Walmart sues photographers widow

<p>http://www.ppa.com/ppa-today-blog/inspiration/walmart-files-suit-against-pho.php?utm_source=click_thru</p><p><i>Mod: It's fine to comment on Walmart business practices in the context of the lawsuit, photography implications, and being a photographer. It's not fine to have a dialogue on Walmart.</i></p>

<p>I would burn them all before handing them over to that family.</p>

 

<p>Sam Walton would must be turning over in his grave at the behavior of his heirs.</p>

<p>Another reason not to shop at Wal-Mart.</p>

 

<p>It's not hard to find reasons to not shop at Walmart.</p>

<p>Keep your money in the community, shop at local mom & pop stores whenever possible. </p>

 

<p>The Waltons are doing the same thing every major sports franchise and the rest of the entertainment industry is doing. They are trying to gain control of every image and prevent anyone else from making any money from them. The Waltons apparently have decided to be retroactive about it. I wouldn't be suprised to find they are able to convince some judge they are right. In any case they can afford to simply keep at it until the studio gives up or goes under. They could have done the decent thing and offered a large pile of money but I've noticed the Walmart empire rarely does the decent thing.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>So Walmart believes the subject owns the work, not the studio? Don't they run studios? Since Walmart holds this strange opinion, I think it would be great if their portraiture customers, both past and present, started demanding their negatives or full resolution digital files be handed over.</p>

<p>And hey, I bet it costs a whole lot more money to get an 8x10 of a studio portrait than an 8x10 of a photo from the customer's camera. But is this not unfair pricing? I mean, if both types of images are the property of the customer, then they should cost the same to print. Walmart has been overcharging their studio customers! Their customers should march back to the store, track down the general manager, and demand the difference be refunded immediately. And while they're at it, they should demand their negative or full resolution digital file back.</p>

<p>... because that's Walmart's position, and what's good for the Walton family should be good for the Walton family's customers. :-)</p>

Is this why Wal Mart keeps our negatives now? So they can lay claim to all our intellectual property ?

 

Greed knows no bounds

<p>Walmart got out of the photo business years ago. Sold it to one of the Evil Empires of Photography, I think. </p>

<p>The other sad thing about this is that they (Walmart) don't seem to have a problem taking the photos they "bought" over the years, scanning them, and then sending them to all kinds of places and publications. </p>

<p>Hopefully the Judge dismisses the suit and awards damages on the counter suit. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>It sounds more like the Walton family would like to have these family photos for personal reasons. I really doubt it's for financial gain. In any case, it is an odd situation that impinges of the rights of the window. </p>

A million dollars is but a penny to this family. If the photos are so dear to them why not offer fair compensation?

 

There is nothing altruistic about these moochers.

<p>I've not minded shopping at Walmart until now. Please excuse a brief personal story. When I first read the post, I thought that the name Bob's Photography sounded familiar. It turns out, his studio is - and has been for 60 odd years - literally around the corner from where my grandmother's house stood on Spring Street in Fayetteville. As a kid in the 50's I used to walk by Bob's on my many frequent trips up to the square. At that time, my dad was a professional photographer with his own studio in Little Rock. I don't know if my dad ever met Bob. I do recall the beautiful portrait work he had in his window. Shame, shame on the Waltons.</p>