Walmart and a Copyright Release

Just had a pleasant experience. A bride's mother called me this morning and

asked for a release of an engagement photo. It seems that she went to Walmart

to get a cake done using the photo as a decoration. When Walmart saw my

sticker on the back of the pix, they refused to do the cake without my

release. With all the problems we have with unauthorized copies, it's nice to

see one company is abiding by copyright law, though I'm sure that my name on

the back of the print triggered their response.

On APUG, there's been a thread by photogs who had a hard time convincing WalMart to make copies of their own work, saying it appeared "proffesional," and thus couldn't be copied w/o a release.

 

When photogs claimed to be the original shooter, they were told that wasn't possible, and WalMart asked for proof.

Yep, that happened to me ... I went to Wal-Mart a few weeks ago to make some quick copies

of a bridal photo I had taken. After standing in line at the Kodak Picture Maker for 15 minutes

and then waiting for the pictures to print out (I needed 100 of them to take to the wedding

that day!) I took the stack to the counter and they said they're not allowed to copy

"professional-looking" photos. I told them I was the photographer and they didn't believe me.

I had to go out to the car to get one of my business cards and even then, they were reluctant

to let me have them. I was a little ticked off, but it's nice to know if any of my clients go

there, they'll never get past the copyright-guards-from-hell.

I think it's a crap shoot (excuse the language) with Walmart. It depends on who is working when the picture is brought in. Same thing with the photo lab. Some employees just don't care, some do.

I'm glad to see such comments in the forum. My experiences with WalMart has been quite different on more than one occasion. I guess the company has a good and clear policy about copyrights, but no matter what, they can't enforce or make sure that it's applied in every one of their stores and everytime.

 

I'd like to point out that having a copyright sticker in the back is certainly a good move but definitely not the safest. On two occasions I found out that a client removed it. Now I used a rubber stamp that uses ink which won't come off the back of photographs (the ink is specifically made for photographs since photo paper doesn't absorb ink). That thing is good for 50,000 impressions on one cartridge. It's fast, efficient and more professional. Not easy to find but if you ask at office supplies store you can have one made with the ink used for that purpose.

 

Of course, the safest is to have a small copyright inserted digitally at the bottom of image before you bring it to the lab for prints. It's pretty much expected to see the photograph's signature at the bottom of a professional print if it's small.

Image files can also be watermarked (visual) and/or have EXIF/IPTC/XMP metadata added to indicate copyright. One can even go as far as steganography if need be.

I have had a few clients have issues getting prints made at Walmart even with my Print Release on the disc. It is nice to know they are trying to protect the photographer and themselves. I have had issues with them printing some snapshots I took. Funny stuff...

I had to provide a letterhead copyright release to Sam's Club (Walmart's brother) before they would print my photos. They keep it on file. I'm not sure how one decides what is "professional-looking" enough to warrant a release, but they're pretty picky about it.

Not to slight Wal-mart, but I have also seen at the counter: "You sign the release and we keep it on file. If the photographer asks, we will show him the release you signed that it was 'OK' to make prints from the photographs you have."

 

 

 

Every time a new manager gets in the Photo Lab, a different policy seems to be in effect.

 

 

 

Win a few, lose a few....

Here's one I'll bet you haven't heard yet, a friend of mine who does some photography as a hobby brought a CD of files, that he had taken at a wedding, to wal-mart for printing. The clerk said they "looked like" professional photos so he couldn't print them AND he confiscated the CD!

 

I was completly amazed that he didn't go over the counter after the jerk! I didn't know the clerks now have police powers.

 

If that had been me I'd be right down to the police station to file charges. Where was that clerk when one of my customers told me she copied her complete proof album there and they even helped her.

 

As was said before, with wal-mart it's a crap shoot.

 

Jim Marby

 

pictureperfectstudio.biz

Hey Yves, what's the name of the company that sells those ink cartridges? It would be convenient to have one around...

 

I just had a little run in with my local Walmart. I ran in to get a couple of quick prints and was told by the clerk she couldn't copy them since they looked professional. (Apparently she was reamed out by her manager that morning for doing the same thing...) So I told her I was the pro photographer. She wanted proof - but she wouldn't accept my PPA or WPPI memberhsip cards. However, she was more than happy to accept a business card as proof!

 

Well, I go back to pick up the prints and she tells me that the manager told her I could have them, but I would have to sign this form... Okay, typical statement of ownership I thought. But, the first clause assigns WalMart the right to use the images for just about anything that they see fit! I crossed out the clause and the clerk was all out of fight... but, I couldn't beleive that a condition of printing my photos was the right to reproduce them and use them, including for advertising purposes!

 

One more reason that I really don't like WalMart.

<p>I found this on Walmart's website:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=119985">Walmart Terms of Use</a></p>

<blockquote><i>

Photo Center Copyright Policy

Walmart.com will not assist in the copying of a photograph that is signed, stamped, or otherwise identified by any photographer or studio as copyrighted material, or any photograph that appears to have been taken by a professional photographer or studio, even if it is not marked with any sort of copyright, unless we are presented with a signed Copyright Release. Negatives or digital images of a copyrighted image will be retuned to you unprinted and you will be provided instructions on how to present Walmart.com with a signed Copyright Release. In addition, Walmart.com will not assist in the copying of any state or federal document, including but not limited to, driver's licenses, passports, and social security cards.

</i></blockquote>

<p>In addition, I am unsure how Walmart could claim ownership or rights to any of the photographs they print for others. Again, I refer to their own policy:</p>

<blockquote><i>

Ownership of Account Content

WALMART.COM claims no ownership rights to the photos, photo files, albums, projects, captions, or prints, (collectively defined as "Content"), that you place in your Photo Center Account. However, by uploading Content into your Photo Center Account, you agree to waive all moral rights to those images. In addition, you grant to WALMART.COM a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license, so that we can download, upload, copy, print, display, reproduce, modify, publish, post, transmit and distribute the photos included in your Photo Center Account for the purpose of displaying Content to the people you select and to fulfill orders. We will not use or modify your Content for marketing purposes or any other purposes without obtaining your express permission.

</i></blockquote>

<p>IANAL, but I rather suspect that a cursory examination of the above statement might lead one to believe that Walmart was claiming exclusive rights to your photographs; on the contrary, I think they're taking great pains to show that they have (and must have) legal rights to 'publish' your photos to the people YOU designate (as online sharing) and to 'print' them in the manner you wish. Otherwise, I could see how one could claim that Walmart 'published' their photographs without legal authority. In other words, this is CYA boilerplate.</p>

<p>I was going to post the link to the Copyright Release form online, but I can't find it at the moment. Hidden away or offline now? Anyway, I can understand people being taken aback when they're told that Walmart won't print their photos because they're 'too professional' and Walmart wants some evidence that the photos are really yours (or mine, etc) to print as we please. I'm sure that some of the enforcement of their company policy is a bit lumpy in places. We're not talking about the MIT grads of the world. But all in all, at least they're trying to protect our rights. That's got to count for something at least.</p>

Mike,

 

About the ink I use with a rubber stamp for the back of my photo prints...

 

The business I deal with in Canada is called "Dossier" (www.dossier.ca). It's actually a branch of Staples (www.staples.ca) or "Bureau en Gros" as it's called in Quebec (in french). It's new and there are only a few stores I know of in Montreal.

 

You won't find it on their web site as it's not something they sell everyday. I also believe that many other companies that sell office supplies can obtain something identical if you ask for it and talk to the right person. Try to find a business that can make a custom rubber stamp for you. Their provider will have the ink you need if they ask for it. The clerk may not know about this but it's usually available.

 

Long story short, they made me a custom rubber stamp with dimensions of 1 9/16 x 3 inches. For about 49$ I got this fancy stamp with a catridge of ink that goes in it (one cartridge = 50,000 stamps). Ink cartridges alone usually sell for about 14$.

 

Mine has the words "DO NOT COPY" at the top center part. At the bottom center there are the words "Copyright Yves Jalbert". And in the middle portion there are the words "photographer:" and a small space to sign my name with a Sharpie marker and a "date:" below so I can add the date.

 

Like I said, it's fast, convenient and professional. And believe me, nobody can rub the ink from the back of a print, it's there to stay. It's not visible because it's in the back of the photo and it also reminds customers about the copyright and that they are not dealing with somebody who does this free of charge but a business.

 

I don't think the photo paper you use is important at all when getting ink. But I was asked by the clerk what type of photo paper my lab uses (to match with the ink). Since I deal only with one pro lab that uses the same paper all the time it wasn't an issue. However the back of different photo papers are usually the same. They don't absorb most types of ink so nothing sticks to it. If you get the photo paper ink, you should be set.

i am not a wedding photographer, but i have been using lately a rubber stamp and a very

nice spirit based purple ink to identify my prints. after a lot of research and asking questions

here in photonet and everywhere else, i found out that this is the ink to use. i am not at home

right now, but i coiuld find the name of the product if someone is interesed.

Folks like to use copy shops as a punching bag. <BR><BR>You cannot please everyone. <BR><BR>Yesterday we had a goof wanting copies of anothers wedding we printed and have on file, and he had us looking for the job under 4 different names, all wrong.<BR><BR> When we called up the images owner, the customer threw a tizzy fit, like a 2 year old.<BR><BR> Folks are going to be irritated if they cannot get have their way, whether the work is legal or not.<BR><BR> Many folks seem totally insulted when ownership issues have to be addressed, and dont have the balls to place their own hide on the line in the lawsuit area.<BR><BR> Heck if they were really men or women instead of children, they could give us their houses title as a brace against a lawsuit. <BR><BR><b>Folks who want to skirt the laws dont want any part of the damages that can occur to a copy shop.</b><BR><BR> Its in their DNA to get the other chap to hold the bag, since they are cheats in all walks of life. <BR><BR>Having some good "come backs" when adults throw their tizzy fits is good, plus having strong hinges on the door. A common tizzy mode adult who has been declined a copy job goes into swearing act like a drunk sailor in front of other customers, a good thing to capture on video as evidence.<BR><BR> If they were retarded or a child one might have some pity.<BR><BR> The grown adults tizzy fit at copy shops is a key way they want a copy shop to do illegal work, having a plan to embarrass them an making them look like the i diots and cheats they are can work. <BR><BR>Folks should place real contact info on their prints , fobs, and discs to allow grey area issues to be resolved in a civil adult way, not a dramatic childish tizzzy fit with swearing. <BR><BR>Issue like this copy up EVERY day at copy and print shops, and are a TOTAL headache to deal with.

David - Can you post the name of that ink? I would like to get a stamp made but all the inks I've seen don't stick to photos. Asking the 19 year old behind the counter hasn't helped, either. Need one of the old foggies.

The only ink I found that will print and stay on the back of photographic paper is India Ink. This will not smear once dry.

 

My local Wal-Mart has not been a problem, but I am in a small town now with just ONE Wal-Mart. We recently had our first Walgreens open and I attempted to scan one of my copyright photos.......no problem, they went right ahead and did it. Then I requested to speak to the manager about copyright infringement.

Wal-Mart sucks, why would anyone even consider getting prints done there?! In a pinch I use Ritz one hour at the very least.

 

Try www.mpix.com if you have the time. Turnaround is about 3 days.