Wal-Mart ever not let you print your own pictures?

[ghpham]

The big deal is: How would you like to pay out $200,000 to defend a frivolous charge of child porn. brought about by Walmart calling the police over a shot of your child in the bathtub?

If you have the kind of money to waste and don't care about your rights, than you are certainly one of a kind.

As far as copyright is concerned, why should an enthusiast who is in the right place at the right time and wants to get some enlargements made have to try and somehow prove that he/she took the pictures?

As I said before, any knowledgable photographer can spot real potential copyright violations. Harassing everyone is unnecessary and unacceptable.

skieur

Sorry to say, such is the state of affairs these days. You need to keep up with the news and the times. If you are going to take pictures of your child in such a state, you have better print out the photo's at home. I did such shots with my kids, but I would never be stupid enough to send it out to a lab for developing. Sign of the times. It's not just Wal-Mart, other labs will report you as well.

 

[skieur]

Sorry to say, such is the state of affairs these days. You need to keep up with the news and the times. If you are going to take pictures of your child in such a state, you have better print out the photo's at home. I did such shots with my kids, but I would never be stupid enough to send it out to a lab for developing. Sign of the times. It's not just Wal-Mart, other labs will report you as well.

Actually from what I understand it IS just Walmart in some areas. In more conservative areas, it may be others as well but generally still the similar type of box store.

skieur

 

[nightowlphoto]

I still get most of my prints done at Wal-Mart and CVS. Wal-Mart has this policy where they won't print pictures taken by a professional photographer without a release, EVEN if they just look professional.

Wal-Mart refused to give me my prints once. They wanted to see the "originals" on the CF card so they could verify their authenticity. I tried explaining to the lady that even if I brought my card back in (left it in the car and didn't want to go get it) that there is no way she could tell if I took them or not. She insisted that they could tell. I felt like telling her, "Don't argue with a kid about technology" (I'm 23 and married, not really a kid anymore, but I grew up on this stuff). So when I finally bring the card back (actually my lovely wife did while I was having this conversation), the lady looked at the files, verified they were not a picture of a picture, and sold me my prints.

I know they are just looking out for the pro's, whom I'm sure get ripped off a lot, but Wal-Mart's policy just seems a bit ridiculous. Without a watermark on the picture, anyone could make up a fake studio and sign a release on the pictures. I just don't get how they think they're helping by doing that. I guess they're just trying to cover themselves in the event someone does break the law.

I know I should feel proud that Wal-Mart thought so highly of my backyard portraits, but I don't like having to prove myself everytime I want some prints.

Anyone else have an experience like this?

When I do a studio shoot, I sell a CD of low res images for a small fee. I've lost count of how many times my customers have come back to me and told me that Wal Mart wouldn't let them print the pictures. I PRAISE WALMART for this. Those cheap customers are suppose to order regular prints from me, and they're trying to cheat me out of profits. EVERY print house is suppose to do this, but WalMart and sometimes Walgreens are the only ones that seem to.

Like others have suggested in this thread, why not get your prints done from more of a professional lab. I get mine from EZPrints (through smugmug), which is outstanding quality, and cheaper than going to WalMart, since you do it online.

 

[MACollum]

I'm actually glad Wal-Mart and Sam's (where I do my generic printing) look out for my work. I had a recent issue where they ask for my ID before they released the prints to me because of my watermark. They had written "Copy Protected by Photographer" on the print sleeve.

I do think that the person arguing with you about your shots without the watermark is a little frustrating but i don't see how she could not sell them to you without you producing the card. Just ask her to show you that policy the next time (in writing) because if you took the shot, you own the copyright. Who is she to question that? Tell her that you're flattered but hand over the prints, produce the policy or call the MOD.

Even though it's frustrating... didn't you feel good later thinking; "She thought these were pro's shots"? )

I agree. It's a good thing that they are paying attention (even if it's just to cover their own butts!) but there's no proof to be had by the lab employees seeing a card or even the pictures on the card.

 

[mrodgers]

When I do a studio shoot, I sell a CD of low res images for a small fee. I've lost count of how many times my customers have come back to me and told me that Wal Mart wouldn't let them print the pictures. I PRAISE WALMART for this. Those cheap customers are suppose to order regular prints from me, and they're trying to cheat me out of profits. EVERY print house is suppose to do this, but WalMart and sometimes Walgreens are the only ones that seem to.

Yup, those cheap SOB customers.... I have seen prices posted here for say, an 8x10 print, range anywhere from $20-40. Also, have seen posted here of "sitting fees" of $150-300. You can get prints at Walmart for $1.98. Is it any wonder why the customers would want to go to Walmart over coming to the photographer for prints? 10 prints at Walmart for less than $20, but at $20 a pop, it's $200-400 from a photographer? Ridiculous.

I'm not speaking about you specifically, but these are the figures I have seen floating around this forum. I'm not a professional photographer. I'm just a normal poor US consumer with a camera. I think it is absolutely ridiculous what photographers charge for portraits and think it is absolutely ridiculous that someone does not have the right to print the pictures where ever they choose. The photographer is paid for taking the picture, that is the service. It's the ridiculous laws that allow photographers to rip off the customers like this.

 

[nabero]

mrodgers, do you believe that it's ok to xerox and distribute pages from a book? The fact that you pay for an item (be it a book, photo, song) does not give you the right to duplicate it.

I see the why teachers might want to xerox chapters from a novel, or a page from a math book for a class, but that doesn't change copyright laws. I think books are pricey, but that doesn't mean the $40 I use to buy a book gives me the right to copy it and do with it what I will. There is a lot of background cost in producing books (paying salaries, equipment, marketing, etc). It might only cost a few dollars to *actually* produce the item: book.

A print might only cost a few dollars to print--but photographers have to keep their business running. It's about respect for a trade.

I'm not a professional photographer either (I have been paid for my services once or twice, but it hasn't even begun to take dent out of how much I spent in travel, or equipment) but I do have respect for people doing honest work.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Its simple, All you have to do is fill out the form they have behind the counter. Problem solved

 

[Peanuts]

The photographer is paid for taking the picture, that is the service. It's the ridiculous laws that allow photographers to rip off the customers like this.

If that is the case they will have to be charging $1000+ for the sitting fees to feed their family. Look at it that way.

 

[Rachelsne]

YI'm not a professional photographer. I'm just a normal poor US consumer with a camera. I think it is absolutely ridiculous what photographers charge for portraits and think it is absolutely ridiculous that someone does not have the right to print the pictures where ever they choose. The photographer is paid for taking the picture, that is the service. It's the ridiculous laws that allow photographers to rip off the customers like this.

When you employ a photographer, you talk with them about the service they provide, many photographers will offer a package to the customer including prints and edited images etc etc, While I agree they are expensive, they fees go with the market demands, if people didnt pay for the photographers the fees would go down... So therefor photographers are not ripping of customers.

Photographers are offering a complete package, if a person wanted to have all the images unedeted high res on a cd, I expect the photographer would work out a price.

I am not a professional and am not good enough for unprofessional photos, but have recently got married and employed a photographer, most photographers I spoke to seem to be up for negotiation on packages and prices

 

[Garbz]

Even I am going to disagree with you. The photographer is not providing a service. Anymore than Canon is providing a service when you buy a professional printer.

You are buying a product based on the service. If you disagree with that I challenge you to buy the photos somewhere else and THEN get a photographer to take them for you, much like you buy a tap and get a plumber to install it.

You're buying a product which gets made to suit you, if it were a service it would mean you could buy it elsewhere and get someone to do the labour.

 

[nightowlphoto]

Here's how I've dealt with the problem of dishonest customers. I don't let them purchase a CD until they've spent at least $50 on prints. Only then can they purchase a CD with low res prints on it, so at least I make a little of the money I deserve from the work I've done. I've talked to 3 potential clients this week, and had to explain my pricing changes, and they all think it was a great idea for me to implement the change.

The people who think photographers are ripping people off are entitled to their opinion, even when it's so out of whack. Trying to change their mind won't do anyone any good though. I just know they'll never call me. That doesn't bother me. I'll work with the people who do. My target customers are NOT Walmart customers in the first place, so let the Walmart types go to Walmart for their pictures. I don't mind. Everybody is happy that way, right?

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Here is an odd incident that happened just the other day.

My daughter, who lives about 100 miles away, came to visit with my two small grandchildren.

While they were here, I set my lights up and took some portraits of the kids. I burned them to a CD and gave them to my daughter. She originally told me she just wanted to put them on her computer. I told her that if she ever wanted to have prints made to call me and I would mail her a release form.

Well, she didn't listen to me, as most kids do, regardless of their age, and she took the CD down to Walgreens to have prints made. When she came back to pick them up, of course they told her she could not have them becasue they looked like pro shots. My daughter understood and said okay, I'll get my dad to send a release form. When my daughter asked for the CD back, amazingly the clerk, a young girl who had just started working there a week before, took the CD and snapped it in half, right in front of my daughter.

Well, this caused a scene, of course. And of course, the manager was not in the store at that time. My daughter called me and told me what happened. I called the store the next day and spoke to a manager and he had already heard about the incident. I told him that I appreciated them being vigilant on copyright laws but I said it certainly did not give anyone in that store the right to destroy property. He agreed and said the clerk was new and was mis-informed about their policies. He apologized.

I sent another CD to the store, along with a release form, which has my phone number, my website, and my business card attached, and they printed the photos for free.

Skieur, or anyone else here, have you ever heard of anything like this happening before?

 

[astrostu]

When my daughter asked for the CD back, amazingly the clerk, a young girl who had just started working there a week before, took the CD and snapped it in half, right in front of my daughter.

The clerk should've been fired on the spot. Period.

 

[R0TT3NBURIT0]

i've never printed out my pictures at wal-mart. all you have to do is shove your san disk in there right?

cause the quality of my pictures are not too good with my priner ):

 

[mrodgers]

The clerk should've been fired on the spot. Period.

I agree. But the old saying, "The customer is always right" doesn't fit into Walmart's business model any more.

I am trying to boycott Walmart. I told the wife to go to the local private owned grocery store from now on. They have much better meat. She came home and said, "Guess what? I spent about $100 LESS on groceries, and pretty much bought the same thing!" I live 40 miles away from everything, which includes the 4 Super Walmarts around me. When we had our first baby, she stopped at one that we normally don't go to (different city) to pick up some formula. The price was about $0.50 more than the Walmart we always normally went to. She complained and was pretty much told "too bad".

My wife bought me a Sony camera for this past Christmas. She bought it at Walmart the day after Thanksgiving (yeah, she's crazy ). It turned out to be a piece of garbage and couldn't take an in focus picture at all. I returned it, but forgot the manual was sitting out on the kitchen table. No problem, I would bring it back again another day. They told me I had only the following day because of a 30 day return policy on cameras. It was an early Christmas present and when I asked what if I had not gotten it early for Christmas, I was told "too bad."

I returned that camera the following day after getting the manual back in the box. While I was looking at camera reviews on the internet and emailing her some sites, she ran out to "surprise" me again by trying to get the Canon SD1000. Walmart had it for $199, but it was $179 on walmart.com. She was in the store and wanted it for $179. She was told "too bad". She could have ordered it online for that price and have it shipped to the store. Huh? She had the same freaking camera in her hand right there in the same store they told her she needed to have it shipped too! Too bad. She didn't buy the camera.

Walmart is horrible anymore. I'm glad one of the "towns" we live near (40 miles away) is a small town still and actually still has private owned stores. I will be going there from now on and if I can't get something in the private owned stores, I'll hunt somewhere else other than Walmart.