I've always thought that copyright on photos is a precarious invention of the photocopier world to prevent them from being sued. But here's my understanding of the idea: "Copyright" as you've described it isn't a license that you get when you take professional photos. Everyone is entitled to copyright over whatever art they produce. If I write a book, for example, even though I'm not a known author, I still retain copyright of the material. If you look at photos in this way, you can see how any photographer, regardless of "professional status" (whatever that means, since your friend is obviously a gifted photographer without being a "pro") is entitled to the copyright of his own photos. On the other hand, I take some issue with Walmart's (and other companies') unwillingness to copy your photos. Suppose you are the subject of the photo - is the photographer the only one who retains the photo rights? Besides that, Walmart is just the facilitator. Technically, you should be the one who gets in trouble for copying a copyrighted photo. My point is that if the copyright holder seeks to enforce his copyright, he should do so himself and Walmert shouldn't and shouldn't be held accountable for something that you did. And so if you have permission of the copyright holder (which you seem to have in this case), there is really no reason for anyone to give you a hard time. My suggestion is to simply try again, or just forge (or get a real one) a permissive notice. Maybe the next clerk won't be so anal.

I have a compliant about Walmart Photo policy in DeQueen, AR. My son emailed me his wedding pictures.I put them on a floppy and went to Walmart and printed them off. After I printed them I was treated like a criminal and they were jerked out of my hand when I started to pay for them. The woman there asked me if I had a copyright & I told her no because they have never been copyrighted and were not done by a professional. I was told I could not buy them because I had to have a signed copyright. She said she had to have the photo to see that they weren't copyrighted. I told her I had some in my car that I had printed off on my computer but that they were not as good. The WalMart woman said no that would not work. A woman right in front of me had copied what looked like a school picture and nothing was said to her. I would think that that was copyrighted. There was never a copyright on these wedding pictures in the first place because a friend of the brides grandfather had done them as a favor and have given them the photo's and a CD. He had printed their photo right on the outside of the CD with their names and date. He gave it to them so that they could print whatever they wanted. The man that made the pictures did not and does not have a copyright and is a ameteur. So we are being discriminated against because the photo's look too good. My son lives in North Carolina and I live in AR. My son was in for a brief visit and took the original CD (with his and his brides picture printed and dated on the outside of the CD itsled) to have some made and the department manager named Kevin was rude to him also. My son told him that there is not a copyright because he is not a professional. I asked him why would the man give them a CD with a photo on the outside of it that he had put on there, if he didn't want it reprinted. That he meant for them to print what we wanted. We were again told you had to have a copyright. My son told the department head named Kevin they were not done by a professional. Kevin said well any that looked like they were had to be copyrighted. My son asked to talk to a manger over him and he was told he was as high as it got around there. (This was in DeQueen AR) I would like to know how can anything be copyrighted if you have no copyright in the first place? So in other words if someone takes good photo's, or anyone else takes good photo's, Walmart only copies bad photo's or photo's that are poor quality. Kevin also said you could print them off yourself onto a floppy from email and have them printed. I told him that was a lie because I had already done that and they would not let me buy them after I printed them. And I told him they still had the ones I printed. Kevin had them laying right in front of him. My new daughter-in-law told them that she wanted these photo's shredded and asked him to do so several times. He made no move to do so. He had no right to them or to keep them in the store if we could not have them!!! I made some pictures at my daughters wedding that looked better than what the photographer made so I guess I can't copy them? Karen

And that, my friends, is when we upload them to Yahoo or Snapfish or Ofoto or something. Sheesh, Walmart can be so annoying sometimes. I went in once and made two copies, one of a photo of my grandmother (taken late 50's or very early 60's) and a wedding photo of my husband's grandparents, 1947. Only one lady gave me trouble and she only gave me trouble about the photo of my grandmother. And I kept telling her, LOOK, my grandmother died in 1963, we have NO idea where this photo was taken, except somewhere in St. Louis probably, and there is no markings on this anywhere to show who might have taken it, etc. Finally the other people were like, it's okay, it's old enough that any copyright has probably expired, let her go. You would have thought they would have said something about the other photo too, it was obviously professional as well. It was just so stupid. The photos: my grandmother & his grandparents.

I think my mom uses Shutterfly. I'm not sure what their policy is for reproducing copyrighted photos, but they probably don't even bother to check. Something witty occurs to me- If you are granted a copyright to your photo upon taking the picture, then all photos are copyrighted, and Walmart shouldn't be reproducing any of them. It's cool that you have old pictures of your grandparents. I wonder if my grandmother has any pictures of herself when she was younger. I'll have to ask.

Wow, this post is from over a year ago? lol I just noticed that. Anyway, yeah I never thought of that. I've never attempted to copy ones on those machines of the better ones I've done, I wonder what they'd say? We have lots of old pictures of grandparents, but all are copies except for a few I have in our saftey-deposit box. I copied those at Office Max onto paper. And once you stick them in a book behind a page protector, no one can tell they're not originals! I'm into the whole genealogy thing, so it's like an obsession of mine :-D

Yay! My site has achieved sticky visitor retention! :) Though I suppose that if you've taken the picture yourself, then you can grant yourself the right to reproduce it. You'd have to do it with your husband's pictures, say. That would never work for me because my wife, well... She's a loving mother and draws well in pencil. I had a stint in geneology when I was younger that didn't last too long. I don't think there are many pictures of my grandparents. They're certainly something worth keeping digital copies of if there are, though. I actually have very few physical prints, and the only reason I went to Walmart a year ago was to see how good a print would look from the new digital camera.

My mom works @ the photo shop of Sam's Club in Exton...I'll have to ask her if she's ever had to ask that question. She's been in the photography business since the 80s...

I am a working profesional photographer, but I take my personal pictures to Walmart all the time, and every single time I get hassled, now imagine this, the photographs are copyrighted with MY name, the same name thats on the order, yet I still get asked if I have copyrighted. Last time I threw my press pass at the clerk and asked them if they wanted to call my editor. Now when I get pictures done, I place a 4x6 print, thats been done in PS, stating that yes I hold the copyright, and a little image of my press id in case they really want to get picky ;), I personally think they just glance at a pic, not even what the copyright says if its on there and assume that only an idiot would get a picture at the walmart LoL

I am a photographer and I also work for Walmart in the Photo Center. Walmart does not dispute the copyright on the picture. Walmarts policy is even if there is no marking and it appears to be taken by a professional Walmart will not copy it. If you go to walmart they shoud be able to give you a copy of it. It is not Walmart upholding the copyright only. Walmart has a strict policy against posed or professional pictures.

That's like saying you have a policy against copying photos of dogs. Whose discretion is used to determine if a photo is professional? If the public started taking classes en masse to improve their photography skills, would Walmart never produce a print? No, this is a policy that is as stupid as their policy on banning albums with profanity and books that don't meet their strict content criteria. It's a pseudo-monopoly throwing its weight around to apply social policy where it has no business doing so. And also, to a certain extent, copyrighting photographs is wrong. Especially if you intentionally pose for such pictures and there was no waiver of rights.

i have a bad situation that i need some advice about. i got married on november 6th of this year. we hired a new "professional " photographer in town to do the wedding pictures. when i ordered from my proofs they were clear and good.the so called photographer develpoed and reprinted all of my wedding pictures at wal-mart. i find this unethical and unprofessional because for example the walmart price for a 20x30 is only 15.91 and he charged me 94.00 for the picture that he made at wal-mart, what should i do?

Congrats on getting hitched! I hope your marriage goes better than your wedding photography. Where would you feel comfortable paying $94 for a single print? Did he and Walmart produce poor photos? One thing you learn being in the service industry is that it doesn't matter what your material costs are. People pay for your expertise, and expect you to give them the best quality because you're familiar with how to do your work, not because you know where the most expensive place to buy materials is. I've always thought that the photographer/developer relationship was a scam. Ideally, you want to pay a photographer to take your photos, and give you the processed negatives to do with what you like. But that doesn't happen. If you negotiated your photographer's involvement in making prints beforehand, you should have been comfortable with whatever price you set for the prints, as long as he provided the quality you expected. The sad truth is, Walmart probably isn't going to do any worse of a job than anyplace else that develops photos. I'm surprised that they can handle professional photographer film. Usually, pro photographers use larger than 35mm film for the formal photos.

I just wanted to add that I am a librarian and have taken classes on copyright. Library staff do not monitor what patrons copy either off the Internet or from books, magazines, etc. We do post a copyright notice regarding the law and such, but it's the patron's responsibility to follow that law. We are not copyright police. I would think that should apply to Walmart or any other place where the customer is making the prints out of one of those kiosk. And yes, technically it might be wrong to copy your wedding pictures. I mean heaven forbid you should do such a horrible thing./sarcasm But if the photographer only keeps the negatives for so long and you didn't get them from him or her, then what's the big deal?

why don't you ppl shop somewhere else if you have such a problem with walmart.. I work in the photo center and we don't print professional looking photos so we don't get fired and fined because it is AGAINST THE LAW!!!! it protects the rights of small business!! (ie. individual photographers) if you are sooo good at photography that we won't print your photos go to a professional studio!!!!!!!! or better yet bring us the negatives if they are yours you should have the negatives and we can print anything that you have the negatives for.. and as for the nudity policy.. we are a freakin retail store not a specialty photo lab.. if you want the cheap price this is what you gotta work with .. jesus I'm sick of ppl like that krista girl complaining on and on but i'll bet she still buys all her crap at good ol' wallyworld.

There are a lot of reason to shop at Walmart, and not all of them have to do with the low prices. Many small specialty businesses collapse when a Walmart opens nearby because they can't compete with the mega-corp. Some people don't have a choice but to go to Walmart, but nobody should have to shop elsewhere because of foolish limitations Walmart has places on their photo printing. When all the mom-and-pop stores close, should Walmart be able to tell you what you can and can't print? No, that would be wrong. I'm sure that in your extensive legal experience operating the photo machine in Walmart you would know what's legal to print and not. Either that, or you're swallowing the tripe that your manager has fed you about legality. Look up some Xerox case law. I'm sure you'll find something interesting to make you loathe your job just that much more.

"we don’t print professional looking photos so we don’t get fired and fined because it is AGAINST THE LAW!!!!" printing professional LOOKING photos is against the law? HAHA lmffao

You are really only proving my point, which is not in dispute of the copyright itself, but of WalMart's efforts to enforce it. If every photo is copyrighted from the moment the shutter closes, then every photo is copyrighted, including the ones that my 4-year-old takes with her $20 digital camera. Since photos are not required to bear a copyright notice, there is no way for WalMart to know if any photo is permissible to copy. At what point was WalMart given the legal empowerment to determine what photos have and have not been released for duplication? It's legally implausible to burden WalMart with verifying the surrender of copyright on every photo they print without destroying their photo business. It has always been the responsibility of the copyright holder to bring legal light to the infringement of their own copyright. WalMart can't be held responsible for copying a photo any more than Xerox can be held responsible for you copying a 100 dollar bill on one of their photocopiers. I can understand that WalMart wants to give some voice to copyright holders, but they really don't have any obligation to do so. In being such a large organization, they set a dangerous precedent in trying to take responsibility away from the consumer and act with the power of the courts. That's not right. If you're going to have photos taken by a professional, my advice is to keep looking until you find one that releases any notion of copyright on their photos before you contract them. Get negatives/digital and a written release before you start. If they're not going to get your business, then may change their mind. But don't pay extra for something you should get for free. You retain their services to take good photos, not to bilk you for overpriced prints.

All photos are copyright protected the instant that the shutter is snapped, the image is fixed in tangable form. This is implied copyright and does not have to be registered to be legally binding. Copyright means that only the holder of the copyright (whether implied or registered) has the right to copy the photo, or license/permit others to do so. Fines for copyright infringement can be as high as $10,000. Wal-Mart would no more desire to copy a copyrighted photo, without permission of the copyright holder, than they would want to copy a 100 dollar bill. Since 1976 copyright notice is no longer required on a photo. Any image that you see, whether in a photo or on the internet, is copyright protected unless made prior to 1924, or unless the owner has surrendered copyright.

My husband and I live and married in Tennessee on November of 2004. We went to a chapel, and bought this package that included the wedding pictures. After we received our album we decided to purchace all the photos from the photographer on a disc. This cost us an aditional $250. Josh the photographer gave us the right to copy the photos on another disc to give to family. Our family lives in Indiana. I went to visit and used the Walmart there in Franklin to develop my wedding pictures. Even though I had the original disc from the photographer. They told me that I needed proof that Josh gave me permission to print these photos. Thank god I had his number to call him or else I wouldn't have gotten my pictures to give to grandma. Even though the lady talked to him, he said that I was co-owner of that disc. I had to wait for a fax to come in. They told me that they would hold this fax for 5 years. I would be able to come in and develop these photos any time. I mentioned that my mother-in-law had a copy of the disc. That she would be in to develop pictures. They said, "NO PROBLEM!" For her to use my name and blah, blah, blah. When she went in to develop these pictures it was a problem. I called Walmart up in Franklin, they were just as rude on the phone as they were in person. She told me that each time I come in now I have to have an original form stating that I can develop my wedding pictures. I don't understand if they have one paper in their file stating that I am co-owner of these pictures. Why would the next fax say anything differnt. Don't I have the right to develop my own wedding pictures after purchassing them on a disc? Like Josh said, I am a co-owner of the pictures!

And that is one reason why I am now using online photo services. Upload your photos to them like ofoto.com or photos.yahoo.com and order what you want, it's shipped to you, easy as Sunday morning.

I work in a Wal-Mart Photo Center, and first off... To the person who made snide remarks about how intelligent you have to be to operate the photo machine in Wal-Mart, there is a whole lot more to it than pushing buttons and sending customers on their way. The machines require regular maintenance, some people don't expose their photos correctly and want you compensate for that in the printing, there are a zillion OSHA and EPA regulations to be aware of, caustic chemicals to work with, and there are also, among other things, customers to take care of while being mindful of policy. Wal-Mart is strict about copyright law and "enforces" it, as you have so eloquently stated, because they have been fined by photographers (it can be anywhere from 10,000 to 500,000 dollars), and they have been issued cease and desist orders. The reason they are a target and held accountable rather than the person copying the picture is because they are the ones profitting from it. That is where the infringement comes in. You cannot profit from someone elses work. Now, the reason I won't sell a professional picture as a Wal-Mart employee is because I will be fired if Wal-Mart is sued. I am never rude. I often let the people know when the pictures are old and it is obvious the matter of whether the copyright still remains on the picture is questionable that I actually feel really bad that I can't sell the picture (this is especially true if the person in the picture has passed away), but I just CAN'T, and I won't. Please don't take it out on photo center associates. We are just doing our jobs. If the pictures you want copies of are recent, most photographers I have dealt with (and I have dealt with alot) are more than willing to sign a release for you if they have already destroyed the negatives. If you took the pictures yourself, be flattered that we think they look nice enough to question and sign the release. We are protecting you, too. I am working at Wallyworld to make ends meet while I am going back to school, and I know if I went through the work of earning a degree in Photography or Photojournalism and I bought all of the right (read: expensive) equipment to do my job, and I took beautiful photos for someone to make my living, I would be a little peeved if they bought the bare minimum and took them to Wal-Mart to make prints for $.19 a piece. We also don't print nudity unless it is a medical instance (birth, surgery, etc) or babies in the bathtub type shots. This isn't a law. It's policy. And if anything, as a business, they have a right to put whatever policies concerning what they will and won't print into place. If you don't like that, go somewhere else to get your prints. There are several mail order and online places that are much cheaper.

I never said it was simple or difficult to operate the photo machines at Walmart, just implied that you can't gain valid legal expertise from doing so. I am sure that Walmart would rather pay a "small" fine than waste money arguing for case law that, if carried, could require them to print any photo presented by a customer, regardless of their ridiculous exclusionary policies based on morality. But it's like I said before - How can Walmart reasonably be expected to filter out which photos may and may not be printed when copyright exists on all photos? Assuming a judge orders that a certain photographer's photos can't be reprinted, how would Walmart screen these photos from the potential thousands of photos that arrive each day? Especially when the law allows for special derivative works, and even for true copies after the copyright has expired, even though no record of the photographer may exist? It's certainly not viable to place that burden on the photo machine operator, who may have a degree in photography but also has to worry about OSHA regulations and avoiding the consumption of caustic chemicals used by the machines. Moreover, how can one reasonably argue that Walmart is intentionally trying to reallocate profit from a copyright holder without actively engaging in the reproduction of his copyrighted materials? Walmart doesn't actively produce prints of Ansel Adams photos with the intention of making a profit from them, nor would they charge a different amount for reprints of his photos than for mine. And the next time I receive my prints at Walmart I'll be sure to tell them that they were not permitted to make copies and that they should prepare for a lawsuit. The legal recourse you suggest is common would shut down Walmart photo printing entirely, since anyone with a brain could sue. The idea that Walmart could be at fault for copyright infringement is absurd unless they knowingly did it. It seems pretty easy to avoid knowingly doing something. It's strange to think that a professional photographer with a degree in his field would buy all kinds of expensive equipment and have extensive training in his art, and then charge for prints of his work instead of his skill at taking the photos in the first place. Explain the logic of this. The work is not in the printing of the photo, it's in the taking. But this is a separate, philosophic discussion on the disposition of copyright itself, not on Walmart's poor implementation of it. If you would be fired for breaking company policy, I can see your hesitation in letting any potentially copyrighted photo go by. That still doesn't excuse the poor company policy on which your fear is based. Yes, there are mail order places that are much cheaper, but Walmart permeates our society as a provider of norms for our culture. This is a bad thing, and it can only stop if people confront it and say it's wrong. Unfortunately, that may mean taking it out on the clerk at the photo counter. Provide a better outlet for frustration that could result in the release of your photos than raving in front of 50 other customers and maybe people will opt for that instead.

Walmart is stupid about photos. My friend and I once went ther to get some dance pictures remade and they were not copyrighted. We were like ok lets print these and go. The lady got very snotty with her and I was like whatever we'll just go somewhere else... and we did. Another time I was there to get pictures developed. I had bought one of those one time use cameras that comes with a free CD. According to Walmart I have to pay for that CD, but it said Kodak gives you a free CD and it was included in the price when I payed for it. So yet again I left and went somewhere else. They did what they were suppose to. (Washington, IL)

I used walmart to print of my photos and am very happy with the service. I used snapfish, shutterfly and winkflash for printing my baby's photos and nothing came close to walmarts service. Winkflash did not care to fix my under-exposed photos, snapfish has this huge shipping fees and shutterfly pictures were really bad quality. Walmart employee fixed the underexposure, cropped the picture and gave me prints in 10 mins from the time I placed order. Great service-Great price. No more accepting what you get from the shipping, you have a choice. I dont know abt copyrighted stuff though.

Another time I was there to get pictures developed. I had bought one of those one time use cameras that comes with a free CD. According to Walmart I have to pay for that CD, but it said Kodak gives you a free CD and it was included in the price when I payed for it. So yet again I left and went somewhere else. They did what they were suppose to. (Washington, IL) Ok, you are dumb. Read the fine print. It's on the commercials and on the camera itself. You must take that camera that you got ripped off on, cause every one time use camera can be put on cd, to a Kodak lab. A lab using Kodak chemicals and paper. When you purchased that one time use camera, you paid for the "free" cd. Which is why you must take it to a Kodak lab to get it. They've already charged you, so they must give you the cd. Walmart uses Fuji, you did not pay Fuji for the cd that you are trying to get. As far as copyrighted photos. If you really need a copy of a wedding picture or a school photo and you think you should have the right to copy it. Just call the person who took it, if they don't want you to purchase it from them.. get a release. It's not that hard. Or sign a release form yourself. They have those. If you say you took the photo and there is no copyright markings on it.. you can just sign the form that Walmart has and then purchase the photo. Just understand that when someone questions what you claim to own, you will be responsible. Everyone is ganging up on Walmart for following a federal law. Whether you are in the photo or it's of your family, if you went to a studio or paid someone to do the photos.. they own the rights. You are obligated to go through them if you want copies made. I'm sure that most photographers would be more than welcome to charge you $5.00 for a 4x6 that you can get for .16 at Walmart. But that's the deal you signed up for getting a professional. Yes they make money in their expertise when you make a contract with them... but you are also going to pay out the ass for the photos. And most of them go to the most inexpensive places they can to get them printed. You'd be surprised at the amount of photographers that charge outrageous prices and are getting all your expensive photos printed at Walmart. If you people really want a professional picture that bad, call the photogapher or print them out on your own home junk printer.

I had the same bad experience with a Wal-Mart photo center in June of 05. I took some pictures of my Son with my digital camera / purchased at Wal-Mart by the way. I fixed up and edited the pictures to my liking on my computer / not bought from Wal-Mart. I went to Wal-Mart with my flash memory stick and used Wal-Mart Fuji kiosk to submit the photos for 1 Hr processing. I went and did the rest of my shopping and browsed for an hr in the same Wal-Mart / Just like they want or hope I will do. In one hr I returned to get my photos, the clerk very rudely says to me WHERE IS THE NEGITIVE FOR THIS PHOTO? I told her there was no negative and that I took the photo myself with a digital camera and I showed her my memory card. She rudely snatched the memory card from my figures and took off with it. Never once indicating to me what the problem was. After watching her go from machine to machine with my memory card I finally went to the far side of the photo lab and over the partition asked her to PLEASE tell me what the problem was. Finally she says %u201CThis looks like a professional photo and we can not be copying professional photos and I need to see if this photo is on the memory disk%u201D. I told her again that I had taken the photo myself and that there was 200 and some photo%u2019s on that disc and that if she would ask nicely that I would be happy to show her the photo on the disc. I showed her the photo on the disc / she never asked nicely using the kiosk that I submitted it on. She sent me on my way with my photos without so much as the slightest apology for the He_ _ she just put me through. Who died and made Wal-Mart the Gestapo anyway? When a company acts or treats its customers as they treated me and apparently others that%u2019s just what they seem like. If they or anyone wants to just hide under a bunch of blanket polices so they don%u2019t have to use any common sense than they will just end up eventually running off all there customers. Then go out of business and then maybe more of us will come to realize that price isn%u2019t always everything and welcome back the ma and pop shops where customer satisfaction is there lively hood. I do think I am seeing this more and more, a company just keeps getting bigger and bigger. They get so big that they can no longer take care of the customers. Soon the customers get fed up or wakeup and start taking there business else where and as it should be the company folds. To Wal-Mart and your Employees: I was just an average Joe getting some photos of my Son done that day and you went out of your way to make me feel like a criminal in front of other customers. After just one simple search on the internet it is evident that you have put many of your customers through this. If you can not do business without treating your customers as criminals, trust me maybe you should just close your doors now while you still have some money in the bank. Maybe that way you won%u2019t screw all the share holders and lenders and go out under bankruptcy.

I tried to get some copys made of some old postcards from around 1908.  Who holds the copy right to that.  The walmart in auburn in. Thinks that maybe the person that took that picture on that postcard just might rise out of the grave and come in and defend the copyright, it don't even have the word copyright on it.  Kodak states that those for which the statutory monopoly preiod has expired and those which have been "published" without a copyright notice;are in the public domain and may be freely copied.

Interesting thread. Dominated by the uneducated. Not by coincidence, but by choice. Someone has already explained why Wal-Mart works the way they do. You don't want facts, you're too busy trying to get your own way. Having worked in reproduction (legal), and holding copyright to thousands of publically available images, I completely understand and SUPPORT Wal-Mart's actions. If every organization engaged in reproduction was as responsible as Wal-Mart, then artist's rights would be in far better hands. Although not previously a fan of Wal-Mart, nor a Wal-Mart photo centre customer, I shall now try to give them whatever business I can. One should support organizations that are prepared to work within the confines of the law, rather than worry about that $0.19 that Trailer Park Joe may walk out of the store without spending.

Yes, interesting how the uneducated - like yourself - keep stopping by to insult and offer "support" but no legal precedent or substance of any kind to this discussion. Wal-Mart works the way it does because rather than support a practice that would allow someone to copy his own wedding photos, they randomly decide which of your photos you have a right to reproduce. This is a priviledge not granted to them by any court, and is usually at the whim of a 17-year-old photo department manager on a power trip, backed by the nebulous protection of "copyright law". I'll ask again: If all photos are copyrighted the moment they're made, then what right does Wal-Mart have to do anything but ask whether the person requesting a print has the right to reproduce it, and then act on that information? In what way are they legally obligated to request written authorization from the copyright holder for reproduction only on some photos and not all photos? I'm more inclined to believe that Wal-Mart's values are in line with big business than with the rights of the common man, considering their record. The practice of deciding which photos can and can't be copied is directly in line with that attitude. Organizations can work within the law without screwing a man out of copies of his wedding pictures. So before you come here and call anyone "Trailer Park Joe", you might want to bring yourself out of your little car club motorhead mentality, and check your name-calling at the door. Better yet, don't come back. You think you bring truth, but you've really offered nothing here.

Hmmm... I think Mr. Ray Henry has no idea of which he speaks.

It's amazing how this blog goes all the way back to 2003! I must congratulate Wal-Mart for its tech advances (eg. printing via online) and their remarkable prices. Nonetheless I agree with several of you who have been treated like mere criminals when it comes to copying/reprinting a "professional" looking photograph. I was incriminated the time I took a bunch of family pictures to Wal-Mart to scan them and saved them unto a disc. To my distress, I ask one of the ladies for help, only to be scolded and told that one of my baby pictures look like done in a studio and was illegal to scan it. I still remember her penetrating eyes pounding in my mind how illegal it was. I understand, from reading some Wal-Mart workers' posting, you're not all in that category; however, from what I understand, it is a lousy argument to say that it is illegal and that we must present prove of copyright ownership. Here's my point, collecting from previous postings and personal research: Under the Canadian Copyright Act (at the present moment of this posting) Subsection 13(2), it is the commissioner of the photograph (the client) and not the studio who owns first ownership of the copyrights, unless otherwise agreed as part of a contract. Therefore, as I may understand (please understand I'm not a lawyer), if you pay for the photograph to be taken and the photographer does not advances any copyright agreement, the client is the lawful owner of the copyright for the photograph. If I were to come back to the discussion about wedding pictures, I would suggest that a couple looking for a professional photographer, should make sure to understand their legal rights and find a photographer that suits them. I personally believe that a photographer should be entitled to manage his business as he best sees fit. However, I personally would look for someone who I would pay to take the pictures and give me the film/negatives or memory card, if digital pictures are in question. Yet, the photographer may be very skillful in developing prints or using software for digital enhanced printing. I tend to believe that this should be a package option and not the norm (photographers retaining negatives to sell their prints). Some of you have commented on how some "professional" photographers are using this norm to take advantage of their customers by printing at cheaper stores like Wal-Mart. Something within me tells me this is unethical, or at least the customer should have known that that was the photographer’s accustomed procedure. But my point is, that many a photographer have made us believe (by social conditioning) that they own the copyrights by default, where in all truth, it is not so (I speak for our present situation in Canada). So thanks to you all for this blog, it helped me realize I wasn't the only Wal-Mart customer filling guilty about nonsense and also for motivating me to do some research. And yes, I agree that if Wal-Mart (or any other company) has the right to its own policies, than, they should make sure that they are quoting the law and not mere foolishness. If I understand the law correctly, my mom/dad could go and sue Wal-Mart for allowing me to reprint/digitalize pictures they took without presenting their written consent, for they are the legal copyright owners.

Interesting Canadian perspective. Thanks! I am sad that the laws here in the US most likely don't work the same way. And actually, the logs here go back to 1999.(!)

You know calling all these people uneducated or dumb for not understanding Walmart's or copyright policy, makes you about as smart as they are. They are not as much complining about the policy as they are on how they are treated. I understand copyright, I dont fully believe in it, but understand it. I figure if you paid for it then it is yours to do what you wish with it. If I build you a computer and sell it to you, I dont own a copyright on it. I only own it till it is paid for. A car manifacture does own the copyright on the name of your car, but once you buy the car the car is your to do what you want with. You just cant build a car and use the same name as a manufacture. So what makes photographers think they own the picture or image of you, if you paid for it? Yes Walmart has the right to check for copyright, but not to treat someone as a criminal or treat them bad. I understand you can sign a release, but they do not all tell you about this release. I know this for a fact, my wife is a amature photographer, does really well and has good equipment, but sometime more often then not we shoot with digital. One time we took a picture of each of our daughters at school in their volleyball uniforms, and then loaded them on the computer, and brought them together in the same photo to use for christmas cards. When we put it back on the memory card and went to Walmart, they tried to tell me they were copyright protected and couldnt print them. To forever to convince them that we took them and there was no copyright or any other photographer involved. We finally got them printed, but only after I spoke with the photo lab manager which happen to be a old friend of mine and she let use do it. Something need to be done with Walmarts policy, wasnt so bad when digital camera's were cheap and didnt take quality pictures, but now anyone can take high quality shots and then have to argue if they are theirs or not. So please if you work at walmart photo, try to be nice to the person who you think may have a copyright photo, if you open your eye's you can tell if they are being truthfull with you or just trying to get over on you. Not everyone is a crook and not everyone has a negative or a way to contact a photgrapher to get a release for that 50 year old photo or Grandma!!! So easy up a bit!

I work at a Wal-mart photo center, and will try to shed a bit of light on the matter, though I doubt I will end up doing more than just repeat some of the stuff that is said, but here goes. First off sorry to those of you who felt the Wal-Mart in your area made you feel like a criminal. Let me assure you that IS NOT Wal-Mart policy. The only comment I can give about the reason some photo lab associates may come off like that is because they immediately feel that they have to adopt a offensive stance. This is a policy we have to deal with at least once a day, if not a few to several times a day. People get upset over photos, especially of their kids and family that they want to copy and some associates will immediately put a chip on their shoulder getting ready for "a fight". Now, this doesn't mean I condone that style of handling things by any means. Some of the experiences I read about here could have been handled by the Wal-Marts in question a lot better. I pesonally always try to maintain a high level of professionalism when dealing with this issue. I'm just trying to shed a bit of light on WHY some might act the way they do, right or wrong. Being that most photo centers are one hour, when busy sometimes we have a lot going on, and some associates forget common courtesy when dealing with our customers. This again isn't right, but it happens. Even, I have had a slip up or two, due to wanting to resolve the issue quickly. Another reason some might adopt a (wrongly) bad attitude, is that we do have customers that will flat out lie about the source of the pictures. I've had pictures marked specificly with a copywright on the back, or one of the gold "Olan Mills" studios stamp on the photo, that were taken by an uncle. All that aside though, Wal-mart policy, as I understand it at least isn't to argue with a customer about who took the picture or the finer points of copywright law. For the most part if you took a picture (or even just said you did) and its not glaringly obvious that it is professionally done (studio marked, printing on the back saying its professionally done, studio background, etc.) then you should be able to sign a copywright release saying that you took the pictures. My photo center even has a brochure with a release and a simple explaination of what copywright law is and what not. When you sign that saying that the picture is yours, then if for some reason we have an angry photographer coming at us ready to sue, we have this on file. For those of you who think that it wouldn't happen, that is absolutely not true. It can happen and HAS happened. I don't have any statistics on where, when, how, why, what, but just know there is a hefty fine if a photographer professionally took photos and we copied them for someone... especially if it was obvious it was copywrighted. Yes I know the previous was a huge jammed together paragraph, but its 4am here and I have insomnia, LOL. So please forgive any grammer errors or what not. Ok, now the reasoning behind all of this, and a bit of a legal prospective. No I'm not a lawyer and don't have the specific federal laws in front of me, maybe it will be something a research later when I have had more sleep. Wal-mart isn't in charge of enforcing the law, and aren't (and shouldn't try to act like) police or lawyers in the matter. If you have a professionally done photo, and it slips by us and you get it copied, or even if you go somewhere else and they do copy it for you, it's not up to wal-mart to track you down or see if you get punished. The only place Wal-mart ideally will get involved is where it has to do with company liability. The reason such laws exist in the first place is to protect those who make a living by creating art, taking photos, writing, etc. Sure technically the one person that gave the example of her parents taking pictures and holding the copywright would be correct (I think). The difference though between that and having pictures professionally done, is you didn't (in most cases I hope) have to pay your parents to take the picture. Whether you like it or not when you go and have your pictures made at a studio, at a school dance, anywhere where you have to pay for it, you are getting a service along with the physical photos you hold in your hand. It doesn't matter that the suject matter is you, your dogs, your kids, your house, your wedding, or whatever. What makes the difference is that you paid the photographer to take the photos. Unfortunately, like it or not, it is also determined by the photographer if you have the right to get copies of the photos, because some photographers, as well as photo studios make money from selling you additional copies of it. If they charge a certain price (lets just say $15 dollars) for an 8x10 and you take it to Wal-mart and get it done for $2.84 which is the rate for the one hour service in our lab. That is $15 of revinue for his business he was cheated. For the one person who gave the example of the photographer whgo got his stuff developed at a Wal-Mart and sold it to his customer for a higher price. That is his right to do so. That is how he makes a profit. Morally right or wrong? Who knows. Legally though the law would be on his side. The advice I would give to anyone who is going to get photos made, is to ask before you set up the appointment with your photographer or studio whether they offer you the right to get copies of the photo yourself. Most private photographers will give you the negatives even if they will allow you to get prints made on your own. For the most part, ownership of the negatives, is permission to have the photos copied. Some photographers will provide this for free, some will charge you. This is their right, and if it is something you have a problem with then you would be suited to find a photographer that is willing to grant you rights to the photos they will take of you. The stance of Wal-mart from what I understand, (Granted, I'm just a grunt and am in no way the brain at the center of Wal-mart or even management) has to do with what they could be liable for. If we allow you to copy photos that a professional made, they somehow find out about it, they aren't necessarily going to go after you because you didn't make a profit off of it. The wal-mart in question did. If you told us it was your work, and you signed the release, then it's you they will come after because you lied about the source of the photos... in essence took credit for someone elses work. I suppose that is what I have to say about things. I apologize if I just made things more unclear or confusing. Sometimes, especially the early hours of the morning, I think I am being incredibly brilliant about something, only to go back and read it later to discover that I was talking out of my behind. I'm up for any intellegent dialogue about this or my experiences in dealing with copywrights. I'm not claiming to be the formost leading expert in the field of law with a specialty in copywright law, but it is something I do deal with on sometimes a daily basis. If you want to just flame and tell me that wal-mart sucks, copywright law sucks, or what not with no reasoning to back it up that is your right. It's also my right to cheerfully ignore you :) The bottom line: -Pictures that you pay someone else to take whether in a studio, at a dance, or at your wedding all are copywrighted by the person who took them, and they can decide if you are able to copy them. -Not every photo associate is a nazi when it comes to determining copywright. I'm truly sorry for those of you who have had bad experiences. We are human, do make mistakes, do sometimes miss others that are copying stuff they shouldn't. No one is perfect. Just remember that we didn't make the laws, or the policy that wal-mart takes and dealing with the laws. -If you aren't happy with the way that wal-mart handles copywrighted (or seemingly copywrighted) pictures then its your right to take them somewhere else. Yes, there are other companies that are very lenient about what they copy, even if its in flagrant violation of copywright law, but that has nothing to do with us... that is how that company does business. -If you indeed took a picture, please don't be offended if we ask you about its source or want a bit of verification we are trying to protect out company and our jobs. If anything please feel complimented. You were asked because your photos were comparable to the job a professional might have taken. Of course, this doesn't apply if an associate is rude or takes an accusing tone when dealing with you. -Before getting photography work done, ask the photographer what his policy is in regards to granting copywright. If you don't like the answer you should find one that suits you. Same goes with the place you take the photos to be developed, they have guidelines they follow and don't HAVE to allow you to copy things. Just like you don't HAVE to use that particular lab. -Most of us aren't thrilled to have to tell you that you can't make copies of the pictures of your deceased parent, your child at the dance, or what not, but if its done by a professional... they hold copywright over it because they did the service of taking the photo. We can and do get sued for such things. -If you are treated with respect please return the courtesy. I've had adults, act like children who aren't getting their way when I nicely tried to explain our labs position of things. I've had them cry, throw fits, scream at me and get in my face. I've also had plenty of customers give me a simple, "Oh, I wasn't aware of such a law" then come back with a signed copywright release from their photographer or the negatives, and get the copies they wanted. Have I ever been rude to someone? Probally. Sometimes its hard to keep your composure when you are being screamed at or cursed at. I'm human. I try to treat everyone though as I would like to be treated though, and take a lot of pride in what I do So, I am as professional as I can be with everyone I deal with. Sorry for the long post. I can't believe I spent so long talking about work instead of doing something fun like play on pogo.com or something. LOL.

Yikes, long. :) You make many good points. A brief friendly reply: The main issue to cover here is how WalMart photo center employees determine which photos require a release and which do not. While it might be very easy to note that a professionally printed photo has a gold seal printed on it, a really lousy photo could just as easily be professionally taken. A better policy would require every person getting photos printed to fill out a "I have permission to duplicate these photos" form. Copyright wasn't invented to protect the profit of the creator of a medium, it was created to protect their right to exclusively make copies of their works; Read "copy-right". Whether a photo is made at home or in a studio is immaterial, all photos are copyrighted by their photographers and so every photo printed should require a release. A photographer that charges for prints and not for the photographing services he provides is fleecing you, plain and simple. Don't deal with this class of photographer and you won't have to worry about copyright. I know that the system of law is not set up this way, but I firmly believe that when you contract a photographer to take your photo, there is an implicit agreement that you're doing it so that you can obtain copies of that photo. Imagine- Why would I go to a photographer so that he could take my picture but not for me to eventually obtain prints of those photos? I can't think of a reason. Restricting your ability to reproduce photos that you've contracted to obtain seems absurd. It can't be just me that thinks this, or it wouldn't be such an issue for so many people. Conversely, what right should a photographer have to reproduce a photo of you taken in the studio, where you presented yourself for the purpose of contracting services to obtain your own photo? I would think none, but copyright law is absurd that way -- Apparently, in spite of having paid them to do it, I not only have no right to reproduce the photo myself, but they can make as many copies as they like for whatever purpose they like, including, for example, publication in magazines for profit. Crazy. I think what gets peple riled is when you try to have something printed from a digital format, and the photo lab technician tells you (after you've wandered around the store for the hour waiting for the print) that they wouldn't print it because it looked professionally produced (even though you can often see the 8x10 sitting on the counter behind them!). This could all be completely avoided by presenting every customer with a release before their first print, and keeping it on file forever.

And so it continues. After having discovered the do-it-yourself machines at Walmart a couple of years ago and reproducing several old family photos for other family members I had my first major negative encounter today. My Dad was visiting from out of town and we were going through some old family photos. He is 82 years old and was here to visit my grandmother, his mother, who is 101 years old. One of the photos he wanted to make a copy of was of his great grandmothers.... do the numbers...these photos were over 100 years old. Another was of his grandfather... also over 100 years old. So we went to the Walmart to a do it yourself copy machine and after lots of time enhancing etc. we turned out some beautiful prints. We took them to the counter to pay for them and the clerk grabbed them up and said, "I can't let you take these, they are by a professional photographer". Well I brought out the originals, obviously extremely old and one of them torn and showed them to her, telling her that there was no markings of any kind on them and telling her how old they were and who they were. That didn't make any impression at all, she just kept repeating like a parrot that that was the copyright law and if they looked posed they had to assume they were professionally done. One of the other customers that had helped us with the machine said yes, but they are over 75 years old. The clerk replied that it didn't matter, because the ruling didn't have a time limit anymore, it was indefinite. I can hardly believe that. So she was just going on the posed look. I asked her if she ever took pictures of her family and posed them if they were going to be considered professional. She had no reply. Even if there was a studio imprint on these 100 plus photos, what are the chances that the studio is still going to be around to get a copyright release?? My Dad and I talked to two of the Customer Service Supervisors and showed them the photos and explained what happened and they both said they would let us have them if it was up to them and called the photo supervisor and he told them, "no, we can't let this slip under the radar". Rediculous. We live in Arkansas in the Walmart home office area and probably have an even more nazi like attitude around here. One of the customer service supers even told us about another place where she was sure we could get it done. So, we will.

I'm not only a photography student, but a frequent walmart customer in la porte, indiana. i'll have you know, that walmart is a godsend. they have never questioned or complained or with held any of my pictures, no matter how professional or amature they looked. in the past, i have had trouble with other walmarts and other photo center establishments. on thing that i must state about this "we will not copy professional looking prints" policy, is that in this didgital world, THERE ARE NO REAL NEGATIVES ANYMORE! my photo classes are strictly digital only! when you only have a digital source to get prints from, how can you say, "im sorry, but i need to see your NON EXSISTANT NEGATIVES FIRST" how dumb does that sound? i mean, no offense, but this is what i hear whenever a photo center clerk questions my print order. ***NOTE*** if you thought SOME walmarts were bad . . . JEWEL OSCO IS WAY WORSE!

like karen whisenhunt i to have VERY negative complaints about the DeQueen, ar. photo center. I had here very recently took some computer copies of some very old pictures to the copier machine and had printed out some copies to give to family members for Christmas. Now just because they looked like they MAY have been professional pictures, rudely would not let me have them. one of the photos was a picture of my father,another was a picture of his two sons from a previous marriage when they were little boys. my father was an older man when he and my mother were married. anyhow my father was a photographer, not professional, but nevertheless a photographer . I would have guessed that he took these pictures., but it was their word against mine.ya know I understand the law is the law, but where does invasion of privacy come in at? the people at wal-mart should trust the customer and not even look at our pictures, after all we did check the accept the privacy act.

If my dilemma wasn't so sad, it would be hysterical! My father passed away two years ago. In his wallet was a baby pictures each of my brother, my sister and myself. I told my siblings that I would have a set of the three pictures made for both of them. Obviously my dad cherished these three pictures that he carried with him in his wallet for over fifty years. I took them to Walmart (we live in a very small town and Walmart was my only option). The pictures were taken by a professional photographer OVER 50 years ago. The photographer died 45-50 years ago, and his studio was closed at that time. No one bought his studio or continued operating it. When the 'associate' told me that I would have to have written permission to copy these three photos, I politely asked how I could get permission when the photographer is dead, and the studio was closed 50 years ago? She shrugged her shoulders. Fortunately for me we do have a small printing company in our small town who very, very willingly printed the photographs for me. I have referred this printing company to many unhappy WalMart photo customers. Without a doubt this is the most insane, unrealistic request to tell a customer that he has to have a release signed by a deceased photographer who's studio hasn't existed for almost 50 years!!

Tried to make copies of my first family photo of myself and husband, taken over 38 years ago, at Wal-Mart today, The manager would not even let me put the photo in the copy machine. There is no copyright mark on the photo and no mark by the studio. I have no idea who took the photo. The photo is badly damaged and discolored and I have had good results with Wal-Mart before. Last year I made copies of a photo of my grandparents taken in the late 70's or early 80's and this they allowed. This time he was really rude. Whose permission did I need? It was a picture of me.

Yes, this is a crock. I don't have a problem with recently PROFFESSIONALLY taken pictures. But when it comes to obtaining permission from someone who has taken a professional picture 100+ yrs ago, Commom sense has to kick in somewhere. There should be some kind of reasonable limits set somewhere. I think there is more important issues out there to deal with than revising things that are obviously in no ones reach. Whoever came up with this little detail had nothing to do that day and was in a bad mood and said lets mess with people and aggrevate them to no end by saying ALL pictures need a copyright release no matter if the person who took it has been dead for more than say 75+ years and impossible to get. They should get a life and deal with MORE IMPORTANT issues. Like I said, there should be limits, but limits that are at least in reason. This is not in reason. The limit before was within reason.

I really think people should stop picking on retailers, esp. Wal-Mart. Yes they make a lot of money every year, but people need to realize that they too get in trouble with the law, hence the numerous law suits. People need to stop blaming Wal-mart and other retailers for the "peoples" mistake. If you vote or even if you do not YOU are to blame. Wal-Mart does not make up laws, the politicians that WE elect do. If people do not like copyright laws, then do something besides blaming the retailer, CALL OR WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMEN.

I have read the posts and I see what is going on in a way. 1.People go to Wal-Mart to get pictures done. 2.They get there and go to print the pictures that they own. 3.Clerk thinks they are professionally done and refuses sale.(Accept the compliment!) 4.Person states that they own the pictures and took them. (At this point there should be NO MORE attitude out of anyone.Wal-Mart clerk should obtain signed ownership statement from customer and explain why it is needed.Customer should agree with terms and sign the form imdemnifying Wal-Mart from trouble.If Customer will not sign,then they should be refused sale.) 5.If customer receives a bad attitude that is well out of line,then it should be taken to the store manager or area supervisor.You the customer goes elsewhere to get pix.OTOH,If customer causes trouble,then it should be explained to them that company policy dictates that the release from liability/ownership form is signed and attested to or sale CANNOT and WILL NOT be made.Be polite at all times.If customer still causes trouble that is that disruptive,then you ask them to leave.They don't and still argue?Call the Police. 6.Once a properly worded form is signed(Much like a sworn statement/Affadavit),Wal-Mart should be held harmless.They have done their job.It is now in the customer's lap if they violated copyright,not Wal-Mart.Customer swore that they didn't violate copyright to them. 7.After the form is signed,the pictures are printed without question.Customer obtains them,pays for them,and leaves. 8.It takes TWO people to fight and argue.If one refuses to,then that leaves no one to carry it on. As a newly starting professional photographer,I agree that copyrights should not be violated.OTOH,it is not any store's job to say that I,as a copyright owner,cannot print or transfer rights to someone.To the Wal-Mart associates here,I say get the company to get the properly worded legal forms made and use them.Politely ask for ID,maybe a business card,or other form(Model Release)or all three that shows who owns the rights.Have the form signed,and go on. You nor the customer needs the hassle or headache.State the policies in plain sight and in large view.Customers should be able to produce ID and sign a proper legal form.If they won't,then they must be either wanting to hide something or they are hiding from someone.Best way is to just have all customers sign a form all the time.Customers will soon get used to it,Wal-mart will be free from blame for printing,and there will be no more troubles/attitudes/carrying on.Sorry for the long post,but that is what I see here.A situation of 2 parties on a battlefield so to speak fighting a needless battle.Thanks for the time. - Kaci

I also work at a photo center. The main issue seems to be how a copywritten or professional photo is determined. Here's the answer: If the photo seems posed, with studio elements (lighting, backdrops, etc)we must ask if you are the copyright holder. If you say yes, we ask you to sign a release. We will then release your photos. Very simple. Now, as for the immature comment that the dept. managers are 17 year olds on power trips. Not hardly. Many photolab managers are actually photographers that work at the lab for extra income (most photographers have a "real" job). I have won many awards, been published numerous times, and have clients with household names. I still work at wal-mart because I do not photograph weddings, so income isn't steady. There is your answer! That is what makes ME qualified to judge a photo for copyright. Then again, in our lab, we don't "judge" it as copyright, we simply ask if you took it, if yes, sign the form. If you say no, and we think it is professional, we can not print it. It really is simple to understand. As for the 'well if everything is copyright'. Everything is! The difference is that if you are printing a snapshot of a child with obvious sharpness, color, composition, and background issues, you probably are nota professional. Chances are that you did not get that photo from a professional. If someone asks about copyright, and you took the photo, sign the form and smile knowing that someone thinks you make beutiful photos.

I just found this site after returning from Wal*Mart. I experienced the exact same thing. I must say that the photocenter employee was not rude, however I was very angry. The employee only questioned one photo out of about six. All six were shot by the same professional photographer. I happen to have a release for the copyright, but not on me at the time. The photo looked professional, that was all. Now here is the kicker. I was trying not to become rageful as I really wanted the photo in question. I made sure to ask about the policy and he was more than happy to tell me what it was. I gave him my money and received my change and the pictures, transaction complete. I then said, "I find it funny that only one photo was questioned as they were all done by the same professional." The look in his eye was priceless. I then walked away and that was it. Now I intend to return to the same Wal*Mart on another day soon, check to see if I can find this particular individual working and if not, attempt to print this photo again, along with a series of others. I'll be sure to bring the release with me just in case. I'd like to see if another employee can play "spot the professional photograph" game and win. But what's even worse is that I had three prints taken by the same professional photographer, from my wedding printed at the same Wal*Mart 2 weeks before without issue. Here is the deal. The policy is based in good intentions, but is impossible to apply as it is on the eyes of the employee to make the determination on what is professional and what is not. I understand erring on the side of caution. However I do not think this is a good business practice as amature photographers are becoming more and more savvy and are producing better prints. Where is the line going to br drawn? Folks use the services of Wal*Mart because they are cheaper then using a home photo printer, considering the cost of photo quality paper and ink when purchased in small quanties. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another strike against Wal*Mart.

I have yet to have this problem at Wal Mart, however, I can't help but feel "Big Brother" is looking over my shoulder. The lady at the photo shop counter at the supercenter in Clarksville, AR acted a little pissy when I countered her "We can't print black and white in the one hour machine, it has to be sent away..." with "yes, you can, it's C41 Process, the same as every roll of color film put through it, would you like me to show you how?" I guess she showed me, I was charged normal black and white price when I picked it up an hour later...oh well. I went ahead and paid for them instead of sticking them in my pants and walking out. back to the issue at hand... If Wal Mart doesn't print photos taken by professional photographers, then it seems that a customer carrying the proper documents (as stated in an earlier post, model release form, affidavits, etc) would automatically be deemed a professional and promptly told their photos could not be printed, no? One issue that no one has brought up yet, unless I missed it, it's quite possible that Wal Mart's photography studio doesn't need/want the competition. It's no secret that in many cases an amateur with a one-time use camera can take portaits that compare with the quality of the standard posed crap that the photo studios in the supercenters roll out. Have you ever tried to suggest a different pose to the photographer? There are some who are good people and are willing to do so, yet others act as if you're insulting them by suggesting that they do something different from the same old day in day out routine. I'd personally like to see a list of the lawsuits in which Wal Mart was found liable for photos printed, as well as an actual hard copy of their policy concerning printed photos. If someone would take the initiative to obtain, by subpoena, this list of rules, I'm certain that an appropriate form could be drawn up that would remove the responsibility from Wal Mart, and put the libel completely upon the person(s) printing the photos, should they be found in violation of any copyright. Wal Mart = the corporate equivelent to a playground bull dyke bully.

In reference to the copyright issue on photographs, I used to work in a photo lab and if we had ANY question about them being a professional print we were strongly discouraged not to reprint them. Regardless of the fact that your friend may have taken them and is not a professional or if they were 50 years old. Copyrights on photographs last 100 years. Letting someone reprint something that a friend (which in many cases meant photo studio in our case) could lead to me being sued and losing a job, my place of employment being sued, and that person being sued. Being a photographer, I can understand, and appreciate, the people at Wal-Mart not reproducing what they may see as professional work. Unless it is agreed upon before hand between the photographer and the customer that the customer prints them off themselves, the client should go back to the photographer for reprints. If you have agreed on something to print them off yourself, by all means protect yourself and get the photographer to write up something on letterhead that says that client has permission to reprint their pictures.

Wow! I can't believe that others have had the same experience that I had. I went to Walmart to make a copy of a baby picture of my son who is now 40 yrs old. The man in front of me was very helpful when I asked him to show me how to use the machine. He proceeded to put one after another of professionally-taken wedding pictures, baby pictures, etc. on the scanner. He showed me how to center them etc. He then helped me place my picture on the machine and walked away to pay his bill. I could see him from where I was standing as the clerk counted his pictures and told him how much he owed. He payed and walked away. When I went up to the counter, she immediately asked that I remove the original from the frame I had it in. She looked at it and grabbed my copies and stated that I had broken a "copywright law". Now I had cut the picture down to fit in the frame. I picked up the picture and saw absolutely nothing on the back but the age of my son and the date the picture was taken that I personally wrote. This woman proceeded to speak loudly to me admonishing me for "breaking the law". I asked her why she let the man in front of me get his pictures when he had multiple copies of professionally taken pictures. She stated she did not realize they were pictures taken by a professional photographer. It was real obvious to me! She then threw a piece of paper at me and asked me to sign it. I asked what the paper was and she showed me where to sign. I said I did not understand what I was signing. She did not explain to me. I then refused and stated that if the man in front of me did not have to sign it then why should I. As I started to walk away she then changed her mind and let me have the picture. It was a real embarrassment to me and I almost wanted to say "No, I don't want it now." But I paid for the picture. I still stated that I did not understand why she was picking on me and not on the man in front of me. She then stated "Well, shame on him!" Now, isn't that wonderful customer service!

I see dead people!! I work at WM and I've had to uphold our policy to a Lady. But it's a picture of my dead Son, I need it for his service today, She started crying real tears, well My Mgr saw this and let Her have the pics. Guess what? I saw her Son shopping with Her two weeks later.

Your policy is to have people file a statement that they have permission to print their photos. If you simply told her, "no, we won't print that because it looks professional," then you were violating your own policy. Your manager did the right thing, regardless of the crying. So what if she had to lie to you to get you to do what your own policy allows? The fault is still entirely on your end.

What's bugging me about these complaints of "could lead to me being sued" is that none of you have. You have hearsay that some person you might have known was sued, but none of you actually have been sued. There are so many things both wrong with the existing law (100 years for a copyright? Spare me.) and the ignorance of those who apply it (outright refusing to duplicate anything for fear of being sued is ridiculous) that this whole discussion from the point of view of being afraid of a suit is farcical.

I have had the same problem with Walmart in the past, when I was attempting to print out passport size photos my husband and i took of ourselves for our passports. They looked marginally professional, we were trying to make them good enough for the passport people. Anyway, I had them on a floppy and they refused to let me have them after i had printed them because they said they were professional photos. They didnt offer me a form to sign to state i had taken them, and AS USUAL WITH WALMART EMPLOYEES, they were really rude. I ended up leaving and taking the floppy to Walgreens where they printed with no problems. I think the basic problem i have been reading about here is that Walmart consistantly allows their employees to be rude to the customers, not just in the photot area, but the whole store. They are in general the least well trained and rudest store clerks i have ever met. I rarely go to walmart, preferring Target's higher prices. Some people cant afford to do that though. I had a store clerk try to short change me by $10 when I paid a $34. and odd change bill with a 50. she gave me a little over $5 in change and then argued with me when i told her i was due another $10. She REFUSED to call a manager and i had to start SCREAMINg for a manager because i didnt want to walk away from the register with my money in it. Finally, the manager explained to the dumbshit that she had counted wrong. I took my money and left.. she probably got a "f..k the customer" bonus in her next paycheck. Basic math skills should be REQUIRED for all employees. I hope they go bankrupt.

As a professional photographer with two published books, I have encountered the Wal-Mart copyright issue on several occasions. First, Wal-Mart is incredibly lax and selective on enforcement. It totally depends upon who is staffing the photo center as to how you are treated re: copyright. I don't have a studio, and don't make my living with portraits. I publish very specialized photos, and most often when I do portraits it's a pretty informal setting and I just give my friends/family a CD and send them on their way. Sometimes, they get hassled by Wal-Mart staff. Sometimes, they don't. I don't have a problem with their policy, but be consistent! I'm certain that the pros who work there (and have posted here) are consistent, but let's be honest: there are some real idiots who staff these shops at times, too. They are the ones who don't enforce the policy evenhandedly, don't have a clue as to what is a pro shot and what obviously came from grandma's digital Kodak. These are the people who cause problems and tell people that they are "breaking the law" when in reality they aren't. Wal-Mart should adopt an "all pros all the time" policy for their photo dept. It's clear to me that this is not the case at present.

I went to wal-mart with a disc of photots my brother took of my daughter for her senior pictures. My brother is a minister and takes photos as a hobby, the girl admired them asked which photographer in the area had taken them and gave me no hassles as it was photo center closing time and she wanted to go home. Soooo go close to closing time and you'll get wisked through without hassle.

I personally love walmart's policy on copyrighted photos. I charge a small photo sitting fee for photos and then offer excellent packages for printing. All of my images are edited for blemishes, etc. I often give people a cd of proofs (they say proof!) and have them call to complain that WM won't print them! Ok - 1st of all - I shot your damned wedding for $250. Secondly, it would have cost you less than $150 for an excellent package. Thridly, I put 18 hours into just fixing your crooked teeth and zit covered bridesmaids. You can't pay the $150 for pictures? Please. If I do do a "favor" wedding I simply print out a release, and I add a digital copy of the release to the cd. Then wm prints it with no trouble. This is to protect photographers. it's to keep people from STEALING our work. It's only polite to ask for a simple release which takes all of 5 mintues to create. I'm shocked that other photographers here are complaining about a policy designed to keep people from ripping us off and protect our legal right to control the works that we've created. Printing without the release is no different that going to a book store and stealing a book - you're getting it for free and it's not yours to get.

I'm sorry, I don't understand... You charged $250 to take pictures of their wedding, and then extorted them to the tune of $180 to have those photos printed (which would have cost, what, $10 at Walmart?) and you're complaining about your clients? You're overcharging by $170 for the convenience of prints they could get on their own. If you're so concerned about getting paid for your touch-up efforts (and I'm not saying you shouldn't be), then charge for those services up-front. Instead of $250 plus $180 for prints they can get cheaper and on-demand elsewhere, charge $430 for all photo services, including a copyright release. Consumers don't want you to control photos that you wouldn't have had we not paid you to take them in the first place! This really isn't an issue just about Walmart's photo printing policy, it's a bigger issue of the idiocy of copyrights, specifically pertaining to photographers who think they're entitled to more than they are. The law may currently support scamming clients for prints of copyrighted photos, but clients will eventually become wise and stop hiring photographers that don't provide copyright releases as a standard practice.

I am a past Photo Center Mgr. I have a couple of solutions for all of you that like to gripe and blast my company so much. #1 as it has been stated many times if you dont like the way we have to do our job take your photos elsewhere and #2 I guess we could consider taking out all of the photo centers, and you could take your photos down to the competitor down the road and start blasting them for doing their jobs also. I know our compitition has the same rules as I have heard the conversations at their desk also. So please remember that our Associates are just doing our jobs and we sometimes dont agree with it but it is not worth us getting fined nor going to jail JUST FOR YOU AND YOUR PHOTOS.

"The way we have to do our job" does not include being rude or declining to print any photo that, in your questionable expertise, meets some higher quality standard as "professional". What it does include is informing all customers of their rights, giving them the option to do as they please with photos they propose to own, and laying any minuscule potential responsibility at their feet. Indicate any record of an associate getting fined or going to jail for printing a photo that a customer presented as their own, and I'll take that comment with any credence whatsoever. Option #2 doesn't actually sound that bad. While you're at it, you could close the entire Walmart and stop killing off great Mom and Pop specialty stores.

owen: my coworker was coached just the other day for attempting to sell professional school photos to a customer. he knew the customer, and was trying to let it slide by, but my boss saw the prints come out of the 390 and watched him bag and price them. had he sold them, our lab would have been at risk for copyright infringement. dont believe it? in 1999 KMart was sued by the Professional Photographers of America (PPA), the claim stating that KMart was violating federal copyright law by copying images without the permission of copyright owners. The case was settled for $100,000. now owen, do i care if walmart is sued? not particularly. do i care that i have a job to go to tomorrow so that i can pay the bills? yes. so next time you are denied school or wedding photos, please: do not get shitty with your walmart photo lab techs/specialists. we are people, just like you, and we deserve some level of respect. by all means, if you have a problem with the copyright policy, write a letter to your congressman. it is not me, the lab specialist or walmart inc making these laws.

I had a similar issue today. I shot a VERY last minute senior portrait shoot for this kid who goes to Columbine High School on Wednesday evening. Their senior photos were due to the yearbook editor TODAY. Adding to that, Columbine is nearly an hour drive from me. So I sent the file through Walgreen's website to have a wallet sized photo printed up for him so he could pick it up for his yearbook editor today. When he got there, they wouldn't let him take it. I'd paid for it. I had authorized him to pick it up in my order. They wouldn't give it to him. Why? They said it was a "copyrighted" photo. They want to protect photographer's work. I guess. But, the image did not have a watermark. It was authorized in the system for the kid to pick it up. I asked the clerk how he "knew" it was copyrighted. He said that it looked like a professional image and that they needed written authorization to release it. Could he see clearly that the photo was of the kid standing in front of him? He said he still needed authorization. Here's the problem. They have no idea who took the photo. I wound up faxing an "authorization" form to them with my signature on it, but guess what? I could have been his mom, aunt, cousin, sister, friend, stranger, and typed up some bull paper with a fake name and sent it in. All they managed to do in this whole process was waste my time, waste their own time, waste my client's time and severely piss me off. The bottom line is this: All they need to do is adopt a policy which requires all persons printing photos to sign a waiver at that time, just like online printing companies such as Adorama, Mpix, etc do. I hereby state that I have every right to reproduce and/or copy the image(s) being printed as of (date) and am not infringing upon any copyright. Signed, Joe-Blow.

Two words: EXIF data. This is essentially the negative produced by your digital camera and is embedded in each and every digital photo you take. It includes all relevant data including lighting conditions, camera modes, the model and serial number of your camera, if the flash was used or not, and most importantly date and time of the photo being taken. The only way to get rid of it is through using photoshop or similar software to change the file format and remove the data. My advice, leave the images as is, don't remove the EXIF data. If you have to, take your camera with you so they can do the comparations themselves. And finally, if they can't print it, they can't print it. A bit of inconvenience and time spent looking for another processor is not worth a Walmart employee's job and livelihood.

I have a comment..... i wanted to make a copy of my wedding photo and also took it to walmart. There they told me to get release of the picture to get it copied. First of of all, it did not have any notification on it at all to say to was a professional picture. The girl behind the counter was very rude to me about the whole situation.on the back of the picture alls it read was printed on Kodak paper. Just because it was a picture of me and my husband in the church ,"posing"(which you do in all pictures), taken with a very nice camera, the walmart employee thought it was a professional picture. Well it wasn't. I told her i would get something in writing , to which i wasnt . i just said it shut her up and get my picture back. well, i persisted to go to another walmart in my town. I went and made a copy of my photo and, what do you know the girl at that photo center put it in a envolope and put a price tag on it. my point in this comment is that my picture wasnt "professional" and just because the first clerk's opinion was that it was a professional picture, i had to inconvience my time and gas(which is not cheap right now) because of someone's opinion. Until walmart employees take a special class to judge what is or is not a professional picture. then just maybe,maybe, they can tell me what i can and can not copy. because of this,i now take my pictures to a different place and i dont mind paying a few extra pennies.Also, id like to state that even if pictures are done with a professional, after you pay rediculous amounts of money for them to just take the pictures, they are your to keep. what you do with them after that should be up to the beholder. especially if im the person in the photo. my point with that is if i took a picture of someone's bare ass, i dont give a sh*t who sees it. Its not my ass there looking at!

I work in the photo lab at a walmart and we were told if they look professional we couldn't give them out. but all your son had to do was ask the person who took the prints to just send a typed letter saying it was ok to print the photos. I understand you! because i've taken photos before i worked back there and they told me the same but there is a piece of paper you can sign so that walmart won't get into trouble if they are indeed professional. My managment is also stupid to say it nicely and I'm sorry for all your trouble!

so next time you are denied school or wedding photos, please: do not get shitty with your walmart photo lab techs/specialists. we are people, just like you, and we deserve some level of respect.

Either make everyone sign a consent, or assume they have consent and pass on blame to the customer, or just ignore any related law entirely. Singling out customers because of what their photos look like is a really stupid policy, requiring that all employees have an eye for what looks "professional". Can anyone determine if the photo was a work for hire by looking at it? No. Not unless the photo has "work for hire" stamped on the front of it. That any clerk at a photomat would presume they could make this distinction and enforce a crappy corporate policy merits an appropriate level of respect -- Not much.

I am a hard-working Professional photographer in Michigan and it truely annoys me that so many people do not understand the meaning of a copyright. The problem is people have started to view photos as "just a picture", It is also my "piece of art". Would you bring a painting you purchased and bring it to the lab to have it scanned for you to share with your family and friends? Photographers don't make any money on the "sitting Fee". When our clients buy photos and purchase our artwork, we make money. And for those of you who have a "friend" taking the photos....Just a bit of advice, your friend, professional or not should give you a copyright release letter. If they are not a pro, but their pictures portray that, it will keep your safe. It is the job of the lab staff to regulate the scanning of professional photos. Don't take it out on them if you don't have the info or phone number you need. The people who don't appreciate the hard work of photographers are putting true photographers out of business. This as a whole is effecting AMERICA!!! People need to respect people for their individual jobs. BiG or Little....if you are scanning your photographers photos, you are taking from the mouths of their children. If you can't afford pictures from a "professional"... Go to Walmart Pictureme!!!

Yes, I would take a painting to a lab to have it scanned for family and friends if that painting was a commission done of me. And that's really what we're talking about here. It's ludicrous to think that you create art that belongs to you when I pay to have my picture taken. You should sell the service of taking the photo along with the right to reproduce the photo, and not reserve the right to make individual prints. It's what your customers want, as evidenced by their making illegal copies of your photos, so why not give it to them? It's plain and simple -- You are greedy. Photographers can continue to be professional and make a living without greedily reserving these antiquated rights for themselves. When other people with talent start taking away your business because they are willing to accede to the customers' reasonable demands for assignment of rights while you remain steadfast in these old ways, where will your children's food come from?

Well if I have my photo professionally done and I pay for the service, then the professional has a copyright on my photo. Next time I have my photo taken or my kids/grandkids have a photo taken. I am going to request a copyright release right there and now. If every person would start doing this the the professional would have no choice but to sign it. Time we take back what is rightfully ours in the first place. If they refuse to sign a release then don't be photographed and take your business to a professional who will sign a copyright release.

To Jenny of 10/25/07, let me just ask, who do you think is "preserving" your precious "art". Me, the average everyday person who wishes to preserve those photos of my mom that died last year and the family wants a copy of every photo ever taken of her. Hmmm.....what to do then? So I don't have a right to share these because a potentially dead or out of business photographer might have a copyright on the photo? Or what about those families whose homes have burned and the remainders of their memories are photos that have been wet and could be salvaged with the right person's help. I get so disgusted with people who think they are so high and mighty and have to make a buck off of everything that slides by them. You want to talk about what's affecting America, let's talk about something more serious like homeless people, and people forgetting about the fact that they live in such a free country. The people that want to take God out of everything and can't say Merry Christmas, even though Christmas is the celebration of whose birthday?-"Christ". Gosh, I forgot, but isn't "In God We Trust" printed on the money that you so want to keep to yourself because that "art" is yours? How Free am I now, in this country of Freedom, now that you feel the need to hoard something that's mine in the first place? I took photos professionally several years ago. Let me tell you the buck is with the printers. The money people paid me went to having the photos printed, certainly not to me for my time. Gosh a whole weekend that I spent with Brides, Grooms and their families, from Friday evening at their rehearsal to midnight sometimes Saturday night at their weddings. I got way more than any money could pay me just by being close enough to these families to share that much time with them. So maybe you should refocus your priorities and not expect so much from the almighty dollar and prestige of having "art" be owned by you. So you took great photos. That should make you so proud that you should want to share that with the world. I'm not saying you shouldn't get paid. But once you have been paid, how many times over do you have to get paid for the same "piece of art"? In my in-home daycare, I'm helping to shape a child for the rest of their lives. But parents don't pay me repeatedly for the same day of care. I wouldn't even begin to expect that. And maybe, if photographers didn't charge so much, more people could afford to go to them more. And don't tell me that "I'm taking from the mouths of the photographers children!" In my daycare home every time a parent decides to take their child to Aunt Suzie's for a day or two to save a buck, that's taking money out my children's mouths. Now we've got something to talk about! Sorry, I'm not usually one that gets this upset, but I can't believe people get so involved in this "mine" thing. Good golly, if we put that much energy into making the world a better place, imagine where we could be!

The answer is rather simple: change federal copyright law, and Walmart Photo Policy. Change the rules, and no more problems! Write your congressman and the Walmart board of directors.

Some of your post missing? :) by the way, I now print through winkflash.com. Their website doesn't look too impressive but they do GREAT work. In fact I just got a calendar in with my photos on it, very nice, high quality and not expensive. But when we had my sister's wedding in June, I found someone online who did them and part of the deal was she'd send me all the originals on CD (no processing). I handled everything else and my sister ended up ordering one of every-freaking-shot including photos I'd taken (when not being a bridesmaid, ha), my cousin, her friend, my in-laws... and we had no trouble with winkflash. I had to sign a copyright thing for Walmart for the people who's wedding I shot. I've not heard back from them since I gave them the CDs, guess they had no trouble wherever it was they took them. I also gave them a standard letter to hopefully use anywhere else they might choose.

only time will tell if the prints can last...

I took a picture of this really old Bible I received as a gift when I was 10 years old to use for a scrapbook page. Walmart would not print it because according to them "You can't take a picture of a Bible!" I also had taken a picture of the inside of a Chinese food menu to use on a scrapbook page and they wouldn't give me that either. I had scanned in over 100 photos to use in scrapbooking, some were very old and grainy and they refused to give me 34 of them. One was taken by by sister in law but because it looked professional I had to get her permission. She lives in another state! I am done with Walmart.

As with most companies in the USA today. They are all trying to be the police and stop or prevent people from doing things they think are wrong, even though they have no real power to do anything. Walmart shop keep its nose out of what people do and if they have a problem with what is being done, then they need to stop having a photo shop or at least not have a machine that customers can use with out walmart snooping at what is being printed. It that person right to print anything they want unless it is porno graphic or truly aganist the law, it which case walmart should do all the printing and not have any machines out for customers to use. Personally i think everyone should boucott Walmart and never shop there. They are one of the reasons that i country is doing so bad.

That and our education system.