| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/30/2006 03:03:23 PM · #1 |
I tried a google search with DPC listed as the site to search and couldn't find it. I just went through the who's on first thing with Walmart when I went to pick up uploaded photo's.
Me:"Hi, I'm here to pick up my photo's"
THEM:"Name?"
Me:"Kelli States"
THEM: "Oh, you can't have them without a release from the photographer" Me:"I am the photographer".
THEM: "Do you have a business card?"
Me: "I'm not a professional photographer."
THEM: "You'll need proof that you took the pictures."
Me: "Would you like me to bring in my camera?"
THEM: "That would only prove that you have a camera."
ME: "My CF card?"
THEM: "No, that wouldn't work, most photographer's give those out no adays."
ME: "What would you like me to do?"
THEM: "Bring in a release from the professional photographer who took the pictures."
Me: "I TOOK THE F**KING PICTURES."
THEM: "Then bring in a copy of your letterhead so we can keep it on file."
Who was it that just went through this, and WHAT did you do? |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:04:45 PM · #2 |
Karmat just posted in the "what not to say to a photographer" thread about it but a few others seconded her as having had the same experience.
Just type yourself up a release. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:06:02 PM · #3 |
It was in this thread: Things NOT to say to a photog
I feel your pain. Maybe time to stop using Wally Mart, if they're always gonna' be such a pain about this. I see the point of their rule, but they don't have to take it to insulting, asinine levles.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:06:30 PM · #4 |
Did you have a copyright mark on the print?
I'm kinda curious on what basis walmart is using to determine if images are taken by a 'professional photographer' and thus need a photo release. If they do that for every image that looks good then they're gonna cause more trouble for themselves at the end of the day.
One solution I read was that someone took in a letter claiming that Photographer Name gave permission to Photographer Name/Client Name to get them printed.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:17:26 PM · #5 |
One person in the other thread said that they asked for a piece of paper right at the Wal-Mart photo desk, wrote a release to themself, and gave it to the clerk - and that was okay, he could then get his pics!
For cryin' out loud, doesn't THAT make you feel good? A) The rule is that dumb and B) anyone could write their own release for prints/reprints/whatever.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:21:42 PM · #6 |
If I give someone a CD of shots, I stick a Word file on the CD with a copyright release on it. For example, I shot a ton of pictures at one of my daughter's softball games a couple weeks ago, and I made CDs for all of the parents.
I included a simple copyright release statement on the CD label itself ("Copyright Release: Unlimited reproduction of photos is permitted")... and the Word file with letterhead, etc., on the CD with the photos.
So far I haven't heard from anyone who has had any trouble. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:24:13 PM · #7 |
Use Walgreens. I've never had any trouble with them.
Wal-mart is evil anyway.
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 15:25:34. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:26:32 PM · #8 |
maybe they are trying to sabatoge good photographers
the following is a possible transcript from a Wal-mart proccessing department.
worker: Hey chet, you have to see these photos. They look great.
Chet (manager): wow those are good. where did they come from?
worker: some nice lady dropped them off earlier.
Chet: hmm.. these are very good. we have to stop her from getting them.
worker: why would we do that?
Chet: If someone else sees them they might realize that we are ripping them off with our $6.88 portrait package. They might realize that she could take better photos and might realize that you get what you pay for. My bonus is riding on that department doing well and I am not going to let some lady keep me from that bonus.
Worker: isn't that kinda stupid?
Chet: well, yea what's your point? |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:28:27 PM · #9 |
I posted about my experiences. Let me just wrap up the work day, and I'll try to catch up with the thread and see if I can help.
I owe someone a PM about this too... Smilebig4me? I was away for a week and I'll catch up....
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:29:19 PM · #10 |
WalMart was hit HARD with multiple lawsuits from various professional companies and photographers.
If you plan on using them regularly, make a point to go in BEFORE you drop off shots and see the department manager. Bring samples of your work. Get yourself in the system so they know you.
And before you get all hot and bothered by the situation, imagine that you have a customer who figured out how to dload original sized images from your website and didn't pay for them. Imagine they walk into the store and try making reprints and run into the same wall you are hitting. \
That "stupid policy" may end up saving you in the long run. It's not perfect, but for digital right now it's the best the industry can come up with.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:32:04 PM · #11 |
| Making originals available on your website would fall into the "stupid policy" category. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:33:32 PM · #12 |
In the end though, it is a stupid policy, or more accuratly, a "feel-good" policy - people feel like their photographs are safe.
I can go home and make letterhead for anything and bring it to them, and from the sound of their policy, viola I can get prints of anything. Anyone who is stealing images and has half a brain is going to figure this out.
Yet another set of rules that make life difficult for honest people while doing nothing to stop the (smart) dishonest ones.
Not saying that it doesn't do some good now and then, but overall, IMO, it's more of a obnoxious farce than a help.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:36:37 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by mk:
Making originals available on your website would fall into the "stupid policy" category. |
I agree. And Wal-mart saying that people aren't good enough to take the pictures is crazy. They sell the 350d and the d50 as well as some high end P&S. so basicly you can buy the stuff from them but not get your pictures developed. the things they ask for as proof are stupid. I don't have letter head but I can make one in photoshop to say anything and everything you want. bringing them some of your work could be faked too. I could have just stolen someone elses work and printed it out. Not sure what the solution is but harrasing your customers is not it. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:40:29 PM · #14 |
Here's Walmart's policy (emphasis added):
"Photo Center Copyright Policy
Walmart.com will not assist in the copying of a photograph that is signed, stamped, or otherwise identified by any photographer or studio as copyrighted material, or any photograph that appears to have been taken by a professional photographer or studio, even if it is not marked with any sort of copyright, unless we are presented with a signed Copyright Release. Negatives or digital images of a copyrighted image will be retuned to you unprinted and you will be provided instructions on how to present Walmart.com with a signed Copyright Release. In addition, Walmart.com will not assist in the copying of any state or federal document, including but not limited to, driver's licenses, passports, and social security cards."
And an excerpt from a self-proclaimed Walmart employee (from this link //www.retouchpro.com/forums/showpost.php?p=114836&postcount=6 ):
"As a current employee of Wal-Mart the only explanation I can give you is that through experience of looking at thousands upon thousands of photographs, a person begins to have an eye for such photographs. This is not the case with every associate, as many people do not take pride in attempting to know the skill and art of photo processing."
=O |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:41:50 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by sammigurl:
Use Walgreens. I've never had any trouble with them.
Wal-mart is evil anyway. |
I had a similar experience at Walgreens about 1.5 years ago. Sent some pics in online and got a call from the manager a few hours later that my shots looked too pro and they wouldn't print them. Grrrr. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:48:05 PM · #16 |
It was me, in the "what not to say" thread.
The last incident was when I went in to have close to 200 4x6s and a couple of 8x10s printed for mother's day (edited to add -- all of the pictures were of the same kids). The pulled the 8x10s and the corresponding 4x6s, but the rest were not a problem.
The overall policy is not "stupid." Their implementation of it is. Either a) someone who has no idea about how digital images work wrote it or b) they are simply wanting to harass photographers or c) it is a "CYA" policy. I suspect c. It's not so much "protection" of me (though that is one of the results), it is more "protection" for them. Better to gripe a photographer and lose a coupla hundred bucks in a year than to cause a lawsuit and cost 1000s.
As far as what they look for --
I wanted proofs for a Sr. Shoot. The ones where he was casually dressed, fishing, etc. no problem. The cap and gown with a solid background were. Where I had added "Class of 2006" really made them skeptical (Did you do this, too?).
This picture -- 
and three other "solid background" shots have been flagged.
Grab a piece of felt, and you too can be a professional.
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 15:50:22. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:51:57 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by blemt:
WalMart was hit HARD with multiple lawsuits from various professional companies and photographers.
If you plan on using them regularly, make a point to go in BEFORE you drop off shots and see the department manager. Bring samples of your work. Get yourself in the system so they know you.
And before you get all hot and bothered by the situation, imagine that you have a customer who figured out how to dload original sized images from your website and didn't pay for them. Imagine they walk into the store and try making reprints and run into the same wall you are hitting. |
They wouldn't run into a wall. They would simply download the copyright release, forge Karma's signature, take it to the store with them, and proceed to be handed prints that Karma herself is not allowed to have printed. No protection at all. Karma's sig is not on file at Wallyworld, so they have no idea whether she signed it or John Kerry signed it. There's no protection in the system.
Sorry, Clara, there's a real problem here for anyone that simply takes high quality photos but doesn't have a business or letterhead. We will continue to get hot and bothered because this doesn't work, and it is a major hassle for honest people. Signing a copyright release to myself is technically impossible, as I own it and I do not want it released.
I know this is your industry and you see and know things that many of us miss. I also appreciate your input. However, the situation is ridiculous. Having a piece of letterhead by no means establishes ownership of a photograph. That's ridiculous. What possible connection is there? What if a professional photog with a registered letterhead starts stealing images off the internet and printing them at Walmart? Who's guilty then?? The system Walmart has in place would theoretically never question it.
Sorry. The logic is wrong, ignorant, and backward. Can't agree with ya :) |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:56:11 PM · #18 |
I was the one who hand wrote a release - but it was also situational. They knew me at Walmart and the clerk was more trying to cover her behind just in CASE her supervisor asked for the form, and I didnt have my camera bag with my self-release on me. They have dozens of my release forms on file from other clients. I just wrote that it was me, scanned my drivers licence on the printer machine - printed it and handed it over to her. We had a good giggle over it.
More-over it protects the photographers whose main money comes from the prints of thier photos. Seeing as how that keeps THEM in business and from being MY competition - I fully encourage the Walmart staff to be PITA'ses about it to anyone trying to print something that looks better than a basic snapshot. And if they say, THESE ARE GREAT! and don't ask for ID - I speak to a manager.
My release is on the disk as MSWord, on the label of the disk itself, and I give my clients a FAQ brochure about self-printing (where is best to go locally, how to do it, what the release gives them the right to do and what not to do) and the back of the form is both my release to them, as well as a model release for me (if they say go for it, I grab the signature right there at the delivery). I keep a copy of the release in my files so I can fax it to whomever needs it if its ever lost or requested by a printer.
For the non-professionals they are asking if you are pro? My advice would be -
If your good enough that they are giving you a hard time then you might think about saying YES and making yourself part-time. At the very least you can put your prints on calanders and give them as holiday gifts. You earned it. It doesn't matter what camera you have, and they wont ask you to show it. :)
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:56:56 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by TrynityRose:
Did you have a copyright mark on the print?
I'm kinda curious on what basis walmart is using to determine if images are taken by a 'professional photographer' and thus need a photo release. If they do that for every image that looks good then they're gonna cause more trouble for themselves at the end of the day.
|
The quality of the photos. When I first printed some of my favorite shots at Walmart I got inquired about it. If the photos look professional they'll sometimes inquire.
The irony, for all the !#@$% about it. I'd think most would be happy that here is a company protecting one's bloody copyrights.
- The Saj, who believes copyrights and patents should have been abolished when we abolished other forms of slavery.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 03:59:34 PM · #20 |
| It all had to do with solid backgrounds. There were 3 8x10's that they pulled and the same pictures in 4x6 and wallet. All the other pictures (same clothes, same person, same everything were fine). I can't really describe, as one of the photo's is my entry for the Beatles challenge. But, I did go back with my CF card and show them the original. They gave me a release to sign stating that if the "photographer" sued them I'd be liable. LOL. They still want some kind of letterhead for future purchases and I'm leary of doing that since I don't have a photography business, so I'll probably try someone else. I've been using Walgreen's but they ticked me off (for a completely different reason) so I tried Walmart. Any other 1hour suggestions? |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 04:02:08 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by nards656:
They wouldn't run into a wall. They would simply download the copyright release, forge Karma's signature, take it to the store with them, and proceed to be handed prints that Karma herself is not allowed to have printed. No protection at all. Karma's sig is not on file at Wallyworld, so they have no idea whether she signed it or John Kerry signed it. There's no protection in the system. |
True, but also - the system they have isnt there to protect the photographer ... the system is there to protect THEM from a lawsuit. If they can prove due diligence (lawyer types? Is this the right termonology? I may be babbling) then it is no longer their problem because they covered themselves by asking for the paper to begin with.
This is why I got away from prints entirely, and started just selling my time. Anybody can scan and print these days... |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 04:02:18 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by TrynityRose:
Did you have a copyright mark on the print?
|
No, nothing even remotely close. And if you look at my portfolio and my messed up PS skills, I still can't figure out how they thought they could be professional, LOL. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 04:04:25 PM · #23 |
I would consider a compliment to be asked ... :)
Walmart isn't protecting you, as has been stated, they are protecting themselves. Even if all the above-mentioned scenarios do occur (pro stealing, theft, etc) the paper trail will clear them of blame in any upcoming lawsuit.
But JP, anyone could sign that though!!
That's right, but irrelevant. Walmart: "We have a signed release, you cannot honestly think we're going to check copyright on these images - the cost to do so would be astronomical. He signed the release, gave it us, we accepted it in good faith. He's the bad person, sue him." It's called covering your ass and you, the photog, do it when you have a model sign a release. Slightly different in that you probably know the model, but that's not relevant either.
Bring a piece of paper, write a release, sign it, and get your photos. I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
Edit to add: I can see it to be frustrating and annoying if you're not prepared though.
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 16:06:03. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 04:20:33 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Any other 1hour suggestions? |
Do you have a Costco in your area? I realize you have to be a member but if you are, try them. I get all of my photos printed there, I've never been asked about my photos. In fact a couple of weeks ago my brother was visiting, he recently graduated from the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and brought several CDs full of his graduation pictures. I copied the ones I wanted onto my memory card, went to Costco and got several 8x10's and 4x6's printed for my sisters and me. Granted, my brother was with me when I ordered them, but there were no questions about ownership. And in case anyone thinks I was infringing on the "professional" photographer's copyright, I was not. The photographer who took his grad pics does not provide prints, just the files on CDs so the grads can get their own prints.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 04:32:06 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
I would consider a compliment to be asked ... :)
Bring a piece of paper, write a release, sign it, and get your photos. I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
|
The point is that THEY NEED ANOTHER &%&*$^$&#*( PIECE OF PAPER!!! One that allows me to say "I am the photographer and I own the copyright for the photographs that I am asking Walmart to print." They are just as protected, and there is not a copyright RELEASE form floating around with my name on it. The whole idea of me signing a copyright release to myself is insane. It can have no legal validity whatsoever. Thus, Walmart cannot truly be protected - since they are obviously using an invalid procedure - and if their legal department is so slack as to NOT have proper procedures in place, they are not really protecting my copyright AT ALL.
If they're going to have a procedure, they need to have a GOOD one!!!!
The paperwork that I am required to sign in order to obtain a copy of something THAT I OWN needs to be - indeed, MUST BE - relevant to the task being performed, or else it is not valid AT ALL!
to theSaj - I'm personally in favor of copyrights, contrary to your position. However, this does NOTHING to protect copyrights. It only makes ME have more paperwork to keep up with and supposedly prevents ME from suing Walmart. Why should I support their procedure?
|
|
