Posted By |
Message |
Pages: [1] 2 |
greenfreak
.
Member since 9/06 11483 total posts
Name: greenfreak
|
Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
From Consumerist:
--------------------------------------------------------- After the death of a relative, Mike put together a photo tribute for the funeral, in order to "remember the good times," he says. Only a Walmart cashier put a stop to his purchase. Here's what happened. Do you think Walmart was in the right?
"My father-in-law passed away last week after a long, drawn out few months of mental illness. Very traumatic time and a very difficult situation.
In an attempt to try and remember the happier times of this man's existence, I collected a hundred or so pictures from times throughout his life. Some were pics that I scanned, some were from my digital camera. The plan was to put them in the visitation area so that people could remember the good times.
So my grieving wife and I go to Walmart the morning of the funeral to print them out. Normally we wouldn't go to Walmart for this, but the funeral is in a small town and time is limited. Everything goes well with the printing, and I'm kind of amazed at the convenience and quality of the output. "Who says technology is cold and heartless?" I think to myself. It really came through in our time of need.
Then we get to the counter to check out, and the warmth of humanity kicks in.
"I'm sorry, I can't sell you some of these" the lady says. She then proceeds to go through the stack, pulling out every school picture and talking about copyright.
"Even the ones from 1956?!?" I asked.
"Yes, copyright is permanent" she replies.
She also pulls out a several other pictures, because apparently if they even look professionally done, that's all the criteria they need to cite copyright. If it just looks copyrighted, this lady wasn't going to let us have them.
Meanwhile, my wife is sitting there looking on solemnly as pictures of her smiling, deceased father stack up to head to the shredder. I can see her tearing up and her lip quivering a bit. She quietly says "we're headed to a funeral".
"I know", replies the woman (not un-politely) "But I don't want to lose my job". I decided not to escalate an argument given the situation.
I did manage to claim one victory...his medical school graduation picture which I believe was done privately since I saw some other pictures along with it. After some insistence on my part, the lady let me sign a form and keep that one.
Fortunately I was able to use a digital LCD picture frame to include the complete set at the funeral. But the prints from Walmart were thoroughly parsed for any infringing material. I'm sure the photographers of the 50's and 80's can sleep safe knowing that their income was protected by the Walmart photo department."
First, a quibble: this employee is misinformed. As much as companies like Disney would like this not to be the case, copyright is not "forever." The copyright term that would apply to a professional photograph taken in 1955 would be 120 years. That's a long time, and may seem like "forever" compared to a human lifespan, but it's not.
If this couple had come in to reproduce photos a professional photographer had recently taken of their child, or to print out copyrighted pictures downloaded off the Internet, should Walmart put a stop to it? Yes.
But does the man's family have a reasonable chance of finding the original photographer of school pictures taken 50 years ago? Even if they could, is it likely that that photographer is both still alive and has retained all of his negatives?
What do you think? ---------------------------------------------------------
Message edited 12/1/2009 11:44:09 AM.
|
Posted 12/1/09 11:43 AM |
|
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Hhhmmmm...lots of different thoughts here. First one is go to CVS, they never check!
Second is, rules are rules. And the cashier doesn't have the authority to change that. Maybe they should have asked for a manager.
Do I agree with copyrights on photos? Nope...especially once you pay for the prints but again, they are in place and I/they have no control over that but the store does have the responsibilty of enforcing it (their machines were used).
Lastly, if they had hard copies of the prints, they could just have used those for the collage. So it's not like they were completely out of luck or had no means to display the pics. I think they were in the wrong and they tried to use the fact they were going to a funeral to try and skirt around the copyrights...they got caught and were told no....the end.
Message edited 12/1/2009 11:55:07 AM.
|
Posted 12/1/09 11:51 AM |
|
|
MrsFab
this is bliss.......
Member since 10/08 1234 total posts
Name: Mb
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
The whole situation is sucky- its sad about them losing a loved one
but the law is the law and the law doesnt see "shades of gray"
nonetheless- its ridiculous that a copyright is 120 years
|
Posted 12/1/09 11:55 AM |
|
|
Nifheim
allo
Member since 1/09 5476 total posts
Name: Jennifer
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
lesson learned: scan and crop off the copy-write symbols makes things a bit easier.
|
Posted 12/1/09 12:14 PM |
|
|
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by MrsFab
The whole situation is sucky- its sad about them losing a loved one
but the law is the law and the law doesnt see "shades of gray"
nonetheless- its ridiculous that a copyright is 120 years
I completely agree.
I've had problems picking up photos which Costco with a copyright. Supposedly , they now have my account marked that I take high-quality photos but am not a professional photographer.
I understand why they wouldn't print them (although they should, at least, know the copyright law before they cite it). The manager at Costco told me that recently settled a huge lawsuit regarding copyright.
|
Posted 12/1/09 12:18 PM |
|
|
JenMarie
One day at a time
Member since 11/07 7397 total posts
Name: Jennifer
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
I have to agree and say the law is the law and it doesn't change because someone died. The employee was only doing her job. It stinks that they couldn't have printed copies of those photos though.
That's why when selecting a wedding photographer I specifically chose one who gave me the rights to the pictures. It's also annoying that school pictures are so pricey and parents can't copy them, but I get that it's necessary for photographers to have laws like this in place. Sixty years later I'm not sure it's necessary, but it is what it is.
|
Posted 12/1/09 12:32 PM |
|
|
Cpt2007
A new love!
Member since 1/08 5946 total posts
Name: Liz
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by JenMarie
That's why when selecting a wedding photographer I specifically chose one who gave me the rights to the pictures. It's also annoying that school pictures are so pricey and parents can't copy them, but I get that it's necessary for photographers to have laws like this in place. Sixty years later I'm not sure it's necessary, but it is what it is.
we did the same, but have yet to print them. my concern would be that even though we have the rights to the photos now, how can you prove that to some clerk in a store who thinks that they are protected? slippery slope.
i feel bad for that family.
|
Posted 12/1/09 12:39 PM |
|
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name: me
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
The other issue is photos looking "too professional". In this day and age, a lot of people have become more open to start taking their own pics with DSLR, etc..
How do you prove you are taking pics of your own relatives and it's not a photographer who took them?
Unless there is a watermark, they should refuse the print of the pics.
|
Posted 12/1/09 12:47 PM |
|
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name: They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Copyright law doesn't have an exception for memorials. I'm very sorry for this man's personal loss, but I disgusted that he is trying to use his personal loss to shame Wal-Mart for following the law.
|
Posted 12/1/09 1:03 PM |
|
|
anonttcer
BOOOO for fall!
Member since 7/06 10082 total posts
Name: Meaning a NON ttcer!
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by JenMarie
That's why when selecting a wedding photographer I specifically chose one who gave me the rights to the pictures. .
We did too. He actually gave us a letter giving his permission to make reprints. That was part of our package.
|
Posted 12/1/09 1:08 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
I took a lot of intellectual property in law school, and if memory serves me correctly, I think in the 1950's copyright was not 120 years. I think for certain old items, the max is 95 years. Nothing is forever.
That being said-seriously, these people were going to a funeral, they were private pictures. What is the big deal?
|
Posted 12/1/09 3:58 PM |
|
|
heathergirl
Cocktail Time!
Member since 10/08 4978 total posts
Name: American mouth
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by Kara
Copyright law doesn't have an exception for memorials. I'm very sorry for this man's personal loss, but I disgusted that he is trying to use his personal loss to shame Wal-Mart for following the law.
Hmmm...that is a very good point.
I think it stinks but unfortunately it is what it is.
|
Posted 12/1/09 4:00 PM |
|
|
MsSissy
xoxoxo
Member since 3/07 39159 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by smdl
The other issue is photos looking "too professional". In this day and age, a lot of people have become more open to start taking their own pics with DSLR, etc..
How do you prove you are taking pics of your own relatives and it's not a photographer who took them?
Unless there is a watermark, they should refuse the print of the pics.
I know when I did pics for a friend and she went to pick them up at Costco, she needed to sign something saying she had the rights to the pictures. I'm not a professional but Costco thought they were professional pics. I guess this way they protected themselves, if I (if I was a professional) ever went after them about copyright issues. I also had to sign something at Wal-Mart to pick up pictures I took...saying I had the rights to them.
That's why when I made copies of my wedding pics...I used the self serve machine
|
Posted 12/1/09 4:04 PM |
|
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name: me
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by munchkinfacemama
I took a lot of intellectual property in law school, and if memory serves me correctly, I think in the 1950's copyright was not 120 years. I think for certain old items, the max is 95 years. Nothing is forever.
That being said-seriously, these people were going to a funeral, they were private pictures. What is the big deal?
I have to agree.
I understand copyright but come on. Who can find a photographer from 50+ years ago? Assuming the person was at least 20 yo when he/she was a photographer, how do you even find this person? It was a school photo. Not a copy of a Renoir!
|
Posted 12/1/09 4:07 PM |
|
|
LightUpOurLife
Totally in love
Member since 8/06 12785 total posts
Name: Bonnie-Jean
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by BaseballWidow Lastly, if they had hard copies of the prints, they could just have used those for the collage.
I was thinking the same thing. Then I thought to myself what if someone god forbid stole it from the funeral home. Another sh!tty thing to happen, but possible.
|
Posted 12/1/09 4:15 PM |
|
|
JoesWife628
Our family is complete :)
Member since 8/08 3934 total posts
Name: Me
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
I think it's ridiculous. Not so much that the woman wouldn't print the pictures but the copyright law in general. These pictures were paid for. Therefore the owner of the picture should have the rights to print as many copies as he or she wants. I paid a crap load of money for my wedding pics as i'm sure many others on this site have. After I received my album, the photographer gave me a disc with the pics on it. I paid the photographer for his services. The pictures should belong to me and if I want to print a million copies, I should have that right. And sure, if someone asks me who took the pics, I would tell them.
|
Posted 12/1/09 5:02 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Its the law. I don't 100% agree with it. However it is not Walmart's fault. A lot of other places wouldn't print them either. Someone at CVS stopped me from printing a copy of my wedding picture. I had the contract stating I owned the copyrights so they let me finish it.
|
Posted 12/1/09 5:42 PM |
|
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name: They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by munchkinfacemama
I took a lot of intellectual property in law school, and if memory serves me correctly, I think in the 1950's copyright was not 120 years. I think for certain old items, the max is 95 years. Nothing is forever.
That being said-seriously, these people were going to a funeral, they were private pictures. What is the big deal?
I'm an intellectual property attorney and the limits on copyright protection greatly depend on when the work was created. There are multiple time periods based on when the work was created. No, it isn't "forever," but that's really not the point here. Most lawyers can't keep copyright law straight, so I don't expect a Wal-Mart employee to do so. I also don't believe that this clearly one-sided story is entirely accurate... so I really don't believe blindly that the employee said copyright protection was forever. Even if she did, it doesn't change the fact that the pictures were still subject to copyright protection.
The "big deal" is that the pictures were subject to copyright protection. They are protected by law. Wal-Mart doesn't have to break the law just because a customer claims a relative died. The lack of respect for intellectual property in this country is amazing.
Message edited 12/1/2009 5:45:55 PM.
|
Posted 12/1/09 5:44 PM |
|
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name: They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by Mssissy
Posted by smdl
The other issue is photos looking "too professional". In this day and age, a lot of people have become more open to start taking their own pics with DSLR, etc..
How do you prove you are taking pics of your own relatives and it's not a photographer who took them?
Unless there is a watermark, they should refuse the print of the pics.
I know when I did pics for a friend and she went to pick them up at Costco, she needed to sign something saying she had the rights to the pictures. I'm not a professional but Costco thought they were professional pics. I guess this way they protected themselves, if I (if I was a professional) ever went after them about copyright issues. I also had to sign something at Wal-Mart to pick up pictures I took...saying I had the rights to them.
That's why when I made copies of my wedding pics...I used the self serve machine
As an FYI, this is because a picture does not need to have a "copyright" notice on it to be subject to copyright protection. Some places are more careful about seemingly "professional" pictures than others.
|
Posted 12/1/09 5:47 PM |
|
|
Kara
Now Zagat Rated!
Member since 3/07 13217 total posts
Name: They call me "Tater Salad"
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by JoesWife628
I think it's ridiculous. Not so much that the woman wouldn't print the pictures but the copyright law in general. These pictures were paid for. Therefore the owner of the picture should have the rights to print as many copies as he or she wants. I paid a crap load of money for my wedding pics as i'm sure many others on this site have. After I received my album, the photographer gave me a disc with the pics on it. I paid the photographer for his services. The pictures should belong to me and if I want to print a million copies, I should have that right. And sure, if someone asks me who took the pics, I would tell them.
"These pictures were paid for." Unless you were privy to the contract at issue here, you cannot say for sure exactly what the people were paying for when they "bought" the pictures. More likely than not, they bought copies of the pictures - they did NOT buy the rights to the pictures. That means they did not own the right to reproduce the pictures. If you buy pictures from a photographer and want the right to reproduce them, you better make sure that's expressly what you are buying.
There is no problem with the copyright law. If you want to buy reproduction rights, then make sure you are buying the copyright.
|
Posted 12/1/09 5:49 PM |
|
|
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
I think that the law is all about grey areas.
I think it is crazy that someone has to determine whether pictures look like they might be protected.
I probably have a release somewhere for my wedding photos because I made sure to buy the rights but do you think I know where that release is right this minute?
|
Posted 12/1/09 6:04 PM |
|
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name: me
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by Kara
Posted by Mssissy
Posted by smdl
The other issue is photos looking "too professional". In this day and age, a lot of people have become more open to start taking their own pics with DSLR, etc..
How do you prove you are taking pics of your own relatives and it's not a photographer who took them?
Unless there is a watermark, they should refuse the print of the pics.
I know when I did pics for a friend and she went to pick them up at Costco, she needed to sign something saying she had the rights to the pictures. I'm not a professional but Costco thought they were professional pics. I guess this way they protected themselves, if I (if I was a professional) ever went after them about copyright issues. I also had to sign something at Wal-Mart to pick up pictures I took...saying I had the rights to them.
That's why when I made copies of my wedding pics...I used the self serve machine
As an FYI, this is because a picture does not need to have a "copyright" notice on it to be subject to copyright protection. Some places are more careful about seemingly "professional" pictures than others.
So what do you do if they are your pics but they look professional?
How do you prove that?
|
Posted 12/1/09 6:42 PM |
|
|
MsSissy
xoxoxo
Member since 3/07 39159 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by smdl
So what do you do if they are your pics but they look professional?
How do you prove that?
I have the flyer from Wal-Mart and they have 2 options to choose from:
I certify that I am the copyright author of the pictures presented for copying
OR
I have written permissionfrom the copyright author authorizing copies to be made (please attach a signed copyright release)
and in small print is states
By signing below I agree to hold Wal-Mart Stores Inc and it's affiliates and subsidaries harmless from any and all claims of copyright infringment arising from or in connection to this customer acknowledgement.
I guess they don't care about proving it as long as they have something signed.
|
Posted 12/1/09 7:02 PM |
|
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name: me
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by Mssissy
Posted by smdl
So what do you do if they are your pics but they look professional?
How do you prove that?
I have the flyer from Wal-Mart and they have 2 options to choose from:
I certify that I am the copyright author of the pictures presented for copying
OR
I have written permissionfrom the copyright author authorizing copies to be made (please attach a signed copyright release)
and in small print is states
By signing below I agree to hold Wal-Mart Stores Inc and it's affiliates and subsidaries harmless from any and all claims of copyright infringment arising from or in connection to this customer acknowledgement.
I guess they don't care about proving it as long as they have something signed.
OK. Thanks!!!
|
Posted 12/1/09 7:12 PM |
|
|
DRMom
Two in Blue
Member since 5/05 20223 total posts
Name: Melissa
|
Re: Another photo run-in with Walmart - this time with photos for a funeral
Posted by Mssissy
Posted by smdl
So what do you do if they are your pics but they look professional?
How do you prove that?
I have the flyer from Wal-Mart and they have 2 options to choose from:
I certify that I am the copyright author of the pictures presented for copying
OR
I have written permissionfrom the copyright author authorizing copies to be made (please attach a signed copyright release)
and in small print is states
By signing below I agree to hold Wal-Mart Stores Inc and it's affiliates and subsidaries harmless from any and all claims of copyright infringment arising from or in connection to this customer acknowledgement.
I guess they don't care about proving it as long as they have something signed.
This is so that if that copyrighter(the photographer) somehow come to Wal Mart and says hey you copied my images-they no Mssissy did. Pursue her!
|
Posted 12/1/09 7:28 PM |
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 |