Walmart won't release photos !!??

[usayit]

I agree. It's the person committing fraud, the company should not be liable.It's like a bartender shouldn't get sued because they served someone and that person choose to drink and drive.

yup... its actually harder for the bartender because its not reasonable to give a test after each serving and no release form is available.

 

[blackrose89]

So true.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I agree. It's the person committing fraud, the company should not be liable.It's like a bartender shouldn't get sued because they served someone and that person choose to drink and drive.

yup... its actually harder for the bartender because its not reasonable to give a test after each serving and no release form is available.

If DUI's weren't so profitable, bar's wouldn't have parking lots. DUI's could be eliminated overnight...Jurisdictions choose not to.

 

[usayit]

If DUI's weren't so profitable, bar's wouldn't have parking lots.

A bit off topic but...

Whatever you do, do not sit in your car while waiting to sober up! Stay in the bar or stand outside until ready. Dont ask how I know.

 

[blackrose89]

I agree. It's the person committing fraud, the company should not be liable.It's like a bartender shouldn't get sued because they served someone and that person choose to drink and drive.

yup... its actually harder for the bartender because its not reasonable to give a test after each serving and no release form is available.

If DUI's weren't so profitable, bar's wouldn't have parking lots. DUI's could be eliminated overnight...Jurisdictions choose not to.

Drinking and driving should be illegal period. There shouldn't be a "legal limit". I used to bartend and I honestly believe that a good amount of people can honestly not judge when they are intoxicated. That's exactly what alcohol does, it impedes your judgment. So why allow people who cannot judge try to judge wether they are ok to drive. I think if it was just flat out illegal there would be a lot less accidents due to D&D

 

[Kerbouchard]

yup... its actually harder for the bartender because its not reasonable to give a test after each serving and no release form is available.

If DUI's weren't so profitable, bar's wouldn't have parking lots. DUI's could be eliminated overnight...Jurisdictions choose not to.

Drinking and driving should be illegal period. There shouldn't be a "legal limit". I used to bartend and I honestly believe that a good amount of people can honestly not judge when they are intoxicated. That's exactly what alcohol does, it impedes your judgment. So why allow people who cannot judge try to judge wether they are ok to drive. I think if it was just flat out illegal there would be a lot less accidents due to D&D

Yes, but you would have had a lot less business as a bartender.

In any case, this thread isn't about drinking and driving.

t's about a Mega-Company standing up for photographers rights. They won't release professional images without a copyright release to anybody other than the original photographer, and in most cases, the original photographer is not getting prints done at Walmart.

Again, I see no problem with their actions. I side with Walmart.

 

[Ballistics]

Crap, I just had xmas cards printed at walmart and my wife picked them up no problem. I guess my pictures don't look professional

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Are they trained to look at people's face and determine if one is a photographer or not?

I agree. I totally get the policy, but how can they judge who took the photo is weird to me.

They don't need to look at anyones face. The want a release, to free them from liability. :roll:

Very true. It's their policy, PERIOD.

When I lived in the boonies, my wife got a job at a drugtstore where, when on the register, she had to card cigarette buyers. The company's rule was that anyone looking younger than 70 had to be carded... Sounds stupid to me but as a worker bee there I would have done it too. It's the employer's policy and that's it.

But I kind of find it funny to read this thread here because, although I wouldn't shop at WalMart for plenty of different reasons, in this case they are actually protecting photogs.

 

[xposurepro]

Professional photographers have had to fight to get this type of protection .. to complain about it is absolutely ridiculous. In fact I don't think the anti-theft of our work is strong enough in these places. All a person has to do is tell the person behind the counter .. yeah I took those and they will have them sign a piece of paper and give them the prints .. no proof is required .. a few (very few) 1-hr labs like Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, etc. will actually say it needs to be typed out on studio letterhead and signed but a quick "I want to speak with your manager NOW !!!" and they will tuck tail and have you sign a generic release and hand over the prints. ... Also have you ever tested their method and watched how it's filed ???? I have .. they have you sign a worthless piece of paper that gets set aside and it contains ... NO BARCODES .. NO RECEIPT # .. which means there is no paper trail that connects that piece of paper to the artists work that was stolen. DUH ... Just one more reason why photographers should use logos, foil stamping, watermarks, etc. ... Wal-Mart is not going to protect your business for you.

 

[usayit]

Wal-Mart is not going to protect your business for you.

While agree that work should be protected, I dont see why this is the responsibility of wal-mart. If the cost of providing such effort goes beyond the value of the service then walmart, a private business entitiy, would simply stop providing said service. They have already thratened to do so... simply turn away print requests no if ands or buts. Who will be impacted? the honest consumer which I believe is the majority. The person who just wants prints from their point and shoot.

On a broader scale.... we screw this up as a society all the time. Placing unnecessary regulations on the wrong stuff and placing the burden on the wrong entities. This usually results in the wrong people being impacted and the criminals just finding another way.

I personally think that the print services, not just walmart, already do enough. Asking a clerk, with no legal experience nor enforcement experience, to approach a customer with concerns over copyright legalities is beyond their payscale. An angry customer with little knowledge or understanding of the situation will just spread the misinformation to others further hurting a private business that really should not be involved in the first place. Its easy to point the finger at someone else, but in the end the photographers and law enforcement should bear the burden of making it difficult. Yes, I know its difficult but its just not right to expect someone else to do it because of yoyr own business decisions.

First of all, stop providing soft proofs. Meet with the client in person with portfolio like we did in the old days. If you figure out how to do this in software, go fund it yourself. Get off the soap box and do something.... IMO, I have had this debate before.... both sides, the consumer and photographers, complain too much.


We have the same problem in media and software. Whenever software is hardened with DRM adding some inconvenience, people whine and whine and WHINE. I bet some of those whining are professional photographers too. You want to know what is one of the most pirated pieces of comercial software? yup photoshop. Guess who uses photoshop?

 

[molested_cow]

My manager had his buddy (amateur photographer with good skills and equipment) take some family photos for him at his own place. He cut out the background and replaced it with white in photoshop, sent it to the Walgreens across the street for print and when he showed up to pick up the photos, the guy at the counter was unwilling to release it to him because it "looked professional". Their point is, they don't print professional photos. I don't understand what logic this is. Are they trying to prevent people from printing works of professional to protect its copy right, or is Walgreen thinking that pros should just go to the pros? Anyways, my manager managed to get the photos.

 

[TenaciousTins]

Meh, Walmart has done this to me on a number of occasions and I take it as a compliment and leave it at that. They have finally put me on their "list" of photographers so when I pick pictures up, it's not a problem. As for others, though I have only gotten my sister's photos printed, I just send them with a release. A few times, the people who were running the desk complimented my photos and said they were really well done and they weren't saying that because they had to. Again...I take it as a compliment and also I appreciate that they take time to have that policy. People have been fighting for this kind of thing for a long time...so I wouldn't be complaining!

 

[bazooka]

On a broader scale.... we screw this up as a society all the time. Placing unnecessary regulations on the wrong stuff and placing the burden on the wrong entities. This usually results in the wrong people being impacted and the criminals just finding another way.

+1

 

[Robin Usagani]

You can pretty much make your own print release: Just put Uncle Bob photography on it and you are good to go.