# Walmart on the side of Professionals!



## CCericola (Nov 3, 2011)

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


----------



## radiorickm (Nov 3, 2011)

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

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

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


----------



## OrionsByte (Nov 3, 2011)

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

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

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


----------



## dots (Nov 3, 2011)

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


----------



## MTVision (Nov 3, 2011)

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

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


----------



## Derrel (Nov 3, 2011)

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


----------



## skieur (Nov 3, 2011)

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

skieur


----------



## e.rose (Nov 3, 2011)

MTVision said:


> It's not really protecting anyone. Go home find a photo release, print it out, fill it out and bring it back in. I doubt they will call the photographer and even if they did how hard would it be to give a friends number and have them say they are the photographer.
> 
> I get what they are trying to do but i would be irritated if they wouldn't print my photos.



Exactly my thought.

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

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


----------



## dots (Nov 3, 2011)

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


----------



## Overread (Nov 3, 2011)

e.rose said:


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



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


----------



## MTVision (Nov 3, 2011)

Overread said:
			
		

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



You can still fabricate a photo release


----------



## MTVision (Nov 3, 2011)

MTVision said:
			
		

> You can still fabricate a photo release



Unfinished thought that I didn't mean to post!


----------



## joealcantar (Nov 3, 2011)

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


----------



## Erinw417 (Nov 4, 2011)

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


----------



## ghache (Nov 4, 2011)

lol! i hate retarded walmart staff.


----------



## RacePhoto (Nov 5, 2011)

Derrel said:


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



There and everyplace else that has the same policy. I've seen people turned away with team photos and wedding photos that are obviously professional shots. It's not just Walmart but the WM haters will find anything to boost their negativity.

As for paying in advance, the article says, she paid online when placing the order. How would they know in advance, not to take the money? And the person who wrote it also makes it clear that some were old studio shots, so this isn't just a matter of some very good photos, they were professional shots going back 40 years.

Fine, I agree, make your own release. And honestly the people at the store could have used some discretion and figured it was a memorial collection instead of holding to some tight corporate line. Maybe their jobs are at risk if they release illegal photos, that would scare me. And then what everyone else said, CYA policy, Walmart lawyers making a preemptive decision, to avoid litigation.

If I ran a studio or did portrait work for hire, I wouldn't want people buying one and then making unlimited copies.


----------



## photo guy (Nov 13, 2011)

That is why I have a good home printer.  I can scan them in with a scanner that I have and then just print them.  I know 2 photographers (1 has since stopped due to wanting to do something different with his time) and they both agree with what Wal Mart does to prevent copyright problems.  If I need it printed larger, I know that I can just ask the one that is still in business.  He took my senior photos back in 1999 as well as my brother's photos, and even a number of my family's photos.  It's nice having certain friends.


----------



## skieur (Nov 27, 2011)

Wallmart staff in Canada tend to have more common sense than those I am reading about in the U.S., but I would still not use Wallmart for anything but the most unimportant snap shots.

skieur


----------



## Boxhousev (Nov 27, 2011)

This happened to me. They would not release my wedding photos. Which I do own the rights too. But the funny part, they took out the photos of me in my dress but two pictures taken by the same professional of my son, they did release. I find a problem with their consistency.

Not saying my work looks professional but I certainly don't want to argue with walmart if they refuse to print my phtotos.  Anyone with a SLR these days can take professional looking photos. How can they tell or know for sure.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 27, 2011)

I wonder how they define a "professional looking photo"...?


----------



## Alpha (Dec 1, 2011)

I think the "correct" remedy is to simply have everyone who prints something at WalMart certify digitally or in writing that they have the rights to reproduce the image and they agree to indemnify WalMart in any copyright action. That said, the rather blunt policy they have currently has most likely protected a number of professional photographers over the years even if it causes headaches for some customers. Moreover, since their employees have no reliable way of distinguishing comparatively low and high worth photos, the blanket policy against "professional-looking" photos can make sense. You say you should be allowed to print your own professional-looking photos, but the employees would probably never know if you were actually printing a copy of something that sold at auction for $100K. The potential liability is almost entirely unpredictable. That said, I just took a cursory look at the federal court records and it appears that in the last 20 years WalMart has not been sued once for an infringement of this sort. Whether that means their policy is working or that the real-life risks of litigation are low is anyone's guess...


----------

