Walmart on the side of Professionals!

[CCericola]

Walmart Spoils Memorial Service Because They Think My Photos Look Too Professional - The Consumerist

 

[radiorickm]

This happend to me last week. I ordered a print I did in MY studio, paid on line, and went to get it. They wouldn't let me have it. Luckily I found a manager that knew I did photography and with some fast talking and a business card, I was able to get my print finally.

I wasn't really upset, it was a compliment in a way.

And they are (SURPRISINGLY) protecting the rights of legit pro photographers.

 

[OrionsByte]

I used to work for Wal-Mart in the photo lab, though it's been almost 10 years since I left. I was there before digital cameras had really started catching on in the mainstream, and so there was no such thing as ordering prints online, or bringing in a CD or memory card to make prints from. Everything we did was from negatives with good ol' chemicals.

However, I was there when they brought in their big Kodak machines that allowed people to make copies of prints without needing the negatives, and copyright issues were a pain in the butt. Wal-Mart's policy even back then was that if it even looked remotely professional we were not allowed to copy it. I had more than a few arguments with customers - some who just didn't know and honestly didn't understand why, some who knew the rules and tried to fool us by cropping out the logo, and some who just wanted to throw a fit about it because, well, they're Wal-Mart shoppers.

The story you linked to is stupid though, because she paid for the prints and then they wouldn't give them to her... that's just messed up. We always intervened before any money changed hands - sometimes that was after customers had spent time on the machine, but most of the time we got to them before that. The digital age has introduced a few more problems, but a situation where someone pays for photos, and then can't get the photos or a refund is just lame.

 

[dots]

I find the rationale questionable. An amateurish photo of the same thing, lacking a release, is therefore ok?

 

[MTVision]

It's not really protecting anyone. Go home find a photo release, print it out, fill it out and bring it back in. I doubt they will call the photographer and even if they did how hard would it be to give a friends number and have them say they are the photographer.

I get what they are trying to do but i would be irritated if they wouldn't print my photos.

 

[Derrel]

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

 

[skieur]

Interesting that it is studio and people shots that Walmart seems to be questioning related to copyright. It would be interesting to know their history regarding law suits in this area.

skieur

 

[e.rose]

It's not really protecting anyone. Go home find a photo release, print it out, fill it out and bring it back in. I doubt they will call the photographer and even if they did how hard would it be to give a friends number and have them say they are the photographer.

I get what they are trying to do but i would be irritated if they wouldn't print my photos.

Exactly my thought.

If I, for some ungodly reason, needed to make prints of my stuff at Walmart, I'd just print out my own release. It'd save a lot of trouble trying to explain that *I* took them.

But on that same token, who's to stop anyone ELSE from doing the same?

 

[dots]

Are they operating a policy of qualitative discretion when quality is not the principle requiring protection? Isn't it privacy and IP that's the issue, not quality?

 

[Overread]

It's not really protecting anyone. Go home find a photo release, print it out, fill it out and bring it back in. I doubt they will call the photographer and even if they did how hard would it be to give a friends number and have them say they are the photographer.

I get what they are trying to do but i would be irritated if they wouldn't print my photos.

Exactly my thought.

If I, for some ungodly reason, needed to make prints of my stuff at Walmart, I'd just print out my own release. It'd save a lot of trouble trying to explain that *I* took them.

But on that same token, who's to stop anyone ELSE from doing the same?

Ahh but they have asked you for proof that you have a licence to print the photos. If at a later date the photographer turns up and asks who printed them and turns to Walmart they have it on record that a document was produced to prove that the person ordering had a permission slip. The issue is then totally between the photographer and the client - and Walmart is safe from begin added into the blame for producing the prints.

 

[MTVision]

Ahh but they have asked you for proof that you have a licence to print the photos. If at a later date the photographer turns up and asks who printed them and turns to Walmart they have it on record that a document was produced to prove that the person ordering had a permission slip. The issue is then totally between the photographer and the client - and Walmart is safe from begin added into the blame for producing the prints.

You can still fabricate a photo release

 

[MTVision]

You can still fabricate a photo release

Unfinished thought that I didn't mean to post!

 

[joealcantar]

I use Walmart for some of my test printing and do not have a problem, I signed one of those goofy forms for them and stapled my card on it and heck I know where it is in the file cabinet. Once you get to know the folks it is fine.
-
Shoot well, Joe

 

[Erinw417]

I took some family photos for the people at my church and had some printed at my local wal-mart they wouldn't allow me to take them saying they looked professional. After I explained that I took them they simply had me fill out a consent form and gave them to me. I took it as a compliment because I am by far a professional. If I was a professional I would be glad they weren't selling my photos to just anybody.

 

[ghache]

lol! i hate retarded walmart staff.