Copyright and Watermarks and Getting Prints

[Thayli]

Not sure this should be in 'People' or not, so feel free to delete it if its not.

So it has been exactly one year since I started trying to learn the basics of photography, and in celebration I decided to get some shots printed, something Ive never done before. I got 100 4x6s and 10 8x10s. Sent them to walmart for 1 hour service and happy days. For context, some shots below:



So there was maybe half posed shots like 1 and 3, and half candids like 2 and 4.

However, when i went in to collect my photos, I then got a slightly hostile response from the photo staff and immediate requests to see identification for myself and also the people in the photographs, along with permissions to print these photos out. I was suprised to say the least, and for the first couple of minutes I basically repeated 'what?' numerous times. (My first thought believe it or not, was that I had accidentily included a shot from my son in the bath or getting changed or something, and this was walmarts idea of swooping down on an underground porn ring). Of course, once I actually tuned into the conversation I realised that they thought I was a proffesional and wanted studio/model releases to give me my pics. Ego. Stroke. Mine.

My puffed up chest quickly deflated however when even after I explained 'its just my wife and her family' they refused to give me my pics. In the end, it took 25minutes, the opinions of an invisable shift manager (who had apparently been shown my pictures before I even arrived in the store which kinda bothered me), and going into exif to prove they were taken with a $200 dslr AND that I could even say what the shutter speed/aperture was on a couple of shots before they finally gave them to me. Even then, they were still broadcasting their reluctance. I was also told in future I have to have model releases, and put a watermark on my shots 'that only I can see' as proof they are mine. WTF? (Excuse the french).

Dont get me wrong, I'm very proud of my pics, and I think theyre definetly above your average family snaps, however Im under no illusions of my status or skill shall we say, (Or equipment either), and it would take a strong squint to confuse me with a pro. (Something that has been proven several times on this forum, ahem). So, who else has walked into this very complimentary face-slap when trying to get your pictures printed, who has 'invisable watermarks' and can explain what the hell thats all about, and who fills in a 'model release' everytime they get pictures of their families printed? Also, why the hell is walmart so paranoid, and would all developers be the same, or is walmart 'special'?

Im very angry, with a great big smile on my face. :lmao:

 

[Granddad]

Moral of the tale - don't get your prints done at Walmart. ever. again.
I never heard of a UK supermarket trying to police photos! What do they think they are, minimum wage attorneys?

I can see how they might think you are a pro, you do some good work but you could have made the ultimate argument on that one: would a pro get his work printed at Walmart? What a bunch of officious Wallys!

 

[cgipson1]

Dude... WallyWorld sucks! Try these guys... they rock! WHCC - White House Custom Colour ! And there are other good labs out there too....

P.S. it is that wife of yours... she rocks!

 

[Big Mike]

As a professional, I've glad to hear that places like Walmart are doing this. We don't want people making prints of our photos without permission. (thus violating copyright).
Walmart has gotten into trouble before, which is why they are trained to be so strict.

This is also why, when I sell digital images to clients (along with permission to make prints), I include a letter that states that they are allowed to make copies/prints. Of course, it wouldn't be hard to fake such a letter....

 

[Thayli]

I never heard of a UK supermarket trying to police photos! What do they think they are, minimum wage attorneys?

would a pro get his work printed at Walmart?

Yeah Tesco or Boots never seem too bothered about such things, although I do remem a few years back the Daily Mail reported that a news presenter got arrested after getting her sons bath-time pics proccessed at Boots. It was that story that made me think of the porn ring bust I mentioned in OP. As far as a pro getting stuff done at walmart, according to the staff its all the time, and they even gave me a leaflet and forms with studio/model release permissions. It says they keep the forms on file for a year for their own protection etc.

Dude... WallyWorld sucks! Try these guys... they rock! WHCC - White House Custom Colour ! And there are other good labs out there too....

P.S. it is that wife of yours... she rocks!

Thanks man, I obviously need to find somewhere else, and personal recommendations always sway me. My wife got some baby pics by snapfish before and they didnt come back very good at all. And thank you for the wife rocking, I think at walmart the concept of her being married to me wasnt helping me get my photos back.

As a professional, I've glad to hear that places like Walmart are doing this. We don't want people making prints of our photos without permission. (thus violating copyright).
Walmart has gotten into trouble before, which is why they are trained to be so strict.

This is also why, when I sell digital images to clients (along with permission to make prints), I include a letter that states that they are allowed to make copies/prints. Of course, it wouldn't be hard to fake such a letter....

While I totally understand the annoyance/revenue loss, at what stage would a pro's completely unwatermarked images suddenly become public domain? I'm assuming (so i could be wrong) only the people who commisioned the shots and who have therefore been given explicit permission by the photographer would be able to get their hands on such files. Every pro shot I think Ive seen online always had a watermark somewhere on it, (and many non-pro shots as well lol), and if you try to print out something that has "blahblahphotography" written all over it I can see a problem for copyright, but completely unwatermarked? That surely would fall to responsability of photographer, not Walmart?

Anyway, thanks for the replies guys as always. Last thing though, does anyone know about these 'invisable watermarks' that one of the staff was banging on about?

 

[KmH]

A watermark is not needed to establish copyright.
I would venture that most professionally made images online have no watermark on them, nor a credit for the photographer.
In other words, I think most professionally made images that are online are in advertisements and on business web sites.

In the US, copyright last for the life of the copyright owner, plus 70 years. The additional 70 years allows passing copyrights to the copyright owner's heirs.

Except when used for a commercial use, commercial as defined by publication law, the photographer can distribute photos of people pretty much any way the photographer wants.

 

[Thayli]

Dude... WallyWorld sucks! Try these guys... they rock! WHCC - White House Custom Colour ! And there are other good labs out there too....

P.S. it is that wife of yours... she rocks!

Okay, another quick question! Going through the pricing/options on that site, and bearing in mind i'm a complete novice here, what kind of print would be best for me? Lustre/glossy/metallic.... How do you decide which finish goes with what type of shot? Is glossy best for bright and metallic for low-key (just random selections) or is it not as exact as all that?

Walmart just took my money and then (not quite) gave me my pics.

 

[Thayli]

A watermark is not needed to establish copyright.
I would venture that most professionally made images online have no watermark on them, nor a credit for the photographer.
In other words, I think most professionally made images that are online are in advertisements and on business web sites.

In the US, copyright last for the life of the copyright owner, plus 70 years. The additional 70 years allows passing copyrights to the copyright owner's heirs.

Except when used for a commercial use, commercial as defined by publication law, the photographer can distribute photos of people pretty much any way the photographer wants.

Well I do sympathize, and to be honest I hadnt thought about commercial advert pics online, so you do have a point. (Although, if its being used in an advert, does that not mean the photographer has sold the rights to the product company?

In all honestly (and this isnt pointed at any reply given), the bit that concerned me was the fact that somehow I had to (and will have to again if i choose 1 hour) go through a whole process of convincing people that these photos belonged to me, and that I had the permission of the people in the photographs to get them printed out. As a standard typical lazy-assed member of modern society, I dont want to have to fill in forms and get peoples signatures for what are simply family photos, especially when half those photos are even candids. Just all seems a bit weird and over-dramatic. If I asked my mother-in-law to sign a model release after the shot above she would think I'd lost my mind.

 

[cgipson1]

Dude... WallyWorld sucks! Try these guys... they rock! WHCC - White House Custom Colour ! And there are other good labs out there too....

P.S. it is that wife of yours... she rocks!

Okay, another quick question! Going through the pricing/options on that site, and bearing in mind i'm a complete novice here, what kind of print would be best for me? Lustre/glossy/metallic.... How do you decide which finish goes with what type of shot? Is glossy best for bright and metallic for low-key (just random selections) or is it not as exact as all that?

Walmart just took my money and then (not quite) gave me my pics.

Depends on what you like! Order a small sampling.. you would be amazed at the differences the paper makes. The textures are nice too. I love the Metallic paper for B&W... it is gorgeous. I usually go matte / lustre on prints because I hate the glare glossy can give. It all depends on what YOU like! I think they will even send samples when you sign up.. I am pretty sure I got a bunch of samples....

 

[cgipson1]

A watermark is not needed to establish copyright.
I would venture that most professionally made images online have no watermark on them, nor a credit for the photographer.
In other words, I think most professionally made images that are online are in advertisements and on business web sites.

In the US, copyright last for the life of the copyright owner, plus 70 years. The additional 70 years allows passing copyrights to the copyright owner's heirs.

Except when used for a commercial use, commercial as defined by publication law, the photographer can distribute photos of people pretty much any way the photographer wants.

Well I do sympathize, and to be honest I hadnt thought about commercial advert pics online, so you do have a point. (Although, if its being used in an advert, does that not mean the photographer has sold the rights to the product company?

In all honestly (and this isnt pointed at any reply given), the bit that concerned me was the fact that somehow I had to (and will have to again if i choose 1 hour) go through a whole process of convincing people that these photos belonged to me, and that I had the permission of the people in the photographs to get them printed out. As a standard typical lazy-assed member of modern society, I dont want to have to fill in forms and get peoples signatures for what are simply family photos, especially when half those photos are even candids. Just all seems a bit weird and over-dramatic. If I asked my mother-in-law to sign a model release after the shot above she would think I'd lost my mind.

This is a case where they are just trying to follow what their legal department passed down, and you threw them for a loop... some of your shots look damn good, and they are used to seeing the typical crap!

 

[Light Guru]

Going through the pricing/options on that site, and bearing in mind i'm a complete novice here, what kind of print would be best for me? Lustre/glossy/metallic....

That's a personal choice. I recommend having one of your images printed on each that way you can look at them all together to compare.

 

[480sparky41 41]

........ and put a watermark on my shots 'that only I can see' as proof they are mine. WTF? (Excuse the french)...........

There are several ways to imbed a hidden watermark in your images.

 

[Buckster]

........ and put a watermark on my shots 'that only I can see' as proof they are mine. WTF? (Excuse the french)...........

There are several ways to imbed a hidden watermark in your images.

Or in anyone else's images, for that matter. Model releases can be faked well enough to take out a Wally-World employee too. I mean, just print one out and scribble a signature on it.

I guess it's about them being able to say (in court) that they tried their best to verify, even if some unscrupulous person faked the documentation they require as "proof".

 

[480sparky41 41]

........ and put a watermark on my shots 'that only I can see' as proof they are mine. WTF? (Excuse the french)...........

There are several ways to imbed a hidden watermark in your images.

Or in anyone else's images, for that matter. Model releases can be faked well enough to take out a Wally-World employee too. I mean, just print one out and scribble a signature on it.

I guess it's about them being able to say (in court) that they tried their best to verify, even if some unscrupulous person faked the documentation they require as "proof".

I'd like to just waste their time dragging in my laptop and running a Fourier analysis on each and every image I want printed............

 

[TCampbell]

Nice images! You did everything right UNTIL you chose your printing lab. Live and learn.

I've always preferred a soft matte / lustre finish... but that's mostly because the finish can be lit well without showing reflections of the lighting sources or other things in the room. I usually avoid a glossy finish because of the reflections. I also like the pebble finish.