Walmart on the side of Professionals!

[RacePhoto]

Walmart on the side of not getting its corporate arse sued off by litigous professional photographers...

There and everyplace else that has the same policy. I've seen people turned away with team photos and wedding photos that are obviously professional shots. It's not just Walmart but the WM haters will find anything to boost their negativity.

As for paying in advance, the article says, she paid online when placing the order. How would they know in advance, not to take the money? And the person who wrote it also makes it clear that some were old studio shots, so this isn't just a matter of some very good photos, they were professional shots going back 40 years.

Fine, I agree, make your own release. And honestly the people at the store could have used some discretion and figured it was a memorial collection instead of holding to some tight corporate line. Maybe their jobs are at risk if they release illegal photos, that would scare me. And then what everyone else said, CYA policy, Walmart lawyers making a preemptive decision, to avoid litigation.

If I ran a studio or did portrait work for hire, I wouldn't want people buying one and then making unlimited copies.

[TPF Sponsor]

[photo guy]

That is why I have a good home printer. I can scan them in with a scanner that I have and then just print them. I know 2 photographers (1 has since stopped due to wanting to do something different with his time) and they both agree with what Wal Mart does to prevent copyright problems. If I need it printed larger, I know that I can just ask the one that is still in business. He took my senior photos back in 1999 as well as my brother's photos, and even a number of my family's photos. It's nice having certain friends.

[skieur]

Wallmart staff in Canada tend to have more common sense than those I am reading about in the U.S., but I would still not use Wallmart for anything but the most unimportant snap shots.

skieur

[Boxhousev]

This happened to me. They would not release my wedding photos. Which I do own the rights too. But the funny part, they took out the photos of me in my dress but two pictures taken by the same professional of my son, they did release. I find a problem with their consistency.

Not saying my work looks professional but I certainly don't want to argue with walmart if they refuse to print my phtotos. Anyone with a SLR these days can take professional looking photos. How can they tell or know for sure.

[O|||||||O]

I wonder how they define a "professional looking photo"...?

[Alpha]

I think the "correct" remedy is to simply have everyone who prints something at WalMart certify digitally or in writing that they have the rights to reproduce the image and they agree to indemnify WalMart in any copyright action. That said, the rather blunt policy they have currently has most likely protected a number of professional photographers over the years even if it causes headaches for some customers. Moreover, since their employees have no reliable way of distinguishing comparatively low and high worth photos, the blanket policy against "professional-looking" photos can make sense. You say you should be allowed to print your own professional-looking photos, but the employees would probably never know if you were actually printing a copy of something that sold at auction for $100K. The potential liability is almost entirely unpredictable. That said, I just took a cursory look at the federal court records and it appears that in the last 20 years WalMart has not been sued once for an infringement of this sort. Whether that means their policy is working or that the real-life risks of litigation are low is anyone's guess...