walmart keeps prints or 106 year old photos

[walter_degroot]

yesterday , my wife took in a cd with a 1898 photo of my grandmother.

it had been digitally enhanced and a lot of pc work had been done.

the original was faded and stained and it was a professional photo.

after she printed several 4 x 6 prints the associate took the prints

and refused to sell them. This is a walmart policy and there seems to

be no reasonable-ness behind it. they require a release from the

photographer.

are there any 135 year old photoigraphers out there? didn't think so.

Is there a work around for this. is walmart going to continue to get

away with this ?

before some of you apologize and rationalize! i AGREE that rip-offs

of school, studio and wedding photos should not be allowed.

I complained long and hard to walmart. will it do any good?

what can I do ? look for someplace else? fake a release.? ( heaven forbid)

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

You may be able to contact your local attorney general about this to have them let go of the prints. I'm sure the pictures age must be obvious. It sounds like you're dealing with a min-wage employee on a power trip.

[User_502260]

Even the most rudimentary editing programs contain a "restore" feature. If you already had the work done then find a friend with a computer and a good printer and do it that way.

[scott_davis5]

Another simple solution... quit going to Wal-Mart. That's up there with buying Starbucks coffee to help contribute to the tsunami relief, when Starbucks exploits the indonesian coffee growers so their cost on a $4 latte is just 20 cents, and they use the same tactics that Wal-Mart uses to wring pricing concessions from sweatshops.

[jim_appleyard]

You may not agree with this policy, but the rights to the original photograph extend to the photographers heirs for 75 years after his/her death.

 

You can take it somewhere else or do any of the other things you mentioned, but just by copying it and putting it on a cd, you have already broken the law. This same law also protects your photos from being copied during your lifetime and it will protect the photos that you leave YOUR heirs.

 

You mentioned that it's wrong to rip-off a school, studio, etc. What's the difference between ripping them off and ripping off the photographers heirs?

[jim_appleyard]

Allow me to clarify something: I said that you already have broken the law. I should have said you MAY have broken the law. You'll have to find out when this photographer died and who now owns the rights to them.

[john_shriver]

It is was published before 1978 without a printed copyright notice, in the US, then Copyright protection was forfeited. I don't know if selling a photographic print counts as publication, but I would think it would. But I'm no lawyer.

 

There was a Major change in US Copyright law in 1978.

[stephen hazelton]

Walter, I remember reading a Roger Hicks article on the subject a number of years back. The problem is that you can get a copyright, and it may or may not be renewed, or may or may not have been copyrighted in the first place, etc. So with a lot of old photos, you problably won't have any problem if you copy them, but you might NEVER be able to actually show what the status of the copyright, if any, was.

 

It seems Walmart has taken the simplest approach to this, and that is, don't print or reproduce ANY studio type work. That way, they don't get involved in trying to figure out if some dead person renewed a copyright 50 years ago.

 

I seem to remember reading where Walmart had been sued in the past over reproducing copyrighted work- not an individual work, but works in general.

 

What you can do is print them yourself, or take them anywhere else where you're dealing with a person who can make their own decisions (as opposed to being obligated to follow a corporate policy).

 

It might be interesting to fake a release. "I hereby give Walter Degroot permission to copy my photo, which I personally took 135 years ago. Signed: Joe Blow". They'd probably accept it, just so it fit their policy.

[silent1]

<i>It is was published before 1978 without a printed copyright notice, in the US, then Copyright protection was forfeited. I don't know if selling a photographic print counts as publication, but I would think it would. But I'm no lawyer.</i><p>

 

That was correct, John, before the Digital Milennium Copyright Act went into effect. Unfortunately, it's my understanding (as a non-expert) that many works that were in public domain prior to enactment of the DMCA have been given renewed copyright protection -- effectively making it impossible to be certain that copying <i>anything</i> is legal. I'm mildly surprised that there aren't PTO agents hiding behind every other machine at FedEx Kinko's, waiting to examine whatever you might print or copy to see if you created it (and can prove it) (but give it time -- they don't have that kind of funding -- yet).<p>

 

Of interest to this thread, specifically included in renewed copyright protection under DMCA are works for which copyright expired before the 1968 expiration of the then-current Copyright Act (yes, the United States was without an unexpired copyright law for a shameful ten years -- and then made up for it by making the laws repeatedly more restrictive), and works originally published without copyright notice or with defective notice prior to (IIRC) the 1978 enactment of new law that no longer required a notice. I could be wrong on one or the other part of this -- as I said, I'm not an expert -- but this is what I've been led to understand.<p>

 

Bottom line is, WalMart probably has a standing policy that they intercept anything that looks "profesional", likely unless the person requesting copies can supply a negative. Don't know what they might do with digital originals from a prosumer with talent -- but they're doing this in order to keep their legal costs down by avoiding being named in copyright infringement suits by photographers who are legally entitled to profit from reprinting of their work -- even if they died in the Second World War.

[brian_lyerly]

Same thing happened to my wife a couple years ago. Except these were pictures of her grandfather from WWII who had very reciently passed away. Needless to say, she was pissed and almost scratched the womans eyes out. We went a half mile down the road to another department store and had no problems. My advice is to hit all the drugstores, dept stores, etc. until you get one that will let you have them. It doesn't cost you a thing, and if they won't let you have the prints then you just charged them a bastard tax by using up paper and ink :)

 

Brian

[25asa]

Yes Walmarts policy is to not copy any professional works without a release and that the law states the copyright is in effect 75 years after the companys/ photographers death. So if he died in the 1950s, that means you still have to wait around 20 years before they can be copied.

 

This issue has been bantered around in previous threads. See:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006mUT

[alexis_neel]

I agree with Scott. These type of huge companies forcing established local business owners out of business is a sad comment on american society of today. And when you do need a smaller shop, who won't give you this kind of grief, they won't be around because they had to go out of business.

 

Alexis

 

www.alexisneel.com

[jim_appleyard]

Great attitude Brian! What would you do if someone copied your photos?

[25asa]

Would anyones view be any different had Walmart been a small company instead of the large so called bullish company? I've seen small stores have the same policy, but I don't hear any cries from people about them.

[brian_lyerly]

What you are not considering is the concept of fair use. The DMCA allows personal use (ie. backup) copies of other media types (cds, software, etc.) If the photographer is known or traceable then you should go through them. But we are talking about restoring 70-106 year old prints of family members. If my work survives that long and is cherished by relatives of my subject then I would be honored for my work to live on. These prints have no value in the real world and there is no way to find a photographer who is probably dead and have his estate scrounge up negatives that are most likely degraded or lost. All the OP and myself were doing was trying to maintain part of our family's history, not try to sell these things to Getty. This is no different than any other photorestoration work that is done in photolabs all over the world. They have to make new prints when they are done as well. Why can't we do that work ourselves?

[red_buckner]

Scott, successful companies and entrepreneurs will always be hated and attacked by the political left. When the lefties get a chance to do what they feel anointed to do--take over and run things--the results are always the same: general economic misery or firing squads or both.

[25asa]

Why not then just take it to a pro lab that will allow printing it? If a store won't allow printing any professional pictures regardless of age, wouldn't it be simply enough to go to someone that will? Being Walmart is so large, they have to protect themselves from abuse, so that is why their policy stands. Think of any famous person that has been a target themselves.

[ole_tjugen]

"Scott, successful companies and entrepreneurs will always be hated and attacked by the political left. When the lefties get a chance to do what they feel anointed to do--take over and run things--the results are always the same: general economic misery or firing squads or both."

 

That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read.

 

Then again, USA has no left wing, only shades of right.

[nathan_dandar]

hahah someone mentioning making a print of a 100+ year old photo of this person's grandmother as "breaking the law"! That's rich. Oh what horrid felon you are, daring to want a photo of your grandmother.

 

Sounds like an egomaniac Walmart employee. Take it somewhere sensible.

[jim_appleyard]

Brian, perhaps this studio is still in business? Has that occured to you.

 

Nathan, can I steal from you then?

[25asa]

Nathan,

 

Why don't you write to Walmart about it and stop blaming the employees? You guys have no clue what we go through at work trying to prevent people from copying local studios work and the *&^%$% we put up with from customers from that at our lab. One lady deliberately hid the copied photos from us not letting us see what she was copying, and sure enough it was a pro photo. She knew she wasn't allowed to copy it. Just trying to uphold the law becomes tiresome because we most often get a hard time about it. Only the odd person mentions "I didn't know that (Its illegal)" in a calm voice, doesn't argue, and leaves it alone. When we asked one person for the negatives since they claimed they took the photo, that person came back and said they were burned in a fire. Really. Wow what luck. Most pros deal with professional outlets for their needs to duplicate their work.

 

As for the age issue- almost all pro photos are within the copyright date to not be allowed to duplicate. So its safe to say it can't be done.

[25asa]

Oh and that person who said the negs were burned in a fire, the picture was of himself with a studios signature at the bottom.

[jim kerr]

This is a sorry affair I must say. It makes me want to just puke when businesses try to act like they have some special right to tell you what to do. Sounds like National Socialism to me....Jim

[alexis_neel]

Red Buckner , wrote:

"Scott, successful companies and entrepreneurs will always be hated and attacked by the political left. When the lefties get a chance to do what they feel anointed to do--take over and run things--the results are always the same: general economic misery or firing squads or both."

 

ROFLMAO! besides just being plain wrong, the hypocracy of this statement just goes to show the ignorance of neo-cons.

And I don't believe I've heard of a left wing government resorting to firing squads in quite the same level as any right wing dictorial government, usually supported by the american government, and in Chile's case, overthrown by our government to boot.

 

Viva Allende

[alexis_neel]

Scott Pickering "25 ASA" , wrote

"Would anyones view be any different had Walmart been a small company instead of the large so called bullish company? I've seen small stores have the same policy, but I don't hear any cries from people about them."

 

I believe Jock Sturges found out otherwise.

 

Alexis

 

www.alexisneel.com