Snapfish refuses order
Tim C.
a month of e-mails asking where my order is they finaly sent this:
We received your reprint order.
Snapfish.com uses Prints@Kodak to do its reprinting.
Kodak has informed us that some or all of the order you submitted to
us for printing does not meet their content standards as Kodak
believes it is copyrighted material. This is a decision made by
Kodak, not by Snapfish.
Our process requires that an entire order is automatically cancelled
if any part of it cannot be printed, so you will not receive any of
the prints you ordered, and your credit card will not be charged, or
will be credited as necessary.
Please review the photos you submitted for printing; you may, if you
wish, resubmit the portions of your order that are obviously not
subject to copyright restrictions.
Most often this occurs when a customer submits a school or organized
sports photo, or other photo that appears to be "studio set". The
owner of the copyright in those cases is the studio or photographer
who took the image.
Sometimes customers tell us that they are the photographer, and we
believe them. We regret that at the moment we don't have a way to
place an order with Kodak that will allow them to consider other
factors that might indicate ownership. We are working with Kodak to
define a process that will allow exceptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I wrote them back to tell them I took all the photos this is what
they sent back:
Kodak looks at the photos and says they look professionally done.
This is not a conversation, this is done in any one of a number of
Kodak facilities, by any one of a number of people. They don't call
and ask us about particular accounts, they don't see any photos other
than those submitted for printing. They don't call and tell us, their
computer tells our computer the order has been cancelled for copyright
issues.
This is done, as I'm sure you appreciate, to actually protect
copyright holders, and that does include you. Again, though I do
apologize, this is not a decision Snapfish has made, but one that
Kodak has made. We are engaged in discussions with them about finding
a method to resolve these issues that works in a situation where all
communications are electronic in nature.
I have reissued the ten free 4x6 reprints. Please contact me, should
you need additional assistance.
Has anyone else ran into this problem?
Thanks
Tim
John Carter
wrote:
>I uploaded digital pics I took with my Canon S10 to snapfish and after
>a month of e-mails asking where my order is they finaly sent this:
>
>We received your reprint order.
>
>
>Snapfish.com uses Prints@Kodak to do its reprinting.
>
>
>Kodak has informed us that some or all of the order you submitted to
>us for printing does not meet their content standards as Kodak
>believes it is copyrighted material. This is a decision made by
>Kodak, not by Snapfish.
>
Does the next step in their copyright protection mean that Kodak will
decide not to print your negatives if *they* look like "studio
quality" images?
Online services that have worked for me are ofoto.com,
colormailer.com, and walmart.com. Some of the WalMart stores offer
one hour service from digital media (CF, smartmedia, CD).
Sample scans of prints from both ofoto and walmart are online at
http://pigseye.kennesaw.edu/~jcarter3/compare.html
Fix the obvious to reply by email.
J.T. Wenting
"John Carter" <johne...@DROPmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:mq3flt0cr60dnsk3h...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 21:18:55 -0400, Tim C. <tconne...@fuse.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I uploaded digital pics I took with my Canon S10 to snapfish and after
> >a month of e-mails asking where my order is they finaly sent this:
> >
> >We received your reprint order.
> >
> >
> >Snapfish.com uses Prints@Kodak to do its reprinting.
> >
> >
> >Kodak has informed us that some or all of the order you submitted to
> >us for printing does not meet their content standards as Kodak
> >believes it is copyrighted material. This is a decision made by
> >Kodak, not by Snapfish.
> >
>
> Does the next step in their copyright protection mean that Kodak will
> decide not to print your negatives if *they* look like "studio
> quality" images?
>
by the client. Their guidelines for this may be flawed (if it is good it
can't be yours sounds like they have little faith in the abilities of their
clients, like a Pro lab refusing amateurs because they are not "good enough"
to use them) but the principle is sound.
John Stewart see REAL email address in message.
> Kodak has informed us that some or all of the order you submitted to
> us for printing does not meet their content standards as Kodak
> believes it is copyrighted material. This is a decision made by
> Kodak, not by Snapfish.
snipped
> Kodak looks at the photos and says they look professionally done.
Oh......my......gawd...... You mean you made the terrible error of sending
in material that looks "professionally done?"
This is the funniest post I've seen in months!
John
John Stewart see REAL email address in message.
> but the principle is sound.
But Kodak is acting idiotic. Here a semi-pro submits his own work and it
simply vanishes with no explanation because it "looked professional."
What if he had a client waiting for the prints?
John
Kinon O'Cann
scare some stores, even though I can't believe they'd be held responsible.
Sort of like arresting the gas station attendent for fueling the get away
car.
You'd think Kodak would be a little more enlightened than this. "Looks
Professional?" What the hell does that mean? If a pro submits his stuff, and
it stinks, then they'll print it? They'll refuse to print anything that
looks good? So from now on, only bad images will be printed? The stupidity
here is amazing, isn't it?
"Tim C." <tconne...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:na1flt83o9k2ptm2i...@4ax.com...
Kinon O'Cann
work ever gets printed, only the bad stuff.
What dopes.
"John Stewart see REAL email address in message."
<cr...@frother.gov.invalid> wrote in message
news:uvV57.494$5X1.1...@news7.onvoy.net...
Yorkovich
stops making film and then goes belly-up? As is Polaroid . . . two very
similar companies - arrogant, incompetent and resting on long-ago withered
laurels.
Too bad . . .
Will (www.eslides.com)
"Tim C." <tconne...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:na1flt83o9k2ptm2i...@4ax.com...
Don Coon
of Kodak, the vision of a board of out-of-touch old men appears. I may be
wrong but they seem to make all the wrong moves. APS film format? The
silly film disk before that? Their silly Kodak picture kiosks? Have they
looked at what Fuji's doing?
"Yorkovich" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NK167.447335$K5.47...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
macnmotion
thought it might make an interesting story.
It seems to me that eventually there will have to be a way for the camera taking
the photo to digitally sign the photograph the moment it is taken, in a way that
can't be replicated later on in the life of the file. This doesn't seem very
possible, but how else can photographers overcome this random type of copyright
discrimination?
macnmotion
Corbin
>I'm sure I just read that Kodak's quarterly earnings tanked. When I think
>of Kodak, the vision of a board of out-of-touch old men appears. I may be
>wrong but they seem to make all the wrong moves. APS film format? The
>silly film disk before that? Their silly Kodak picture kiosks? Have they
>looked at what Fuji's doing?
>
Tanked is an understatement. Revenue was flat (2nd Q of 2000 they had
revenue of US $3.75B vs. $3.6B in 2nd Q of 2001). But, earnings for
2000 were $506M while in 2001 they were $36M.