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



## Flatland2D (Feb 3, 2008)

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?


----------



## Ajay (Feb 3, 2008)

Never happened to me, but I've heard similar stories. That's why I do my picture ordering online. Don't have to leave the house and the quality is usually better anyway.

Definitely a nice little ego boost for you though.


----------



## JIP (Feb 3, 2008)

I think that a little inconvenience for a few people is more than worth protecting pro's from having their livelyhood stolen.  Besides what the heck are you doing printing that kind of work at wally-world anyway.  I can't see any of my work that I would have such disregard for enough that I would take it there.


----------



## jstuedle (Feb 3, 2008)

JIP said:


> I think that a little inconvenience for a few people is more than worth protecting pro's from having their livelyhood stolen.  Besides what the heck are you doing printing that kind of work at wally-world anyway.  I can't see any of my work that I would have such disregard for enough that I would take it there.



Actually the Fuji system is generally OK if maintained correctly. And Fuji is under contract to do that work. I don't think I would print  wedding package or decent portrait package there, but for general prints it's OK.


----------



## Battou (Feb 3, 2008)

No, I have not had issues like this, infact I am constantly hearing about how I should be working for the press, Never have I been asked to verify authentisity of my own images.


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 3, 2008)

Did you mention that the EXIF data was still embedded in the jpgs with or with out the CF card?

I don't know about other cameras but mine lets me put in copyright info that's placed in the EXIF on every shot I take.

Having said that I really don't like some of the results that wallyworld gets and if I need really quick prints I go to Wolf/Ritz.  On line *is* better though.


----------



## JIP (Feb 3, 2008)

jstuedle said:


> Actually the Fuji system is generally OK if maintained correctly. And Fuji is under contract to do that work. I don't think I would print wedding package or decent portrait package there, but for general prints it's OK.


 
ACtually, even being a former Ritz employee I have discontinued taking my photos there because of quality control issues.  I have found that the quality that I get from Mpix is far superior to anything RItz can do.  I do agree that Ritz will surpass any other 1 hour lab though.  But I digress we were on another topic.


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 3, 2008)

JIP said:


> ACtually, even being a former Ritz employee I have discontinued taking my photos there because of quality control issues.  I have found that the quality that I get from Mpix is far superior to anything RItz can do.  I do agree that Ritz will surpass any other 1 hour lab though.  But I digress we were on another topic.



The other great thing about Mpix (where I have all my printing done) is how fast they get it out to me... I mean, they have a QUICK turnaround, and I know I am not going to end up with a lot of bizarre color problems with them since they actually know what they are doing.


----------



## JIP (Feb 3, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> The other great thing about Mpix (where I have all my printing done) is how fast they get it out to me... I mean, they have a QUICK turnaround, and I know I am not going to end up with a lot of bizarre color problems with them since they actually know what they are doing.


 
We agree again!!!...

the 18-200 must not be involved LOL....


----------



## dpolston (Feb 3, 2008)

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_"?   )


----------



## Flatland2D (Feb 3, 2008)

I certainly was flattered about them thinking they were pro shots. And, I don't have any problem with them protecting copyrights. I'm just baffled by how they think they're going to enforce such policy, and the lady's certainty about knowing if they were "fake" or not. We all know there are a hundred ways to get around that if you were so inclinced.  I know the argument I was making wasn't helping my cause (that the pics were mine), but I had to find out how they were going to deal with the situation.

I checked out Mpix earlier today and will give them a try soon. The reason I've been going to CVS/Wal-Mart is that they are the closest one hour photoshops to me, and they are still 30 minutes away. I live out in the country.


----------



## Battou (Feb 3, 2008)

Flatland2D said:


> I checked out Mpix earlier today and will give them a try soon. The reason I've been going to CVS/Wal-Mart is that they are the closest one hour photoshops to me, and they are still 30 minutes away. I live out in the country.



If you are going to stick with any of the two for prints of lesser quality requirements I would advise Wal-Mart, The company that handles CVS's prints (here at least) sucks seriously bad.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 4, 2008)

...

What the!?! Professionals take their photos to walmart? 

...

:raisedbrow:

I live in Australia. I have never shopped there. But I already want to beat walmart employees with a stick. (not the underpaid staff, or the photo personnel, or the geek squad who steal data from computers.... wait a minute!!!! That's it. This policy is to stop their own staff printing photos they found on other peoples computers during a service... somehow I doubt it'll work) but the management staff that make these decisions.

All the Americans out there, stick it to the man. Go in and print your finest photos as 12x18" about 10 of them. And walk out without signing a release .


----------



## Mystwalker (Feb 4, 2008)

"I think that a little inconvenience for a few people is more than worth protecting pro's from having their livelyhood stolen."

Is WalMart liable if someone "steal photographs"?

I do not use Walmart, but based on this thread I will never use them now.

I only print my own junk which noone will ever mistake for professional work.  BUT I do not like the idea of Walmart policing my pictures.  If they are concerned about lawsuits, they should just have you sign a release form confirming that you own rights to picture - they can have this built into their credit card signature thing.

In regards to quote ... you can not inconvenience the innocent to protect the few (pro).  To protect the small percentage of pro (1% or less?), Walmart inconvenience the general public.


----------



## S2K1 (Feb 4, 2008)

I've only used WalMart once to print pictures quickly when I was out and couldn't get to my printer, but they had to stop me and ask if it was taken by a professional and I told them I took it and they let me have the picture. Made my day that they thought a picture I took was a professional picture.


----------



## Zatodragon (Feb 4, 2008)

Yea, i've never been fond of getting my pictures printed at wall mart.  They also have a policy on printing what they thing is right.  They will censor any picture they deem wrong.  I've tried some artistic nudes, a picture of a sword on display i have and both times wallmart refused to print em.

But yes, i think it's good they look out for the copy-right, but it's back on how something merely looks, not if it actually is or isn't.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Feb 4, 2008)

Garbz said:


> ---What the!?! Professionals take their photos to walmart? --


 
Why not, most mini-labs and on-line labs in the US use laser light jet prints that are ran on automatic. So any well-maintained machine should make good prints.  I&#8217;ve never tried Walmart, but I have done print tests at Costco, Adorama, Mpix, and a local pro lab with similar results. 8x12 are $1.50 at Costco and $8.00 at the pro lab.


----------



## Battou (Feb 4, 2008)

Jeff Canes said:


> Why not, most mini-labs and on-line labs in the US use laser light jet prints that are ran on automatic. So any well-maintained machine should make good prints.  Ive never tried Walmart, but I have done print tests at Costco, Adorama, Mpix, and a local pro lab with similar results. 8x12 are $1.50 at Costco and $8.00 at the pro lab.



I think the statement Garbz made is based more on simple logic. When you sit back and think about it, Wal-Mart and drug store in house printing is a secondary aspect of the business as opposed to pro labs with a sole purpose. Often times the in house printers are being run and maintained by regular employees with in house training, where as most pro labs are being run and maintained by employees with more finely tuned and specific training.

At the pro lab the employees are a little more conserned with what goes out the doors and have the training to correct any issues that may arrise. Customer loss can destroy them. At the same time the in house printers often are under the impression that the machine knows best and automatic settings are correct even if the print looks like hell and often times have no ability to properly maintain the machinery. They are less hesitent to let crap go to the customers, after all their photo lab looses enough customers they can just dump it and continue on with the primary function of the store beit grosseries or perscriptions. I believe this is the deturrent Garbz was refering to. 


Wile your statement is true, you can full well get acceptable prints from them. The chances of poor prints are far grater with in house printing than they are from dedicated labs. It stands to reason that a professional photographer not only wants but _needs_ it done right the first time and is not likely to risk the chances of poor quality prints.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 5, 2008)

Jeff Canes said:


> So any well-maintained machine should make good prints.



You've highlighted exactly my point. I find it hard to believe that a company renowned world wide for their high employee turnover, poor pay, and all around dissatisfaction by the workers could even remotely create a policy of pride amongst the workforce. I wouldn't be surprised if their "well-maintained" policy means calling someone in to fix it when the red error light blinks.

Admittedly I am just basing this off the company's international reputation, and an example of a local company with the same reputation once reproduced. In a moment of desperation I took my photos to a local Big W, and when I came to collect an hour later I didn't accept any of the prints. I could have done better on my inkjet at home. And yes they were running some huge Kodak machine, and not just spitting them out of a cheap printer.

As an aside a few days ago I printed a 12x8" for sale at the local Rabbit Photo Lab (again desperation) they asked if I was a professional, I told them what I was selling that picture for, and they happily handed it over. I just have something against a company which treats its customers like criminals (as evident in this thread).


----------



## Battou (Feb 5, 2008)

Garbz said:


> You've highlighted exactly my point. I find it hard to believe that a company renowned world wide for their high employee turnover, poor pay, and all around dissatisfaction by the workers could even remotely create a policy of pride amongst the workforce. I wouldn't be surprised if their "well-maintained" policy means calling someone in to fix it when the red error light blinks.
> 
> Admittedly I am just basing this off the company's international reputation, and an example of a local company with the same reputation once reproduced. In a moment of desperation I took my photos to a local Big W, and when I came to collect an hour later I didn't accept any of the prints. I could have done better on my inkjet at home. And yes they were running some huge Kodak machine, and not just spitting them out of a cheap printer.
> 
> As an aside a few days ago I printed a 12x8" for sale at the local Rabbit Photo Lab (again desperation) they asked if I was a professional, I told them what I was selling that picture for, and they happily handed it over. I just have something against a company which treats its customers like criminals (as evident in this thread).



In other words, I hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Feb 5, 2008)

Garbz said:


> --As an aside a few days ago I printed a 12x8" for sale at the local Rabbit Photo Lab (again desperation) they asked if I was a professional, I told them what I was selling that picture for, and they happily handed it over. I just have something against a company which treats its customers like criminals (as evident in this thread).


 
  My issue with the copyright policy that most in store labs have is that it is not uniform enforced.  Copyright is not just for Pro&#8217;s it applies to all people and equally to all media  (digital, film, prints, etc). An equally enforced policy would require asking ever customer if they were the copyright owner or had a release.


----------



## Peanuts (Feb 5, 2008)

From experience working at a lab (not walmart though! ) it is a really really sticky situation.  you would e surprised the amont of 'photographers' who hand over the full res images then stamp a small copyright on the envelope it comes in.  The labs hands are tied without having a signed printing release and the customer is usually pretty peeved.

It is a pain in the rear but if we printed it that would be a huge copyright issue.


----------



## skieur (Feb 5, 2008)

Personally I think that you would need to be out of your mind to have photos printed at in box store photolabs. I think one needs to realize that unlike true photo labs as one radio ad suggested the guy running the photo lab in these kinds of stores may have been handling food in a different department last week and gardening before that. He is often making decisions that lack common sense based on policies that are unclear and over-generalized and are made by other non-photographers.

Copyright of pros is important, but true violations are rather easy to spot and most often rather blatant in store photo lab situations. Photos of framed pictures that actually show part of the frame or are slightly tilted or show a reflection in the glass, what look like pro shots in among very poor quality photos, apparent pro shots that look too soft, perfect compostion but poor exposure, pro looking compositions where even basic postprocessing does not seem to have been done, etc. These kinds of situations and more would make a knowledgeable photographer suspicious about the possibility of copyright infringement.

The proof that these kinds of photo labs are making bad decisions is the number of enthusiasts or advanced amateurs that have been hassled about often just average quality photos.

An article I read several months ago indicated that Walmart called in the police and had a grandmother charged with producing child pornography because they did not like a couple of prints she had done of her granddaughter blowing bubbles while not wearing clothes although nothing inappropriate was showing. The grandmother spent a fortune defending herself and eventually won, but the response from Walmart seemed rather arrogant in indicating that they would repeat the same kind of thing in the future. No apology to the woman.

Assuming photographers are guilty, given the slightest susicion is not the attitude that I want or appreciate from any lab that I would deal with.

Stick to photo labs in camera stores or professional photo labs.

skieur


----------



## easily_amused (Feb 5, 2008)

Wal-mart has called officials for 'child porn' on MANY occasions.  

They class ANY nudity of children as 'child porn,' even innocent family photos.  One of my friends had CPS called over pics of her baby's first bath.


----------



## gendarmee (Feb 5, 2008)

What if one really stole some PRO's pictures, and dumped them the the DCIM folder of the CF card?


----------



## ghpham (Feb 5, 2008)

I don't see what's the big deal.  Many other labs are heading the same direction, not just Wal-Mart.  They need to protect themselves from potential lawsuits.  They don't really have the professional photographers' interest in mind.  It's all a business decision.


----------



## skieur (Feb 5, 2008)

gendarmee said:


> What if one really stole some PRO's pictures, and dumped them the the DCIM folder of the CF card?


 
The reality is that intentional theft of pro pictures is NOT going to be caught by an average underpaid clerk in a Walmart photolab.  Even the incompetent, ignorant theft of pro photos will only be stopped by those with good photographic and computer knowledge who are likely in more professional photo labs and less likely to encounter such situations.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Feb 5, 2008)

ghpham said:


> I don't see what's the big deal. Many other labs are heading the same direction, not just Wal-Mart. They need to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. They don't really have the professional photographers' interest in mind. It's all a business decision.


 
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


----------



## mrodgers (Feb 5, 2008)

You can blame that completely on the lawyers and the judges.  Just like the hot cup of coffee at McDonalds, or the Toyota 4Runner that rolled over because the stupid woman panicked when she drove off the shoulder and cranked the wheel completely to it's stop.  The lawyers for following through on stupid lawsuits like this because of the payout to them, and the judges for not throwing out these frivolous lawsuits out the door immediately.


----------



## skieur (Feb 6, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> You can blame that completely on the lawyers and the judges. Just like the hot cup of coffee at McDonalds, or the Toyota 4Runner that rolled over because the stupid woman panicked when she drove off the shoulder and cranked the wheel completely to it's stop. The lawyers for following through on stupid lawsuits like this because of the payout to them, and the judges for not throwing out these frivolous lawsuits out the door immediately.


 
Not really!  You can blame that on the ultra-conservative, Christian right approaches of some business owners of large store chains.

skieur


----------



## ghpham (Feb 6, 2008)

skieur said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Feb 6, 2008)

ghpham said:


> 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 (Feb 7, 2008)

Flatland2D said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Feb 7, 2008)

dpolston said:


> 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 (Feb 7, 2008)

nightowlphoto said:


> 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 (Feb 7, 2008)

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 (Feb 7, 2008)

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


----------



## Peanuts (Feb 7, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> 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 (Feb 7, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> 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 (Feb 8, 2008)

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 (Feb 8, 2008)

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 (Feb 8, 2008)

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 (Feb 8, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> 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 (Feb 8, 2008)

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 (Feb 8, 2008)

astrostu said:


> 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.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 9, 2008)

Anybody ever been carded at the pub/bar when you're well past the age?  It's a policy to cover their a$$es.  Not much more than that.  Provide the proof and be done with it.


----------



## mrodgers (Feb 9, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Anybody ever been carded at the pub/bar when you're well past the age?  It's a policy to cover their a$$es.  Not much more than that.  Provide the proof and be done with it.


At the pub?  Try Walmart!  I had some bad luck with speeding (not a speed demon, just like 10 mph over the limit).  Problem was, you really can't survive without driving where I am, there's no public transportation.  So, I drove to work anyways.  But, I was getting married, and was going up to meet my fiance for lunch and to buy tickets to Texas when I drove through an unfamiliar area.  Speed limit cut from 45 down to 25, and the cop was sitting right there.  No avoiding it.  Busted for no license, so ended up loosing it for a year.

The relevance.....  For a year, I could not buy cigarettes at Walmart.  They carded me every time.  I finally get my license back, stopped at Walmart for cigarettes with my license in my hand, and they didn't card me!  I said they had BETTER card me this time!  LOL.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 9, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Anybody ever been carded at the pub/bar when you're well past the age?  It's a policy to cover their a$$es.  Not much more than that.  Provide the proof and be done with it.



Lets see. Fine in Australia for admitting a person into a bar under the age of 18 : $75000 (last I checked), fine to the person: $2500.
Now fine for a photo company reproducing copyright images : none, fine to the person : whatever they want to be sued for.

I'm sorry to say but even in the screwed up legal system that is known as American Law I have never heard of a case such as Walmart having been required to police copyright licensing issues. And unlike the bar example it is also impossible to do so. Your example is totally irrelevant.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 9, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> The relevance..... For a year, I could not buy cigarettes at Walmart. They carded me every time. I finally get my license back, stopped at Walmart for cigarettes with my license in my hand, and they didn't card me! I said they had BETTER card me this time! LOL.


One of two possibilities passed you by. First, you either had a bad lawyer or didn't have on at all or lastly you used yourself to defend the infraction. Needless to say that regardless of the decisions you made, it was bad. However, that will not prevent you from obtaining an identification card to purchase cigarettes, alcohol, porn or whatever if you are of age. The relevence is that you apparently sat on your bum for a year without thinking how to fix the situation.



Garbz said:


> Lets see. Fine in Australia for admitting a person into a bar under the age of 18 : $75000 (last I checked), fine to the person: $2500.
> Now fine for a photo company reproducing copyright images : none, fine to the person : whatever they want to be sued for.
> 
> I'm sorry to say but even in the screwed up legal system that is known as American Law I have never heard of a case such as Walmart having been required to police copyright licensing issues. And unlike the bar example it is also impossible to do so. Your example is totally irrelevant.


 
I thought you blokes at least had a sense of humour. I was not speaking literally of the possible fines that may be encumbered, but more to the point of company/corporate policy. The right to refusal of service is the propritary nature of the business owner(s) governed by their particular by-laws. If a particular business selling candles has a mandate by the owners not to sell to blondes, then it is their right to not to do so. If the local, state or federal government passes a law that redheads cannot purchase candles, then the business owner has an obligation not to sell candles to redheads, but they can also have the right to dictate, under their corporate laws, that people with green hair are to be excluded.

The point being that if you are requesting service from a company, they have a right to ask for proof of authenticity and legality. I don't consider my example to be totally irrelevant. I will totaly agree with you on the fact that the American legal system is screwed up, but that is irrelevant to my point. Why hassle with the hassel? If they want proof that you took they picture, then give it up. Otherwise, deal with another lab.


----------



## mrodgers (Feb 10, 2008)

kundalini said:


> One of two possibilities passed you by. First, you either had a bad lawyer or didn't have on at all or lastly you used yourself to defend the infraction. Needless to say that regardless of the decisions you made, it was bad. However, that will not prevent you from obtaining an identification card to purchase cigarettes, alcohol, porn or whatever if you are of age. The relevence is that you apparently sat on your bum for a year without thinking how to fix the situation.


Eh?  Paying a lawyer to get out of speeding tickets?  Speeding tickets that you are definitely guilty of?  Who gets a lawyer and pays him ridiculous money to loop-hole their way out of a couple of guilty speeding tickets when they are working a minimum wage after school job?


----------



## Christina (Feb 10, 2008)

I had a similar problem once, because of a watermark && was told if i left a buisness card & copy of my license or DBA on file "we wouldnt have that problem any more."


----------



## Garbz (Feb 11, 2008)

kundalini said:


> The point being that if you are requesting service from a company, they have a right to ask for proof of authenticity and legality.



Oh I know that, and I have the right of free speech to voice my opinion that the company is full of idiots and if I lived in America I would go well out of my way NOT to use them. I was just indicating that there is no legal president (as far as I know) for their policy, and it was likely simply created by a bunch of well meaning overpaid tards trying to justify their paychecks without thinking at all about the implications of their policy.

It is not bound by law, not bound by ethics, well meaning yes, but utterly useless, unlike the proof of identity in a bar which IS bound by law and does make a whole lot of sense..


----------



## THORHAMMER (Feb 11, 2008)

ummm yeah its the basic copyright law weve had here in the us since 1978 

its law. look up copyrignt reproduction laws. they have to do it to protect themselves from being sued.


----------



## skieur (Feb 11, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


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


 
No, I haven't, but at least they tried to apologize by providing the prints free.  The problem however is that the store policy does not seem to be produced by anyone with experience in photography and is interpreted by underpaid clerks.

As you well know, a number of enthusiasts can take photos that look professional and a number of new parents want to take photos of children in their first couple of years.

Why would anyone in the above situation wanted to be constantly harassed for copyright infringement or possible child pornography?  That kind of arrogant stupidity from box stores is aggravating in the extreme and it is NOT universal.

Shop around for a photolab and ask questions.  Do NOT stand for or tolerate this kind of arrogance from labs.  Walk out!  It is always possible to find better customer service elsewhere and I have done so in all areas.

skieur


----------



## kundalini (Feb 11, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Eh? Paying a lawyer to get out of speeding tickets? Speeding tickets that you are definitely guilty of? Who gets a lawyer and pays him ridiculous money to loop-hole their way out of a couple of guilty speeding tickets when they are working a minimum wage after school job?


 
Okay, I re-read your sad story. It didn't help. There has to be more to the story for you to loose your liscense for a 10-mile-over-the-limit offense. Oh....wait a minute. I get it now. You received the infraction and then decided that the law doesn't apply to you, so you kept driving on a suspended liscense. Then you got tagged for another infraction. Now it starts to make sense. You have no regard to the traffic laws that are enforced in your state. So, because you didn't use good judgement with the first infraction and not getting it sorted, you decided you were above the law and kept driving illegally. Then that decision only compounded itself at a later date by you geting caught for driving without a valid liscense. Hmmm... I really can't figure out what you are bitching about. Pay the piper, as they say.

That has nothing to do with obtaining an identification card during the time of your liscense suspension where you could have purchased cigarettes, alcohol or porn. Your prediciment is exactly why lawyers are obtained. Pay the price financially because you f*#ked up, but you aren't a bad lad. I've had too many driving tickets not to realize that it's a way for the state to generate revenue. But sitting at home wondering why you can't buy cigarettes is ..............

I am sorry for your dilema, but I offer no sympathy.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Feb 11, 2008)

am i the only one who likes this ? 

If you are a paid shooter , you just fill out the form once and its on file.

If you are a hobbyist, then you can still fill out the form, it takes 2 minutes. 

this protects us who shoot and print with online services and real labs from the people who try to circumvent us and cheat by taking our proofs to walmart and trying to reproduce them.

isn't that a good thing ?


----------



## abraxas (Feb 11, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> am i the only one who likes this ?
> 
> If you are a paid shooter , you just fill out the form once and its on file.
> 
> ...



:thumbup:


----------



## RMThompson (Feb 11, 2008)

I had this same problem at Walgreens...


----------



## THORHAMMER (Feb 11, 2008)

no offense to anyone, but if your actually printing proofs for clients @ walgreens/sams/walmart  you need to rethink what you are doing. 

even on the frontier printer you cannot guarantee you will get the same colors each time. ink levels change all the time, guys in a pro lab will test before they do a batch to make sure your 200 prints will all be the same hue.


----------



## kundalini (Feb 11, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> no offense to anyone, but if your actually printing proofs for clients @ walgreens/sams/walmart you need to rethink what you are doing.


 
Amen brother.  Can I get a witness...I said, can I get a witness??


----------



## MACollum (Feb 15, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> 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.


 
OMG, can you imagine if she had paid $500 for that CD from a photographer she'd hired? Yikes. Someone would almost certainly be fired for that.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Feb 15, 2008)

If she paid 500 bucks she would have a receipt.


----------



## pbsmoker (Feb 22, 2008)

I have had Wal-Mart do the same thing to me. I had my watermark on them with my name, even showed them my ID and they were trying to turn me away. I order all my prints now from adorama.com


----------



## Socrates (Feb 22, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> You can blame that completely on the lawyers and the judges.  Just like the hot cup of coffee at McDonalds, or the Toyota 4Runner that rolled over because the stupid woman panicked when she drove off the shoulder and cranked the wheel completely to it's stop.  The lawyers for following through on stupid lawsuits like this because of the payout to them, and the judges for not throwing out these frivolous lawsuits out the door immediately.



It's interesting that you mention the McDonald's coffee case.  Have you ever read the details?  I would strongly suggest that you experiment a bit.  Make a cup of coffee at home and stick you finger in it immediately to get an idea of normal coffee temperature.  I was able to hold my finger in the coffee for several minutes with no discomfort.   In the McDonald's case, ten minutes after the coffee was brewed (and the coffee had cooled somewhat), the victim suffered *3rd degree burns.*  Do you honestly believe that such intense temperature is a reasonable expectation?


----------



## Socrates (Feb 22, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> 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.



You defend theft because you don't like the price for a legal purchase.  Wow!


----------



## Silver.Winged.Demon (Feb 22, 2008)

one reason why i get my pictures done at Coscos.  Cheaper and they just mind their own buisness


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 22, 2008)

JIP said:


> 1 - I think that a little inconvenience for a few people is more than worth protecting pro's from having their livelyhood stolen.
> 
> 2 - Besides what the heck are you doing printing that kind of work at wally-world anyway.


 
I agree on both counts... their quality sucks irrespective of their good intentions. I think that if a Walmart counter person wanted to stop me from printing my own pics I would laugh. What professional would want their work done at Walmart anyways?

As far as printing "stolen" pictures, what is stopping ANYONE from doing that by ordering online? Future Shop, Best Buy, Costco and many others that give as good or better quality than any Walmart, letting one send pictures online for pickup. No one is going to question those and prices are often much lower too. As an example, the local Costco lets me now order 5 X 7's online for as low as 10 cents each.


----------



## mrodgers (Feb 23, 2008)

Socrates said:


> You defend theft because you don't like the price for a legal purchase.  Wow!


I wasn't defending anything.  Probably 90% of the normal population out there have no idea about photography copyright and don't understand that it is illegal to have prints done.  I would think that the majority of the photographer's customers feel that they paid the photographer to take their portrait and that is their (the customer's) photo.  So, in their minds, they paid the photographer for the photo, why would they pay again, an overly marked up price of $30-40 for an 8x10 when they know they can go to Walmart and have it printed for $1.98?

If a person was to see an item in one store highly overpriced at $200, then see the same item at another store for $50, wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that they would purchase the item at the store that offers it for $50?  It's the same as someone (without the knowledge of copyright) choosing to have photos printed for $1.98 at Walmart over having them printed at $20 from the photographer.

I wasn't defending theft at all.  In the 2nd part of my post, I was merely disagreeing with the law about the customer not having the right to print the photo they paid for where ever they want.  A photographer taking a photo and calling it his photo vs. being paid to take a photo of something is two totally different situations in my eyes.  The later, the photographer is being paid to do a service for the customer, supply a photo.  Where and by whom it is printed shouldn't matter.  If the photographer wants the business of printing it, he should make his prices competitive.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 23, 2008)

Nope you're getting a photography confused with a service oriented industry. Photography is not one. Since the dawn of film photographers have been the tool to sell their products (the photos they take). I wish the world worked like you think it does but the reality is if you want a product you pay. If you think it's over priced then don't pay and don't get the product. Or option 3 is jump on a forum full of people who work in the industry aned take the approach akin to putting out a small brush fire by dowsing it in gasoline.

Do you go to dell and get them to build a laptop and then take it to china and ask another company to make you 6 identical copies for 1/30th of the price? Unlikely. You $200 vs $50 arguement assumes you can find the item at $50. 

Those people who disagree with the prices of photos should have a look at just how many photographers are out there driving porches and ferraris. You can count them on one hand, and they probably inherited them. It is the same as any other product based business. Take your manufacturing costs (the cost of using the equipment and your time), add the markup required (so that you can buy bread and butter the day after), and sell to the customer.

In reality though regardless of what you think or what is in the minds of the customer this is how the industry works. And you can complain about it till you lose your voice, it's not going to change. If you don't like it buy a camera and take your own photos. That is the plain truth.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Feb 23, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> 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.


 
Rediculous........I don't think so, I charge that much. You need to consider why that price is what it is. Pros have costs. I can break it down for you;
1) Equipment, High End equpment is expensive, no one is giving it to us we need to make the money to buy it, You need to consider Computers,High end Monitors, Camera, Back up Camera, Fast Lenses, Flashes, Backdrops, Backdrop Stands, Light Stands, Strobes, Soft Boxes, High Capacity High Speed CF Cards, Light Meters, plus always having to replace stuff.

2)Studio Rent, This is not free either

3)Re-Education, I do not know many pros that are not always learning something

4) Transpotration, We have to get around.

Now on top of all that we need to support our families, we have lives too, we need to save for retirement just like everyone else.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 23, 2008)

astrostu said:


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



Absolutely.  No one should EVER be allowed to make a mistake.  Fire everybody!


----------



## ~Stella~ (Feb 23, 2008)

I don't see that the problem is with this policy. Sure it's a hassle and I can see being frustrated, but it's not an unexpected issue. I'd much rather stores protect my (hypothetical) pro shots than let people get away with what is essentially theft. 



			
				Mrodgers said:
			
		

> Probably 90% of the normal population out there have no idea about photography copyright and don't understand that it is illegal to have prints done. I would think that the majority of the photographer's customers feel that they paid the photographer to take their portrait and that is their (the customer's) photo.


 
I realize _some _laypeople aren't aware of the law, but besides the fact that ignorance is no excuse, most of them are well aware - they've seen the signs and they know damn well that what they are doing is illegal. Just like downloading music illegally or copying a DVD from Blockbuster - they know it's illegal, but they just don't consider it a huge sin. After all, those movie studios are making millions off the feature and those expensive photographers are making (the horror) a profit off their life's work. I just can't get upset for anyone who gets caught trying to rip off an artist.

That said, being currently in a 1-income family, I understand how one would like to have elegant baby/child portraits done, but not be able to afford a huge gorgeous package. As Garbz suggested, my personal remedy to this is to purchase a camera and do the best I can myself. I've been pretty pleased with the results so far - they are not pro-quality by any means, but I'm improving.


----------



## astrostu (Feb 23, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Absolutely.  No one should EVER be allowed to make a mistake.  Fire everybody!



That's not just a "mistake."  That's destruction of a customer's property.  If you wanted to bring your own $500 bottle of wine to a restaurant where they normally allow it (but with a cork fee) and your waiter didn't know this policy, saw you opening your own bottle, and decided to come over and smash it, would you be okay with that?


----------



## logan9967 (Feb 23, 2008)

interesting analogy


----------



## astrostu (Feb 23, 2008)

Yeah, it actually took me awhile to think of it.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 24, 2008)

Lol I like that analogy. But it's very true. This is not something that is store policy or an oh I'll remember for next time. This is blatantly against the law. And I agree with your sarcastic comment Socrates everyone who does this SHOULD be fired on the spot. I find this no different than assault in the workplace which is (in Australia anyway) instant dismissal in nearly every workplace. It's something people should just know.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 24, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Lol I like that analogy. But it's very true. This is not something that is store policy or an oh I'll remember for next time. This is blatantly against the law. And I agree with your sarcastic comment Socrates everyone who does this SHOULD be fired on the spot. I find this no different than assault in the workplace which is (in Australia anyway) instant dismissal in nearly every workplace. It's something people should just know.



Yes, fire everybody that ever makes a mistake!  No second chances for anybody!  Fire the world!


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 24, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Yes, fire everybody that ever makes a mistake! No second chances for anybody! Fire the world!


 
To use Einstaine's theory of relativity (lol)... its all realtive.  If they had put away the CD behind the counter and given the PAYING CUSTOMER the chance to prove it was OK to print, all would have been good.  I am sure it is not store policy to destroy CDs that they "believe" are some other photographer's property.  It was not the clerk's place to blatantly destroy private property.

What if those were pics that existed ONLY on that CD and were irreplaceable?  What if those were pics were of family members long passed away?

The irresponsible actions of that "well meaning" cleark could have gone from protection of the copyright laws to destruction of irreplaceable private property and I think in this case, it warranted more thana slap on the wrist.  I am kinda on the fence about if it is severe enough to cost that persontheir job... but I am sure as heck leaning that way in my feelings.

If I was store manager, I would at the VERY least have a STRONG talk to that clerk, make them sign a writting warning to learn the law before becoming judge and jury... and I would take them out from behind the counter and give them mop duty for a month... as well as making them pay for TRIPLICATES and blow-ups of all the client's pics.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 24, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> What if those were pics that existed ONLY on that CD and were irreplaceable?  What if those were pics were of family members long passed away?


Let's see.  "Long passed away."  That would mean that the originals were film-based prints and that the pics on the CD were from scans.  Gee, what happened to the originals?



JerryPH said:


> If I was store manager, I would at the VERY least have a STRONG talk to that clerk, make them sign a writting warning to learn the law before becoming judge and jury... and I would take them out from behind the counter and give them mop duty for a month... as well as making them pay for TRIPLICATES and blow-ups of all the client's pics.


I agree except for paying for triplicates.  Put this in perspective and bear in mind that we're discussing a minimum-wage (probably uneducated) individual.  Let's face it.  To save some pennies, you take your shots to an establishment that's famous for paying their employees garbage yet you expect that those employees have law degrees.  You, as the customer, have some responsibility here.


----------



## Battou (Feb 24, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Let's see.  "Long passed away."  That would mean that the originals were film-based prints and that the pics on the CD were from scans.  Gee, what happened to the originals?


 
Digital Photography is not all that new, The individual shown in the image could easily have been gone for the better part of ten years or twenty years (yes the first Digital camera came out in 1988) So that is not totaly out of the relm of possibility.



Socrates said:


> I agree except for paying for triplicates.  Put this in perspective and bear in mind that we're discussing a minimum-wage (probably uneducated) individual.  Let's face it.  To save some pennies, you take your shots to an establishment that's famous for paying their employees garbage yet you expect that those employees have law degrees.  You, as the customer, have some responsibility here.



No, but I would expect their superiors to one)Know better and Two) take the stiffist possible action against reoccurance to cover their own buts. I would expect thirty some odd dollars out of pocket would be a lesson that even the stupidest individual would not soon forget.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 24, 2008)

Battou said:


> Digital Photography is not all that new, The individual shown in the image could easily have been gone for the better part of ten years or twenty years (yes the first Digital camera came out in 1988) So that is not totaly out of the relm of possibility.


You're telling me that the customer had only one copy of such extremely valuable and non-replaceable files!  Wow.  That moron deserves whatever he gets and I have no sympathy for him.




Battou said:


> No, but I would expect their superiors to one)Know better and Two) take the stiffist possible action against reoccurance to cover their own buts. I would expect thirty some odd dollars out of pocket would be a lesson that even the stupidest individual would not soon forget.


Sure.  Let's take it out on the poor slob at the bottom.  Let's pay him garbage yet expect him to act like a professional.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 24, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Let's see. "Long passed away." That would mean that the originals were film-based prints and that the pics on the CD were from scans. Gee, what happened to the originals?


 
Make up a scenario... Lost in a fire... whatever. The point is what would they have done to repay the family if that was the case? There is NOTHING they could do, and the person who cracked that CD over the counter had no way of knowing. They expected prints to be made, not for some ignorant moron to crack their CD in half.



Socrates said:


> I agree except for paying for triplicates. Put this in perspective and bear in mind that we're discussing a minimum-wage (probably uneducated) individual.


 
Like an officer once told me. Ignorance is no excuse. It just means you are ignorant... but still responsable for your actions. And then comes a legal standpoint... as an employee of a company, you are legally a representative of that same company. Hence LEGALLY, that person's actions are in the name of the company... and that company WILL have to compensate the client. Now what the company will do to said employee becuase they now became a liability instead of an asset? Not sure, but in my case, yes, I *definately* would be pressured to let that person go. Their judgement and actions cost the company money and credibility... the best thing or them to do in a case where legal action increased costs, lowered sales and made the company lose face... is to cut their losses. That would mean settle out of court and fire the "errant" employee.



Socrates said:


> You, as the customer, have some responsibility here.


 
Granted... and the customer made a choice, they wanted prints.  That company was able to fulfill expectations in that sense.  The client made a GOOD choice. Too bad that some poor misguided ignorant underpaid minimum-wage worker took it upon themselves to do something INCREDIBLY stupid. Again, thats NOT a valid excuse. If you cannot do your job WELL (and let's face it here... being a clerk at these places doesn't require a master degree in brain surgury), what are you doing there??

Your entire reasoning points that you feel that the person behind the counter is not resposible for their actions... but the truth is... they are.

The argument would be that they should have protected themselves. Fine, but imagine if you had to start to "protect" yourself from every single event possible in life? You would be spending more time playing the "what-if" game than LIVING life.

I prefer to still believe in accountability. I prefer to believe that one is responsible for their actions. I believe that people that cannot do a particular job in life have no business being there or need to educate themselves so that they CAN be where they are.

I believe that I am not responsible for the actions of everyone else that I come into contact with in my life and should not need to protect myself against everyone.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 24, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Make up a scenario... Lost in a fire... whatever. The point is what would they have done to repay the family if that was the case? There is NOTHING they could do, and the person who cracked that CD over the counter had no way of knowing.


If the moronic customer chose not to duplicate the files, I have no sympathy for him.



JerryPH said:


> Like an officer once told me. Ignorance is no excuse. It just means you are ignorant... but still responsable for your actions.


Yes, and the customer is fully responsible for his absolutely ignorant failure to duplicate the files.



JerryPH said:


> Granted... and the customer made a choice. Too bad that some poor misguided ignorant underpaid minimum-wage worker took it upon themselves to do something INCREDIBLY stupid. Again, thats NOT a valid excuse. If you cannot do your job WELL (and let's face it here... being a clerk at these places doesn't require a master degree in brain surgury), what are you doing there??


You're ignoring the fact that the poor misguided ignorant customer failed to take reasonable protections.  It doesn't take a master's degree in brain surgery to know that duplicate files should always be available.  Suppose he accidentally dropped the CD into a sewer grate?



JerryPH said:


> Your entire reasoning points that you feel that the person behind the counter is not resposible for their actions... but the truth is... they are.


Your entire reasoning points that you feel that the customer is not responsible for his stupidity... but the truth is... he is.


I previously acknowledged that the clerk should be subject to disciplinary action.  My point is simply that I will not assign 100% of the responsibility to the clerk.  The moron customer deserves a hell of a portion of the blame yet you wish to portray him as an innocent victim.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 24, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Yes, and the customer is fully responsible for his absolutely ignorant failure to duplicate the files.
> 
> 
> You're ignoring the fact that the poor misguided ignorant customer failed to take reasonable protections. It doesn't take a master's degree in brain surgery to know that duplicate files should always be available. Suppose he accidentally dropped the CD into a sewer grate?


 
You then assume that an ordinary person.. in this case, the daughter who received a CD from her father iis SUPPOSED to know all possible scenarios and also how to create duplicates or know to ask for them? Thats rediculous. Its not her job to know that MAYBE some idiot will destroy her private property and to make copies. All she knows is that her father took pictures, and she could take them to the local "whatever" place and get prints.

The entire fault falls on the clerk, and becuase the manager ALSO agreed that it was entirely their fault, made some attempt at restitution. No one else was at fault... certainly not the "innocent victim".

There is no one "taking it out on the poor slob"... but there is a deep need for people to be responsible for their actions.  In this case, the clerk needs to be held responsible for his actions.  They were the ones that if they did their job right... no issues would have arisen in the first place.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 24, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> You then assume that an ordinary person.. in this case, the daughter who received a CD from her father iis SUPPOSED to know all possible scenarios and also how to create duplicates or know to ask for them? Thats rediculous. Its not her job to know that MAYBE some idiot will destroy her private property and to make copies. All she knows is that her father took pictures, and she could take them to the local "whatever" place and get prints.
> 
> The entire fault falls on the clerk, and becuase the manager ALSO agreed that it was entirely their fault, made some attempt at restitution. No one else was at fault... certainly not the "innocent victim".
> 
> There is no one "taking it out on the poor slob"... but there is a deep need for people to be responsible for their actions.  In this case, the clerk needs to be held responsible for his actions.  They were the ones that if they did their job right... no issues would have arisen in the first place.



I do agree that the stupid moronic customer should be responsible for her actions.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Feb 24, 2008)

Well, the moron in question was my daughter.

And if anyone remembers my post, I instructed her to make sure she called me for a release form, if she wanted to get prints made. And like I said in my original post, kids do not listen to you, it does not matter how old they are. :er:

I have no idea how anyone could expect what happened to her.  In a million years, I would not have expected some clerk to just snap the CD in half like that.

When I called the store manager, he kept apologizing over and over and actually talked about letting the clerk go.  I told him that was completely unnecessary.  I just asked that she be better trained as to how to deal with these types of situations.  So, I mailed him another CD, with a release form, and he printed 8x10's of all the photos for free.

It was either a case of poor training or the clerk really is not all that bright to begin with- she was just 19 years old.  However, blaming the _moron _is ludicrous.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 24, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> When I called the store manager, he kept apologizing over and over and actually talked about letting the clerk go.  I told him that was completely unnecessary.  I just asked that she be better trained as to how to deal with these types of situations.



That was my only point but I was unfortunately dragged into other discussions with comments such as "suppose the photos were of long-dead relatives and no other copies of the files existed?"  I wasn't picking on your daughter but, rather, addressing the moron with non-replaceable valuable photos of long-dead relatives with zero copies of the files.

There's no question that the clerk was wrong and corrective action is certainly appropriate.  I just don't believe that a mistake should result in termination.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Feb 24, 2008)

Socrates said:


> That was my only point but I was unfortunately dragged into other discussions with comments such as "suppose the photos were of long-dead relatives and no other copies of the files existed?" I wasn't picking on your daughter but, rather, addressing the moron with non-replaceable valuable photos of long-dead relatives with zero copies of the files.
> 
> There's no question that the clerk was wrong and corrective action is certainly appropriate. I just don't believe that a mistake should result in termination.


 
Oh, no worries.  I've called her worse names. Nitwit is one of my favorites. 

And I agree, when the manager told me he wanted to fire the clerk, I really had to talk him out of it.


----------



## Socrates (Feb 24, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Oh, no worries.  I've called her worse names. Nitwit is one of my favorites.
> 
> And I agree, when the manager told me he wanted to fire the clerk, I really had to talk him out of it.



I've always maintained that I fully understand the term "artificial intelligence" because I have children!


----------



## andrew99 (Mar 3, 2008)

Silver.Winged.Demon said:


> one reason why i get my pictures done at Coscos.  Cheaper and they just mind their own buisness




How do you find the quality of Costco?  I took some pics there, but they did some kind of processing to them.  They over-exposed the highlights and added posturization.  I don't know if they reduced the bit-depth of the colours, or boosted the contrast, or whatever it was, but I took the exact same jpegs to a photography store and they came out perfectly.  Too bad, since Costco was half the price!


----------



## astrostu (Mar 4, 2008)

andrew99 said:


> How do you find the quality of Costco?  I took some pics there, but they did some kind of processing to them.  They over-exposed the highlights and added posturization.  I don't know if they reduced the bit-depth of the colours, or boosted the contrast, or whatever it was, but I took the exact same jpegs to a photography store and they came out perfectly.  Too bad, since Costco was half the price!



I find Costco quality great.  But it, as do many other places, do some auto-"corrections."  With Costco, though, there's a simple check box to turn that off.


----------

