Thu, March 31st, 2005 by andre
If true, this is an amazing story from the blog of Francis Vachon. Essentially, if Wal-Mart (in all of its infinite wisdom) decides that your images are way too good to have been taken by a slob like you, they reserve the right not to give you your prints...but you still have to pay. Here is the beginning of the entry:
A friend of mine went to Wal-Mart to have her pictures developed. OK, bad idea in the first place, but still… When she wanted to pay, the cashier told her: “We cannot reproduce pictures taken by a pro photographer. We have analyzed your photos, and you did not take them.”
The girl wanted to be paid, but without giving the prints! After some arguments (that was of course out of question to pay without getting the prints), my friend decided to leave. Bad idea. Cashier called security, and now my friend has two big boys around her.
Go here how it all ends.
New server!
March 31st, 2005 at 2:23 pm
i find this story difficult to believe.
i used to get all of my stuff processed at wal-mart, before they built a wal-greens closer to my house. of course, all my photos are crappy.
regardless, the style and tone of this blogger's 'news item' leaves me incredulous.
now, if he or his friend were maybe trying to bypass a wedding photographer's rates by taking the proofs in for reproduction, then i can see where wal-mart (and the photographer) would have a problem with that.
March 31st, 2005 at 2:45 pm
I believe this story because the exact thing happened to me. Well, almost. I wasn't actually asked to pay for them.
I took a portrait of my daughter to Wal-Mart to have some 8x10s printed. When I went to pick them up, they said we can't print professional photographs without a release and referred me to their copyright policy. I said, "I understand why you don't want to print copyrighted photos, but I am the copyright holder of this one." That wasn't enough.
They proceeded to tell me that I need to go home and "type" up a release for this particular photo and they will keep it on file for future printing. But a handwritten release was not official enough. So I went back home and typed a release. They then sold me my photos.
On one hand, I was flattered that my photo passed for "professional." However, it's too bad the quality of their printing didn't. I wouldn't have minded the trouble so much if the prints actually came out decent.
I can't blame them too much for erring on the safe side. These days it's so easy to reproduce digital photography that measures need to be taken to protect photographer's property.
March 31st, 2005 at 3:23 pm
Wow. I had a similar thing happen at some big photo store (I think it was Ritz Camera). I dropped off my 'files' and came back a couple of hours later to pick them up, and there was some kind of confused, hushed conversation behind the counter. A manager was summoned, who aked me, sternly, if I had taken the photos. He said they looked like they had come from "magazines".
When I told him that I owned the copyrights, had taken the photos, he printed them. I was a little angry about the hassle, but also flattered that my lil' 4MP pictures looked "magaziney".
I've had things printed at, cough, Wal-Mart, but I've made it a point to avoid ever strolling into one of those bizarre cement death-traps again.
Seems like the photographer in the story might be able to sue those bastards... Prolly not worth the hassle.
OK,
Mr. King
March 31st, 2005 at 3:26 pm
I don't do any business anymore with Wal-Mart ("always low wages"). I have a choice coming from a large metro area like Chicago. Unfortunately, others, especially in small communities, have little or no choice. Frankly, something like this doesn't surprise me considering their policy of destroying small town Main Street North America (didn't want to leave out Canada, Andre), their horrendous labor practices, not to mention their blatant product censorship (music and books), etc. They weld a lot of influence because they ARE the 8000 lb gorilla. Now this may have been just an isolated incident but it sounds like something that the lwo price/low wage behemoth would pull.
March 31st, 2005 at 3:30 pm
I work with a guy whose wife (whom I taught how to boucne a flash and stuff) takes pictures of the kids in front of backdrops, sitting on pumpkins or giant easter eggs or whatever, and she always gets grief from Wal-Mart.
I've scanned my film and taken the files there to print on the Frontier (which is awesome at Wal-Mart 'cause I can stick the SD card in the little machine and I don't even have to talk to anyone), and the only lip I ever get is like, 'Hey, these are really blurry, so you don't have to pay for them.' Or, 'Hey, these are really dark, so we fixed them for you.'
Anyway, it only takes one litigious instance to put a new corporate policy into effect. You can't really fault the clerks at the photo place, they're just reading off the card and trying not to get fired.
March 31st, 2005 at 4:16 pm
This is why I use Polaroid film for everything I do --
March 31st, 2005 at 4:56 pm
There's a big difference between asking someone whether they took the photos, and just assuming that the photos were taken by a professional photographer and accusing someone of copyright infringement. From the way the story was told, it sounds like the Wal-Mart cashier did the latter, and that she really overreacted. I'm not sure if she was badly trained or whether it's Wal-Mart's policy to be so nasty to customers, but calling security over something like this seems ridiculous. I understand the need to protect others' work, but that's just too much.
I think I've been in a Wal-Mart maybe twice in my life, and those experiences were so unpleasant I never want to go back. Unfortunately, not everyone has the choice to go elsewhere.
And yeah, Polaroid rocks.
March 31st, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Now I'm offended that no one in the "medium box electronics store/processing company" I use here in Canada has ever said "Wow, that photo is amazing, there is no way YOU took it..." even though their Terms and Conditions state:
...you may not submit for processing any material that may be unlawful, indecent, ... invasive of the privacy, intellectual or other proprietary rights of others, or otherwise objectionable.
Of course there is no mention of how any of this is judged, who has to prove that the rights of others have been jeopardized.
There is also the wonderful "you aren't allowed to review or compare our product" statement:
(This includes [the restriction against] the submitting of any materials that depict, encourage, indicate, advocate or tend to incite any such conduct, and any use that may dilute or depreciate the name and reputation of Future Photo and its Affiliates and Providers).
March 31st, 2005 at 5:05 pm
I'm no fan of Wal Mart, in fact I wouldn't set foot in their store. Having said that, I'm not at all impressed with anecdotal stories. It sounds like they have a strong policy in place to protect professional photographers and copyrights.
March 31st, 2005 at 5:22 pm
I had the pretty much same experience in the Wal-mart in Pleasanton, CA. I didn't argue with them though. I now order all my prints online.
March 31st, 2005 at 6:28 pm
So a humanoid actually reviews the prints at Walmart? In all the labs I've used, I've always assumed that a humanoid fed the roll of film or cd rom to a machine, the machine printed the prints, the machine fed the prints into a bag, which the humanoid then handed to me.
So that's how those photos of that debauched spa party found their way onto the Internet...
March 31st, 2005 at 6:51 pm
I've heard stories like this, most of the time the policy is legalese and some half-wit takes it upon themselves to treat the customer like a criminal. Walmart is evil anyway.
March 31st, 2005 at 7:16 pm
This is why current "copyright" laws are ridiculous. just like my spelling. but the point is the same.
My mother went to get reprints of photos taken in the late 1930s during the war - photos of her father - Walmart AND Ritz Photo told her that they were taken by a professional and they couldn't reproduce them.
Of course, had she been more assertive, she could have told them she owned the copyright, and that the studios were long gone and dead and the copyright no longer valid
but according to law, they were right. which means that the law needs to be changed.
March 31st, 2005 at 7:23 pm
People still make prints?
March 31st, 2005 at 7:26 pm
i think its funny how this just turned into a "bash walmart" post. therefore i will say this - walmart got huge not by its own doing - if you want to be mad at anyone - be mad at the people who shop at walmart - they are the reason walmart is successful. as for low wages? why would anyone work for a wage they felt unfair. what is the alternative to walmarts "low wages?" zero wage probably.
take a macro economics class...geeeesh.
no hard feelings though
March 31st, 2005 at 8:55 pm
I'm making invitations for my wedding that include a photo. Just yesterday, in fact, I uploaded an image that I had 200 copies made from to walmart.com. Had it 1-hour processed for my local store, immediately hopped in my car, walked to the counter. Already done and paid for. 20 minutes.
That's an impressive service in my book. Here in small town America, people like me have very few options other than Walmart. However, they continue to offer new services that help their customers get even better service.
I also applaud them for protecting photographers' copyrights.
April 2nd, 2005 at 2:30 am
I worked in the Wal-Mart Photo Lab through high school and college, and am very proud of it, as I am a successful Radiologist now. However, I do think that is very rude to refer to the employees as "humanoids" and/or "half-wits." Most of the other girls I worked with were very bright college students, and we dealt with a lot of idiot customers who didn't know how to properly use a camera. If their photos came out underexposed, overexposed, too red, too green, or whatever, they threw huge tantrums and blamed us. Regarding copyrighted photos, we only did what we were told to do. If someone brought in a photo with a big "Olan Mills" stamp on the bottom, of course we could not make a copy of that photo. But that was years ago, so now people can just copy those on their computers. I always took great pride in the photos I developed...probably too much, as I would painstakingly go through each photo and adjust the hue, the contrast, et al.
I don't like Wal-Mart either...every single time I walk in there I breathe a huge sigh of relief that I don't have to take any crap from a bunch of complete idiots.
If you don't like Wal-Mart, don't take your photos there. I don't!
April 2nd, 2005 at 12:16 pm
I use walmart to make proofs when I shoot film. After that if I want a print, I go to a custom lab.
April 4th, 2005 at 1:58 am
Don't forget, you can always buy good printer and printout your own pictures!!
gwlj
May 21st, 2005 at 3:22 am
This is easily one of the craziest stories I've ever heard...
: D
June 7th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
It would be interesting for someone to print some "crappy" photos at wal-mart. have a friend pick up the prints, and then sue the company for printing copyrighted photos. According to the copyright law, any photo is automatically copyrighted the instance it is created. So honestly, they shouldn't be able to give photos to anyone, because they are violating copyright law. Then you either can A. Win a lot of money from the company, or B. help redefine Wal-Mart's policy and lose.
July 22nd, 2005 at 4:07 pm
i used to use the walmart 1 hour processing for client proofs because of the inexpense, convenience and speed, but i too have just had a terrible experience there. the woman behind the counter refused to give me proof prints for a client who was expecting a baby and wanted photos of herself in the eigth month. these photos were deemed 'inappropriate', (because the breasts were exposed in some of them) by some minimum wage moral guru. of course, the store manager was no help, citing that it is up to the photo lab people to make the determination as to what is acceptable or not. they know that i am a professional because they approached me about using one of my images in their photo add campaign.
since there is nothing in their online policy that mandates a minimum quantity of images to submit, i have begun sending one picture a day to the store for them to process, develop, print, package, label and CENSOR- all this fun for the grand total of .19 cents each. plus they have to take the time to call me as i don't go pick them up after the hour has passed.
each image sends a very plain message to the photo clerk, who will either stop censoring my work or ban me from getting my proofs developed there.
here is the first of many images stating this message: http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=306861
if walmart can make the choices they do regarding which images they will allow you to walk out with, i am more than happy to feed their hunger, one picture a day, until they tire from my 19 cents.
July 23rd, 2005 at 12:18 am
Michael, that's fabulous.
September 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Everyone has to be careful with copyrights because of the sue happy ppl of today... I work at a professional photography studio and we also do restorations, and we have to be careful of copyright.
Even with the example of the dead and closed photography studio and the customer couldn't get a copyright, we had that once... We actually had to confirm and make sure the placed was out of business ourselves before we accepted the print.
As for the girl calling security, that was highly uncalled for. I guess just always carry your sources with you tho...
April 13th, 2008 at 1:20 am
I love the "giving" I'm doing something similar on a local level...