#2. Has this happened to you?

[Canon Fan]

I like it, Canon Fan. (You still may need a signed release at some places!)

Thanks, and yup that'll be next

 

[Corry]

The guy who works at Kodak that came in when we first opened our store (our Walgreens moved from an old Mall location that didn't have one-hour photo to a brand new freestanding store 2 years ago) to teach us how to use the machine told us a story similar to yours. He is also a photographer aside from working for Kodak, and one day he needed a quick reprint of one of his shots, so he stopped in at the Walgreens down the block...the clerk would not let him do it without a signed permission slip, even though it was his photo! So he ran home and got one and brought it back in, kicking himself, cuz he shoulda known better...cuz it was a store and a clerk that HE trained! :LOL:

 

[John Orrell]

That's bloody stupid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thankfully no such probs here in the UK: they'll happily print anything you take in. If it turns out you don't own the copyright, the copyright-holder has an issue between himself and you, not the store which did the printing.

What's the difference between handing over a memory-card/CD and a roll of film? Can you prove that the film doesn't contain photographs of someone else's work? No.!

Let's hope this stupidity doesn't find its way over here. Though probably it will. :roll:

 

[Corry]

I dunno...as a photographer, I like to know that there are other people out there helping to make sure that my work isn't getting ripped off. I don't think the store or clerk should get sued, though, unless they did it on purpose..knowingly reprinting copyrighted work. But...how IS the clerk to know for sure? Therefore, they made the line nice and bold so the clerk doesn't have to be in that position. Am I making any sense? Probably not. Sorry..I'm terrible at actually explaining what is in my head...it seems clear in my head, just not when it comes out!

*braces for the jokes that are sure to come out of that one. *

 

[Jamie R]

Corry's got a good point though. One difficulty is that a kid (stop being so harsh on them Canonfan) just trying to make a start and earn his own money isn't a very good arbiter of what is professional and what isn't. It's good to see large institutions try to protect their vulnerable staff from being included in a legal suite.

One way to get around it is to start using a pro-lab and set up an account. That way your work will be kept on file and the staff will get to know you. It's harder to rip off someone's work if it's all done in-house with the lab who develop your rolls. Maybe that's a bit away.

Life in America

 

[mrsid99]

My suggestion to Canon Fan is to find a place that doesn't employ mindless morons to get his prints made.

 

[matthew robertson]

I know it is a pain in the butt, but when we are trained, we are told that not only can the store be sued and fined by a photog that didn't want their pic reprinted, but we personally can be sued and fined, as well as fired. So they pretty much strike the fear of God in you!

I can't imagine how any of that could be enforced, or not be dismissed by a simple waiver. That sounds like a hefty load of...

Who has the stores so scared? Those massive, wealthy freelance photographers with the well-staffed legal departments? What kind of photographic images have managers and clerks decided are forbidden? Grandad's portait, the formula for Viagra, Mickey Mouse? What the f'k?

Remind me not to shop there.

 

[Jovian]

There are several retail photography giants in this country who have the money and ability to do that... Nationwide, with hundreds of studios... you'd better believe that if they wanted to go after someone for ripping off a copyright they could do it.

 

[Tuna]

I believe at least two major retailers (including WalMart, I believe) have been sued (and lost multi-million dollar verdicts) by various photographic studios for not having aggressive copyright protection policies in effect at their stores.

Copyright infringement laws don't only protect those big, bad giant retailers. They also protect the thousands of independent studios and photographers who rely on their photography for a living.

Most of the retailer rules focus on any image that appears to be a "professionally" taken portrait or portrait-style photo. Admittedly, this is the area that often causes dispute due to the judgement being made by an hourly employee at the retail location. However, they are trained to be overly-cautious and to err on the side of not letting the photo be copied.

I don't believe a business card will do the trick. The best thing would be, as was already suggested in this thread, to print out a release form (examples can be found online) with a '"YOUR NAME HERE" PHOTOGRAPHY" style letterhead. The retailer may want a phone number to call for verification and make a copy of the release to keep as proof of having seen it.

As casual, serious amateur or semi-pro photographers, we may not know why there is a need for copyright protection or why we aren't allowed to print our own pictures at a retailer. But any and all true professional photographers as a whole know and appreciate the rules and would expect the retailer to stop them. If they, in a pinch, ever need to use a retailer to print their own stuff, they know to bring a release - and will probably lecture the clerk if they don't ask for one.

 

[walter23]

Well the letterhead sounds like my next project. Oh well, I am happy at least that this has motivated me to design my cards FINALLY! Here is what I think I am going to go with . . .

Uhh, did you write your own dictionary definition, or is that copyrighted material you're using there, Mister?

I may have to give my friends Merriam and Oxford a call.

 

[Corry]

I believe at least two major retailers (including WalMart, I believe) have been sued (and lost multi-million dollar verdicts) by various photographic studios for not having aggressive copyright protection policies in effect at their stores.

Copyright infringement laws don't only protect those big, bad giant retailers. They also protect the thousands of independent studios and photographers who rely on their photography for a living.

Most of the retailer rules focus on any image that appears to be a "professionally" taken portrait or portrait-style photo. Admittedly, this is the area that often causes dispute due to the judgement being made by an hourly employee at the retail location. However, they are trained to be overly-cautious and to err on the side of not letting the photo be copied.

I don't believe a business card will do the trick. The best thing would be, as was already suggested in this thread, to print out a release form (examples can be found online) with a '"YOUR NAME HERE" PHOTOGRAPHY" style letterhead. The retailer may want a phone number to call for verification and make a copy of the release to keep as proof of having seen it.

As casual, serious amateur or semi-pro photographers, we may not know why there is a need for copyright protection or why we aren't allowed to print our own pictures at a retailer. But any and all true professional photographers as a whole know and appreciate the rules and would expect the retailer to stop them. If they, in a pinch, ever need to use a retailer to print their own stuff, they know to bring a release - and will probably lecture the clerk if they don't ask for one.

Thank you...well said.

 

[Rhubarb]

Hey - I like the business cards as well. Looks like a good pic too.

 

[matthew robertson]

However, they are trained to be overly-cautious and to err on the side of not letting the photo be copied.

Why is it that those with the least authority make the most efforts to wield it? It's a bad system, which suggests bad laws and bad government.

As casual, serious amateur or semi-pro photographers, we may not know why there is a need for copyright protection or why we aren't allowed to print our own pictures at a retailer. But any and all true professional photographers as a whole know and appreciate the rules

That's really condescending.

 

[fadingaway1986]

honestly, i sometimes say something looks copyright because the person is being a pain in the ass and i'd rather not do the work for them.

Oh I can so relate to that...

I love the nice relief when someone wants me to copy it, and i flip it over and the back says "DO NOT COPY"... Thats one of my favourite things... lol

 

[fadingaway1986]

I personally think it is fair enough for the company to refuse to print them... Because they stand to lose a lot if they get caught...

However, I find it kind of strange that they refuse from a digital file?

At work, we print everything off digital & film... We also copy photos, but it we have any reason to believe they may be copyrighted, we can turn the customer away...

We did have one incident a few weeks back, where a lady got around 150 photos printed, and they all came out with copyright watermarks on them... We contacted the manager and he told us that we had to call her and tell her we needed a note from the photographer...

Welll... I called her several times & couldnt get throguh. So later on she turned up, and we told her... and she got all shitty... and shes like - well i'll give you the number & you can ring her... Which the manager said no to - we needed something written...

Sooo yeah...

I dunno what my point was there?

Basically I think you should see it as a good thing - that its making it harder for someone to steal your images. (And take it as a compliment that they think you're so good)...

And get yourself a release form.