ronnoco

[JSPhoto]

Reading the posts (particularly the original) I get the feeling it was more about the Walmart employee's attitude then the form itself. As posted the employee seemed to be accusing him of stealing the photo more then protecting anyone. Just my two cents. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I know that Liven wasn't happy with the way he was treated, that I understand, and she (the employee) should have handled it differently , maybe it was a bad day. She is trying to do her job though, and being told a thousand times "yeah, I'm the photographer" gets old, and being a college student she probably assumed he didn't take the photo.

To avoid problems I do have credentials that I carry just in case they have a "problem" with doing my photos.

JS