My mother in law went to her local Walgreens to pick up some photos....

[Overread]

Walmart isn't Walgreens?
But they both have Wal in the name - bleh confusing America place

 

[Dao]

I do not think they really care who took the photo. All they care is a paper saying that such and such who own the photo right grants Walgreen/Walmart/Wally world to print.

I do not think once that have a paper like that, they will question about if the paper is legit. (Of course, if the paper is hand written and looks like someone at the age of 6 wrote it then that is a different story)

They just want to cover their butt.

 

[Ron Evers]

I agree that there is far too much interference in our personal lives by government & the elitist politically correct gang - but...

 

[KmH]

Are you f'in serious?

I mean, to be honest, I CANNOT imagine why you would EVER print pictures for anything important at a Walmart, but IF I was doing so and they gave me that crap, that place would lose ALL business from me FOREVER... photos and otherwise. Who are they to police your pictures? Seriously. I'm disgusted.

Walgreens was covering Walgreens' ass, not the photographers ass.

 

[manaheim]

I hereby ban all Wal* stores.

 

[Tony S]

Gee... imagine this, Walgreens also has a form you can fill out to prevent this problem when you pick up images printed there. Wow, who'd a thunk to look at their policies when uploading pictures to their site??

http://www.walgreens.com/images/pdfs/photo/copyrightform.pdf

 

[ConradM]

Gee... imagine this, Walgreens also has a form you can fill out to prevent this problem when you pick up images printed there. Wow, who'd a thunk to look at their policies when uploading pictures to their site??

http://www.walgreens.com/images/pdfs/photo/copyrightform.pdf

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Target FTW

 

[rexbobcat]

You hate them for taking measures to try and protect working professional photographers from having their photos reproduced (printed) without their permission?

Honestly I can understand a tiny amount of frustration at not being able to get the prints at the instant you arrive, but the policy is there purely to protect the professional photographer (something many here are keen to do). It might not be a perfect policy and relies upon human judgement (mostly lowly trained as well), but it is at least a step toward helping protect the professional in a modern environment where such is increasingly difficult to do.

This is the same mindset that is driving SOPA.

 

[Kerbouchard]

What qualifies some untrained retail employee to judge whether the picture I had printed was likely do good that there was no way the customer could have printed it?

Well chances are someone working in printing photos at a popular printers they'll see more photos per day than most of us will - and per week more still. So they probably build up a half decent ability to tell general snapshots (esp when there is more than one) from people who generally know a bit more about their craft; about framing, posing, processing presenting etc...

Like I said might not be perfect every time, but its making the effort and it is trying to protect the professional without confusing the average customer (release forms for all photos would be darn confusing and a hindrance).


Honestly I think you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick Mana and I feel you'd be on the very other end if Walmart printed some of your pictures up for someone else without them asking first

No, you don't know the strength of my convictions or how deeply they run.

I believe that a thing done poorly is FAR worse than a thing not done at all. Especially when it comes to areas of people telling other people what to do, how to live their lives, what is and is not acceptable, etc. Since I also believe that, generally speaking, no one is more qualified to live ones life that oneself, this means I'm pretty far down this particular road and have no intention of turning back.

I have no doubts that were my pictures good enough to be stolen, that they would be... and I have no doubts that if they were printed at a Walmart by the thief that the Walmart would have about as much chance of determining that they were not the shots of the customer ... than I would... which is to say... zero. Or at best, a blind shot in the dark. The same chance they would have to wrongly accuse someone.

I am absolutely not on the wrong end of the stick.

Unfortunately there are faaaaaaaaaaaar too many people who think as you do.

No offense, you know I love you, man... but people who take positions such as you scare the hell out of me.

You do realize what copyright means, right? That the person who took the photograph has the right, and responsibility, to determine how his images will be printed. In this case, the OP mentioned that somebody else(i.e. not the copyright owner) was purchasing prints from a retail outlet. Based on copyright, that person has no right to print, or have printed those photos without a release. It's not just a policy, it's the law. I fail to see how somebody could be upset with a lab for simply asking questions to see if the photos being printed were made by the purchaser or if the purchaser had a release to have them printed.

You hate them for taking measures to try and protect working professional photographers from having their photos reproduced (printed) without their permission?

Honestly I can understand a tiny amount of frustration at not being able to get the prints at the instant you arrive, but the policy is there purely to protect the professional photographer (something many here are keen to do). It might not be a perfect policy and relies upon human judgement (mostly lowly trained as well), but it is at least a step toward helping protect the professional in a modern environment where such is increasingly difficult to do.

This is the same mindset that is driving SOPA.

SOPA is dead.

 

[manaheim]

Amazing...

 

[KmH]

Lawmakers, technology companies and the entertainment industry pledged to find a way to combat online piracy and copyright infringement.

Congress withdraws anti-piracy measures - Technology & science - Security - msnbc.com

 

[usayit]

A Who are they to police your pictures? Seriously. I'm disgusted.

Ever since they were made legally accountable..... No different from (trying) making the individual websites accountable for the content users place on it.

 

[manaheim]

Ever since they were made legally accountable..... No different from (trying) making the individual websites accountable for the content users place on it.

Ah ok stupid behavior to compensate for stupid legislation. Perfect.

 

[adversus]

A store not printing images is akin to your internet provider not streaming you a song because it can't verify if you are legally entitled to or not. Or Flickr/500px not allowing you to upload a file because it can't guarantee you aren't the proper owner of that file.

Professional photographers are not starving due to people printing their images at Walmart or Walgreens. I hate to say it, but it's the same basic argument the music/movie industry makes about piracy.