Photo labs might not print your work if it's too good!

[JoeFriday]

read this article

the gist is that photo labs that receive your work on cd might question if it's copywrited work and refuse to print it for you

but in their defense, they're just trying to protect people from using a photographer's work without permission

 

[RML]

Oh. Since when is it against the law to make a print of anything? As long as things ain't sold as original material and/or without the creator's consent I don't see why I could take any picture off the web (or newspaper, video tape, etc) scan it and print it to use it privately. Maybe I'm just daft. 🙂

 

[FrankS]

Oh. Since when is it against the law to make a print of anything? As long as things ain't sold as original material and/or without the creator's consent I don't see why I could take any picture off the web (or newspaper, video tape, etc) scan it and print it to use it privately. Maybe I'm just daft. 🙂

Consider this: A portrait photographer has done a portrait of a family with 3 sisters. He sells one sister an 11x14 print for $50 and waits for an order from the other sisters. The other sisters though, scan the first print, take it to a lab and get it printed themselves for $10. Has the photographer been harmed by the reproduction of his/her print for private use? Yes he has. (Don't ask me how I know.)

 

[bmattock]

Now that I am doing some work for hire, I upload my scanned and doctored images to Walmart's Photo Center. Then I order the prints and either have them mailed to the customer, or they can go into their local Walmart, wherever that might be, and pick them up. This is Walmart's policy regarding copyright:

PHOTO CENTER COPYRIGHT POLICY
Walmart.com will not assist in the copying of a photograph that is signed, stamped, or otherwise identified by any photographer or studio as copyrighted material, or any photograph that appears to have been taken by a professional photographer or studio, even if it is not marked with any sort of copyright, unless we are presented with a signed Copyright Release. Negatives or digital images of a copyrighted image will be retuned to you unprinted and you will be provided instructions on how to present Walmart.com with a signed Copyright Release. In addition, Walmart.com will not assist in the copying of any state or federal document, including but not limited to, driver's licenses, passports, and social security cards.

I use this form to allow Walmart to print my photos:

http://www.cameramentor.com/Walmart_Copyright_Release.pdf

Please feel free to download and use it yourself. I got it from Walmart, but searhing their website just now, I can't seem to find it again. Still, it works, so it is probably worth keeping around.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[dmr]

There was a big stink here a while ago, made the local news, where Wally World refused to print somebody's wedding photos because they looked like professional shots.

One thing I do question (IANAL) is whatever empowers or binds Wally World to enforce this ... or qualifies them to judge. Many of the employees there <meow> are barely qualified to push the buttons on the Frontier, let alone judge the quality of the work.

 

[bmattock]

Oh. Since when is it against the law to make a print of anything? As long as things ain't sold as original material and/or without the creator's consent I don't see why I could take any picture off the web (or newspaper, video tape, etc) scan it and print it to use it privately. Maybe I'm just daft. 🙂

Copyright laws can be very specific, depending on the item being protected. In any case, Walmart (or any third party) does not 'know' that you're not making copies to sell, and they have been sucessfully sued in the past for not making 'reasonable efforts' to enforce copyrights. Heads they lose, tails they lose. Either they make you mad by requiring a copyright, or they get sued by artists whose work has been copied without their consent.

There is a third choice - they could choose to no longer provide the service at all. If it cost them too much money to run, that's what they'd do.

So, although it is an inconvenience, I think it is making the best of a bad situation.

If you really want to get mad, consider this - as of July 1, 2005, you will no longer be able to buy a DVD recorder in this country that can ignore the 'do not allow copies' signal from the cable networks. In other words, if you buy a DVD recorder after July 1, it won't record HD shows from TV. Anybody really want one of those? Especially when everything will be HD in a few years anyway? You won't even be able to record the evening news on a DVD recorder.

Of course, you could buy a HD-capable DVD recorder NOW, and be able to use it later. But that would be naughty, huh?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

There was a big stink here a while ago, made the local news, where Wally World refused to print somebody's wedding photos because they looked like professional shots.

One thing I do question (IANAL) is whatever empowers or binds Wally World to enforce this ... or qualifies them to judge. Many of the employees there <meow> are barely qualified to push the buttons on the Frontier, let alone judge the quality of the work.

That's the problem - there are no objective standards. But they've lost some lawsuits anyway, and they're doing this because it costs them more money not to.

You can blame Wally World if you like - and God knows I am not their cheering section.

But the blame in this case really belongs to the artists who have sued them and won, blaming them for not inspecting every photo they allow to be printed to make sure it does not infringe on any copyright.

Walmart policy is now - local managers have the right to refuse to print anything. They know it makes customers mad. They wish it didn't - they'd rather have happy customers spending lots of money. But the lawsuits hurt more.

Photographers and artists have the right to protect their work and make the profit from their own labor, right? And they want the government to enforce that.

So, when some doofus makes a bazillion copies of some famous photo or CD or DVD and blasts it out for a nickle each, the artists sue.

That's a good thing, right?

But the doofus in question hasn't got jack for money by the time he/she is caught. So the lawyers say let's go after everyone who enabled the doofus. That would be Walmart in some cases. So Walmart gets sued. The argument is that Walmart 'knew, or should have known' that their equipment was being used to violate the artists copyright. They argued, they lost, they paid. Artist happy now.

So which should they do? You tell me, I'm all ears.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[oftheherd]

Yep, sticky wicket. I wouldn't want any of my work copied and sold without getting the profit, but neither would I want to be hassled just because I had done "too nice" a job.

 

[JoeFriday]

so the obvious answer is to print out a copy of the photo release that Bill shared, and hand that over every time you want to have copies made

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I used to do alot of portraiture, the lab I use prints a copyright on the back of the proofs/prints with my name on it, thankfully. The scenario goes like this:

phone rings: "Hello this is Joe Schmuckatelli, you guys did those portraits of my daughter and I have the proofs, I was wondering could I get some extras? Yeah I've got family in town and they need some 5x7's. When do I need them, uh, this afternoon, you know they leave in the morning, HOW MUCH???? Whatta Ya' Mean a Rush Order???? I'll call you back".......hangup.

2 hours later......phone rings: "Hi, this is Suzy down at Wolf Camera, Joe Schmuckatelli is here and he's wanting some copies of some pictures of his daughter that are copyrighted with your name on them........yeah he said it'll be o.k. with you....................tell him to do what?...............no I don't think I can say that to him......no, that either......


This used to happen to me on a weekly basis, portraits, weddings, etc. Very frustrating to say the least. Photographers make a large part of their income on prints/enlargements, to cheat someone out of a days pay is poor form, I agree with Frank.

As far as a photo CD, if the intent is to allow you to make copies from it then the photographer should include a release form with his name and number on the CD itself.

Todd

 

[Alex Shishin]

This is one good argument for the friendly neighborhood photo shop as opposed to the big and impersonal operation like Walmart. I have all of my work done by Mr. Sato at King Camera, just five minutes walk from home. Mr. Sato is a Leica photographer (I corrupted the poor dear boy) and very conscientious about his work. Importantly, apropos to this discussion, he knows my work.

It is truly a pity that Walmart will reject work that they think is too good. In this suspicious age where photographers are hassled for photographing buildings, its truly nice to know that you will be put under suspicious if you have any photographic talent.

The joke is that it is now practically impossible to stop plagiarism. Anyone with a cheap printer can reproduce anything at home with no one being the wiser. I read a number of complaints about photos being rip-off from websites. Even e-mails are leaky. It's remotely possible to get ripped off even before publication.

 

[Theo-Prof]

Some years back, when I was finishing my last degree, I worked at one of those mom-and-pop photo stores. We had people come in all the time wanting us to scan and print prints that were obviously professional, many of which would have the name of the studio on the print. People were not happy to hear that we would not copy them. However, most understood the reason when we explained it to them.

If however, a person brought in a very good slide or negative, we presumed that we were printing an "original." Whether or not the person requesting the print was the photographer, we presumed that they owned the rights to make as many copies as they wanted since they owned the "original." These days, with so many people shooting digital, and so many images floating around the internet, determining whether a digital image is an "original" is almost impossible. I see this as yet another reason to shoot film.

Kevin

 

[Nikon Bob]

In the days of film only it is my understanding that if you had a pro do work for you they kept the negs and you had prints made by them. As you say today is a much more complicated time for those wishing to protect their copyright and those not wanting to be sued for making illegal copies. Hard coices, tuff call.

Bob

 

[nwcanonman]

Actually the lab at my Walmart knows I'm a pro, (even won a photo award of theirs) and have no problem printing my work. I have a copyright stamp made (only cost $10) with my full name on it, then I just print the date taken underneath the stamp. I use it on CDs and prints.
Most of my best prints are made at a pro lab that's known me for years.

 

[bmattock]

I think the problem is with people who are NOT pros - the lab examines their work, thinks their work is that of somebody else (a pro) and refuses to print it. The solution, as far as I know, is to carry a copyright release declaring the work to by yours and giving yourself permission to print it, strange as that may seem! That's what I have been doing with the form I linked to earlier in this thread.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[nwcanonman]

Bill,
Sorry, I didn't say it properly. MyI main point was: get to know the people at whichever lab you use. That way they know your work and that you are who you say you are - an honest guy ~ ; - )

 

[bmattock]

Bill,
Sorry, I didn't say it properly. MyI main point was: get to know the people at whichever lab you use. That way they know your work and that you are who you say you are - an honest guy ~ ; - )

Yes, I agree with that! I send my customers over to the local Walmart all the time, I give them my signed copyright release so that they can pick up the prints I've ordered for them, or print from the CD I gave them (since I'm just an amateur, I give them rights to my photos so that they can do whatever they want with them). The folks there seem to know me, so they don't give my customers any hassle. But they have the release, just in case.

I did have some problems with my sister up in North Dakota. I had Walmart print them to the local store in Minot, but they didn't want to give them to her. I had to fax them my signed release and then they did it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[FrankS]

You are obviously doing great work, Bill!

 

[bmattock]

You are obviously doing great work, Bill!

Aw, shucks! Actually, I think I'm just hitting the 'cues' that they are told to look for that marks so-called 'professional work'. Use of external strobes, backdrops, that sort of thing. I'd love to be able to say it was because of my photographic style, ability, vision and whatever else, but I suspect not.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[jlw]

Oh. Since when is it against the law to make a print of anything?

A print is a copy, and copyright is, literally, the right to make copies. That right is the exclusive property of the copyright holder (normally, the person who was responsible for the creation of the original work) unless and until he or she signs it away.

So, it always has been against the law -- the copyright law, that is -- to make copies of any "intellectual property" without the copyright holder's permission.

The law does incorporate a few exceptions: criticism and comment, education, and the ol' standby "fair use" -- which allows you a LIMITED right to make copies for your own use of something for which you already have one legal copy.

The reason that photo labs etc. don't want to risk making copies is that they have no way of being sure your intended use is "fair use." And if it isn't, they become parties to the infringement and are liable for damages if the copyright holder sues. Wal-Mart's pockets are a lot deeper than the average individual's, so you can see why they wouldn't want to be the target for a lucrative legal action.


Incidentally, we photographers sometimes find ourselves with the shoe on the other foot. A while back I had done some resumé photos for a dancer friend, who took one of the prints to a duplicating lab to have copies made. The lab refused -- until I gave her a letter saying, "I am the copyright holder of photograph XYZ123, and I hereby grant to Suzie Bunhead the right to make up to 100 copies of this photograph for any purpose." After that, no problem.