Does Walmart Own Your Copyright?

[Dan Doucette]

Occasionally I will get a few quick prints made through the Walmart photo lab web site (faster and closer than my normal pro lab). You upload pictures to your account, submit an order, and pick them up at the nearest store. In the terms and conditions that you agree to when you use the website it sounds like you are giving Walmart control over the distribution and copyright of your images and that they can use them should they so desire. The parts of the terms in question are quoted below.

The question is, am I reading this right and Walmart gains copyright and distribution control of your images when you use them on their site, or is there just not enough lawyer in me to properly understand the wording?

License and Warranties
For all materials you may use or allow others to use in connection with the Site, including materials posted or submitted to the Site (the "Materials"):

You grant to Wal*Mart Canada Corp. a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, unrestricted, world-wide right and license to access, use, copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, display, perform, communicate to the public, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, and otherwise use such Materials (in whole or in part) in connection with the Site and/or the Products, using any form, media or technology now known or later developed, without providing compensation to you or any other person, without any liability to you or any other person, and free from any obligation of confidence or other duties on the part of Wal*Mart, its affiliates and their respective licensees; It also says:

COPYRIGHTS and TRADE-MARKS
Unless otherwise noted, all materials, including images, text, illustrations, designs, icons, photographs, programs, video clips and written and other materials that are part of this Site (collectively, the "Content") are subject to intellectual property rights, including without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, copyrights and trade-marks, held by or licensed to Wal*Mart Canada Corp., or one of its affiliates, and are protected by Canadian, U.S. and international copyright laws. The compilation (meaning the collection, arrangement, and assembly) of all content on this Site is the exclusive property of Wal*Mart Canada Corp. and is also protected by Canadian, U.S. and international copyright laws.

The full terms and condition are found at this link:
http://www.walmartphotocentre.ca/disclaimers/terms.aspx (http://www.walmartphotocentre.ca/disclaimers/terms.aspx)

[convergent]

They don't own copyright, but it would appear that you are granting them a license to reuse the images however they wish. To some degree, they need this to legally do what you are asking them to do with the image... but this seems to go further than that. Many of these companies standardize language and so language like this gets overly intrusive. Google just released their own web browser. The original language in their terms of use gave them full ownership of everything you browsed with the browser, but it turned out that this was not their intent and they changed it. They were sharing terms with different systems and clearly for a browser it is not appropriate to have language like that.

[cory1848]

So if one of Dan's images appears on Walmarts next promotional bit, is walmart in the clear and not have to give compensation?

[Michael_Lambert]

I think its pretty clear that they can use any images submitted for there own use.

[Nightstalker]

Based on those terms and conditions there is nothing stopping WallMart from setting itself up as a stock agency and selling the use of your images without compensation being due.

I'd stay clear.

[Patrick]

WTF??

I have a contract too. It states that anyone, by allowing me to upload to them, has no rights and it supersedes any other contract.:p
Too bad for them if they don't read it or it's too convoluted with legal mumbo jumbo.

What about model releases? The photographer can't grant permission to Walmart to use someone Else's likeness for their corporate advertising.

[shannyD]

they can use your images even though your are paying them to use a service? its not like your getting free prints out of them or anything.. thats nuts.

[Dennis_Hammer]

Never used Walmart for photos and sure never would now. As a matter of fact wouldn't even recommend them to family or friends.

[Maddog12]

Lets say Walmart used my pic in an ad (a pic I submitted to get printed, etc). What would be the chance of "little me" going up against "the big boy" Walmart in a copyright case?

[Patrick]

Lets say Walmart used my pic in an ad (a pic I submitted to get printed, etc). What would be the chance of "little me" going up against "the big boy" Walmart in a copyright case?

None, they'd own you just like they do to everyone else who's gone up against them.

I found this on Walmart's web site. "Walmart.com"

Ownership of Account Content

WALMART.COM claims no ownership rights to the photos, photo files, albums, projects, captions or prints, (collectively defined as "Content"), that you place in your Wal-Mart Digital Photo Center Account. However, by uploading Content into your Wal-Mart Digital Photo Center Account, you agree to waive all moral rights to those images. In addition, you grant to WALMART.COM a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license, so we can download, upload, copy, print, display, reproduce, modify, publish, post, transmit and distribute the photos included in your Photo Center Account for the purpose of displaying Content to the people you select and to fulfill orders.
We will not use or modify your Content for marketing purposes or any other purposes without obtaining your express permission.


The original poster quoted Walmart of Canada.

[Nathan]

Just because it's in the contract, it doesn't mean you've signed over all your rights. I think there's a valid case to challenge the terms of the contract on constitutional grounds for right of privacy. You could sue to get the photos off any publication if you do this, but I don't think you could sue for compensation. You could also challenge on contract terms and my guess is that a court may lean in your favor since most people don't read these sort of these.

You'd be surprised what's in a contract... only becomes an issue if someone raises, but just because it's in writing doesn't mean that's the end for you.

[ryant35]

Yet another reason not to go to Walmart.

[Dan Doucette]

Even if Wal Mart's language is too severe, and they are just trying to cover their legal butts against any conceivable lawsuit that Joe Lawsuit may try to bring against them, I will not risk losing control of my images. I have deleted all images from my account on the site and will not be using that service anymore. Maybe Wal Mart is too overbearing, maybe not, but I won't run the risk just to save a bit of time and a few bucks. I'll be sending everything to my pro lab from now on regardless of what it is.

This makes me wonder what may be lurking in the terms and conditions contracts for other online upload and printing services.

[frzndaqiri]

I use Walgreens and they have a similar line, however it ends with "solely for the purpose of providing the Service." Big difference.

Glad I never used WalMart and that just enforces my reasons why. ;) Also an excellent reason to always read through those things. I try to at least skim to the more english stuff, and see if that's anything to worry about.

[ryant35]

I only used Walmart a few years ago for pictures because my wife worked in that department at our local Walmart so she could bring my pictures home with her.

Now I use Target for quick stuff that I can't wait for a pro lab for. And I also bring the pictures on a flash drive or a CF card instead of uploading. Kinkos also has a decent Sony self serve machine that's cheap and open late.

[T2000]

The qualifying language you need to focus on : "...in connection with the Site and/or the Products..."

"It also says"

That section says the material on the site ("material" excludes your stuff) is subject to Walmart copyright or trademarks. And Walmart is asserting copyright in the site design as well. So what.

[golfecho]

None, they'd own you just like they do to everyone else who's gone up against them.

I found this on Walmart's web site. "Walmart.com"

Ownership of Account Content

WALMART.COM claims no ownership rights to the photos, photo files, albums, projects, captions or prints, (collectively defined as "Content"), that you place in your Wal-Mart Digital Photo Center Account. However, by uploading Content into your Wal-Mart Digital Photo Center Account, you agree to waive all moral rights to those images. In addition, you grant to WALMART.COM a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license, so we can download, upload, copy, print, display, reproduce, modify, publish, post, transmit and distribute the photos included in your Photo Center Account for the purpose of displaying Content to the people you select and to fulfill orders.
We will not use or modify your Content for marketing purposes or any other purposes without obtaining your express permission.


The original poster quoted Walmart of Canada.

Looks to me like they are just covering their buts for when (not if) one of their minimum wage folks accidentally gives your prints to the wrong customer. The other customer gets home and likes your prints and uses them. They don't want to be responsible for someone else getting your prints out there.

I had a roll of film developed at a Fuji film store, and when we went to pick it up it was gone. They had accidentally given it to a different customer, and were even fairly sure which one, but the other guy wasn't interested in coming in and exchanging, so we were offered a handfull of fresh film rolls to compensate us. Not too helpfull when what we wanted was the shots and memories (another inadvertant plug for digital where you always keep the "negatives")

[Tandem]

It has been quite a while since I uploaded photos to Walmart for printing but if I remember correctly the images remained on the site for about 30 days and you could have relatives view the images and buy prints. Walmart's verbiage covers them while the images are on their site and modified - i.e. displayed in a smaller size and as thumbnails.

[Scott McLoud]

Its a copyright issue if you do not sign anything in black and white so they can not use them without that signature on a contract. Online it is not possible to sign :)

[Patrick]

I'm pretty sure those "click to agree to our terms" options count as some kind of contract. If a business couldn't use it to their benefit, they wouldn't even have it on there.

[Scott McLoud]

I'm pretty sure those "click to agree to our terms" options count as some kind of contract. If a business couldn't use it to their benefit, they wouldn't even have it on there.
but a tick is not a signature - basicly what i mean is. You (person A) take a pic, give it to person B (friend) and he uploads it to get it printed. While you gave him permission to get it printed for himself, you have not given permission for anybody else to use it - so walmart use it. YOU have not given permission for the image to be used, no signature on any contract

[Patrick]

but a tick is not a signature - basicly what i mean is. You (person A) take a pic, give it to person B (friend) and he uploads it to get it printed. While you gave him permission to get it printed for himself, you have not given permission for anybody else to use it - so walmart use it. YOU have not given permission for the image to be used, no signature on any contract

I agree. Walmart has a link if the person making the prints doesn't own the copyright. I don't know what it reads. I've never clicked on it.

I recall that those "click to agree" agreements were upheld in court somewhere.

Sadly, the winner in court is the one with the most money. And when compared to Walmart, "that ain't me" ;)

[RobNYC]

A person can electronically sign something. You don't need an actual signature to make a contract. A contract can be solidified orally, without even a writing. Not a good idea, but it is still legal. Click-through cases have been upheld in courts.

I am not saying this one would be upheld either though. There are also "adhesion contracts," where you (the customer) don't really have any bargaining power against a huge corporation (like Walmart) and you have essentially no choice if you want to get your prints done there (say there was no where else nearby for you to go, etc.). Standard contracts, filled with is often called "boilerplate language" can be upheld but sometimes are not. It depends on a lot of factors. But courts tend not to like adhesion contracts.

[Scott McLoud]

A person can electronically sign something. You don't need an actual signature to make a contract.
If this is the case, then you can get a contract out in any name, for any purpous (be it illegally or not).

But i know if i gave a pic to a friend to get printed for himself, and walmart used it, i would be talking to a legal team over it as i myself had not given ANY permission for walmart to use it.