[Net-Gold] Wal-Mart Won't Print Your Photos if They Look too Good

[David P. Dillard]

Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 00:57:33 -0600
From: George Lessard <me...@web.net>
Reply-To: Net-...@yahoogroups.com
To: L8 Media Mentor <media...@yahoogroups.com>,
L9 NetGold <Net-...@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Net-Gold] Wal-mart won't print your photos if they look too good

Digital photos can look great, but some labs won't print those that
appear too professional
By Kathryn Balint
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

May 30, 2005

Kathryn Balint: (619) 293-2848; kathryn...@uniontrib.com


Full text at
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html


[excerpts]

There are a growing number of stories of amateur photographers being
turned away by photofinishers for having photos that looked, at least
in the eyes of a store clerk, too good to have been taken by anyone
other than a professional.

Their photos have become collateral damage in the war on digital
copyright infringement.

[...]

Some professional photographers have even changed the way they charge
for their work.

"There's been quite a bit of change in the business model over the
last 10 years," Hopper said.

Photographers used to take photos and then charge clients for copies
of the images, he said. Now, more and more professional photographers
are charging for their time spent taking the photos.

The Professional Photographers of America sees education of consumers
and photofinishers as key to preventing unauthorized copying.

The trade group sent a wake-up call to the photofinishing industry
when, in 1999, it sued Kmart Corp., alleging that the discount store
violated federal copyright law by copying images without the
permission of the copyright owners.

In 2000, Kmart settled the case by paying $100,000 and agreeing to
implement procedures to guard against the unlawful copying of
professional photos.

"We just want to protect the rights of our members," Hopper said.
"They just want to be able to make a living. When you copy their
stuff and do it illegally, you're taking that away from them."

Photofinishers took notice. After all, most don't want to be held
liable for copyright infringement.

Guidelines

Their trade group, the Photo Marketing Association International,
worked with the Professional Photographers of America and other
organizations to develop copyright guidelines for the industry. The
groups have begun meeting again this year to update the 10-year-old
guidelines.

The old guidelines, which are not binding, suggest, among other
things, that photofinishers notify customers they will not copy
photos bearing a copyright notice without the permission of the
copyright owner.

Determining who was authorized to copy a photo was never much of a
problem before digital photography. If a customer had the film or
negatives to a photo, then photofinishers assumed the customer had
permission to copy them.

These days, the question of who owns the copyright to a photo isn't
so cut and dried.

"It's a judgment call on the part of the processor," said Steve
Noble, the Photo Marketing Association's executive of regulatory
activities.

[...]

Also adding to the confusion is the change to copyright law Jan. 1,
1978. Photos taken before that date are subject to different
copyright rules from photos taken afterward.

The law allows customers to copy professional photos commissioned
before 1978, unless the photographer and the customer had an
agreement to the contrary, Moilanen said.

The law doesn't apply if the photos weren't commissioned. That might
occur when, say, a photographer was shooting pictures of children on
a playground, then later sold a mother a copy of a photo, Moilanen
said.

In both cases, the photographer retains the copyright to the photo.

[...]

Wal-Mart has one of the toughest policies.

Spokeswoman Jackie Young said Wal-Mart is "a littler tougher than the
copyright law dictates."

"We want to protect professional photographers' rights," Young said.
"We will not copy a photograph if it appears to be taken by a
professional photographer or studio."

She related the case of a bride whose wedding photos were rejected by
Wal-Mart because they "looked like high-resolution quality."

"It caused a little bit of a stink," Young said.

It turned out the bride's brother, an amateur photographer, had taken
them. After the bride complained to her local newspaper, she finally
got her photos from Wal-Mart - but only after her brother signed a
release form.

"It happens from time to time," Young said.

It happened to David Watson earlier this year as he tried to get old
photos of his mother printed for her funeral. The photos were of his
mother, taken years ago by family members, some since deceased.

Like Helmick, he had uploaded them to Walmart.com, then went to pick
them up at his local Wal-Mart in Charlotte, Mich. Watson said the
manager of the photo department "felt" that three of the photos were
possibly taken professionally. One of the photos in question was of
his mother 50 years ago.

"I offered to sign anything, but there was just no way around it for
them," Watson said. "They were not going to print them. We left what
they had printed there and went on to a real photo printer who had no
problem with the printing or use of these photos."