# Walmart sues widow



## KmH (May 23, 2014)

Wal-Mart sues widow over old family photos- MSN Money


----------



## snerd (May 24, 2014)

Major suckage. I was under the impression that the photographer owned copyrights to photos they take. I am not a lawyer, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


----------



## Derrel (May 24, 2014)

Wally-world's peeps...keepin' it CLASSY....NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## snerd (May 24, 2014)

They're the 800lb gorilla in the room. I've heard they actually tell vendors what they'll pay for a product, not the other way around!


----------



## timor (May 24, 2014)

Well, their business system works. It's based on being cheap. And cheap one has to have in blood. There are consequences of that.


----------



## hamlet (May 24, 2014)

We also have a French version of walmart here called: Carrefour. They are also a megastore who are taking away business from mom and pops stores. I try not to go shop there, but it is so convenient to have everything in one place and get my shopping done in under an hour. I fear we are also creating the same monster over here.


The problem in the legal system as i understand it in the U.S. is that: even if you cant win, if you have money, you can fight this until the end of time and bankrupt your opposition. I'm not sure if that is right, but that is how i understand it.


----------



## Braineack (May 24, 2014)

title of article, and article itself is completely misleading.

i hope wal-marts sues them for libel.


----------



## Designer (May 24, 2014)

_"Huff reportedly turned down a *$2,000* offer from Wal-Mart for the images."

_[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Maybe if they offered more.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]The offer (while on the low side, IMO) shows that the foundation acknowledges who the legal owner is.[/FONT]


----------



## Braineack (May 24, 2014)

at least the washington post article gives actual detail:



> The Walton family and the Walmart Museum (filing suit as Crystal Lands, LLC, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., respectively) claim the negatives and proofs belong to them and that the studio only kept them as a courtesy to the family, according to the complaint filed in an Arkansas court. They want to prevent Huff from selling the negatives or using them for commercial purposes.
> ...
> 
> Huff says her husband and father-in-law were hired as independent contractors, according to the Arkansas Times, which would mean they were in charge of the photoshoots and have rights to the photos they took. As proof, Huff points out that the photographers used their own equipment, lenses, lights and backdrops; controlled the positions of their subjects; chose and developed the film or hired the processing company; and provided a copyright notice to the Walton family notifying them that they owned &#8216;exclusive rights to reproduce&#8217; the pictures.&#8221;
> ...


----------



## KmH (May 24, 2014)

The Walton family is hoping to take advantage of the photographer's widow.
Based on what is said in the article there is little doubt the widow owns the copyrights and the Waltons have lots of money but no case.

It's a too typical situation where a wealthy entity uses their wealth to sue a not wealthy entity in the hopes that the not wealthy entity will cave-in.

Apparently Bob's Studio of Photography was a PPA member. Walmart Files Suit Against Photographer's Widow - PPA Today


> PPA has been working with Huff to support her case and thereby advocate for photographers' copyrights.


----------



## Overread (May 24, 2014)

I'm not surprised a group like the PPA moved in - this might sound personal but if Walmart were to win it could have huge legal ramifications. There are good number of big businesses who want copyright to basically go away or become infeasible to use for small time people (basically anyone not earning megabucks). Thusly allowing the big company to profit from whatever they want whilst preventing others from just copying them.


----------



## hamlet (May 24, 2014)

What i don't understand is that why they just didn't offer the woman a higher offer? Getting the lawyers involved is gonna cost more.


----------



## Overread (May 24, 2014)

It depends. 

Firstly if Walmart family thinks they are in the legal right then paying more just validates a legal wrong, why do that when you know you can win the court case and have the other side cover those fees and also have to give you want you want; about all it costs is time and the family themselves will likely only have to give up minimal time in court itself. 

Then you've the side where Walmart wants to win this so that it has a knock on effect in the industry as a whole; this is small fry but the effect of Walmart win could be greatly in their favour in other situations outside of this. 


There's also the fact that the media is likely putting their own spin on the report so getting solid facts is tricky to start with.


----------



## hamlet (May 24, 2014)

I suppose that this is a complicated situation when you look at it in  the big picture, but the moment money is involved the humanity is taken  out of the equation and we see each other as competition. I guess that i  don't know who is really in the right or wrong here morally. If i were  in that womans shoes, i would give them the pictures because i would expect the same courtesy from other people.


----------



## Overread (May 24, 2014)

Aye but its important to realise that its not just photos, its the trade and livelihood that their family lived upon. Chances are that its not simply a case of being decent but ensuring that one earns even though her husband has no passed on. Copyright exists beyond the death of the creator almost specifically to help further support family who might be entirely dependant upon the earnings those creations generate. 

It's a complicated matter made even more complicated by the fact that it seems its a verbal contract involved which considering the age of when the contract was formed is also unlikely to give a final answer that all parties will agree to. It's most likely that either the Walmart family thinks that enough time has passed and that they've good enough lawyers to prove their side - or it could be that the widow thinks that even though there was a loose contract the Walmart family are rich enough to pay full price for what they want. 

It's messy to say the least and a very good lesson in why contracts are very important safeguards for all parties involved.


----------



## mishele (May 24, 2014)

I don't get it! Don't big companies try to avoid lawsuits? I mean, why put a red mark on your back over something like this. Walmart already has a bad place with me, this kind of stuff makes it worse. Greed is a horrible thing. The lawer's salaries could of probably paid for the picture rights with no issue. BLAH!!

Think of the headline that they could have...Wal-Mart Thanks Widow For Recovered Pictures!! Ahh...people hate good news! It probably would of never made it to print...lol Good press is priceless, though.


----------



## KmH (May 24, 2014)

Overread said:


> Firstly if Walmart family thinks they are in the legal right then paying more just validates a legal wrong, why do that when you know you can win the court case and have the other side cover those fees and also have to give you want you want; about all it costs is time and the family themselves will likely only have to give up minimal time in court itself.


I'm willing to bet money the Walton family attorneys told the Walton family they had little legal basis for pressuring the widow and only had a chance if the widow caved to the pressure early on.

In the community that is informed about intellectual rights the Walton family comes off as the bad guys by pursuing legal action they have little if any hope of winning.
Unfortunately our federal court system is not a level playing field and the side with the most money to throw at attorneys is able to exert the most pressure.

The Walton family wealth is such that even $500 million in attorney fess is like a small amount of loose pocket change to most people.


----------



## Braineack (May 26, 2014)

mishele said:


> I don't get it! Don't big companies try to avoid lawsuits?



They have to because they are arguing that the photographer was hired on as an employee of Walmart to take pictures of the family.


----------



## KmH (May 26, 2014)

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

See - Agency Law.


----------

