another walmart issue

so, My mom and sister were wanting some updated pics of my kiddos quickly for something... they live over an hour away so I decided to print through walmart in their town...which I hate doing. While I am no pro I know how much their printing stinks.

I put my order in and since I have had them question if my photos are professional and had to sign their form at my local one before I called this one to let them know and give them my info so my mom wouldn't run into trouble when picking them up. The guy I talked too didn't want to take my name or even know what order to be looking for. Just said he's not worried about it. I asked him about their copyright policy and he said that it isn't an issue. Not too comforting if someone were to go in and print photos they didn't have rights too. :/

I believe this has been discussed several times before. Although it does seem to be a debated issue, a common conclusion seems to go as follows. Walmart had you sign a form that essentially states that you have the right to print these photos and you take legal responsibility if you actually do not (this is the same disclaimer that comes up on many kiosks...kodak and the like). Once that is signed, Wal-mart has no further responsibility to police this issue. If you printed something that was not yours and the photographer comes to collect, they have a semi-legal (as binding as any non-witnessed contract) document that says you will take all legal responsibility for the issue. With that in hand, the photographer would have almost no legal recourse against wal-mart and would have to go after you instead.

That was my attempt at a summary. If anyone has a better explanation or more information feel free to pick apart my post.

Oh, I know...Maybe I shouldn't have posted, but was just kinda venting since he seemed to not care much. But you are right.

I've had the same experience with Walgreens. Sign the form and you're out the door.

MattPharmD wrote in post #12879053
I believe this has been discussed several times before. Although it does seem to be a debated issue, a common conclusion seems to go as follows. Walmart had you sign a form that essentially states that you have the right to print these photos and you take legal responsibility if you actually do not (this is the same disclaimer that comes up on many kiosks...kodak and the like). Once that is signed, Wal-mart has no further responsibility to police this issue. If you printed something that was not yours and the photographer comes to collect, they have a semi-legal (as binding as any non-witnessed contract) document that says you will take all legal responsibility for the issue. With that in hand, the photographer would have almost no legal recourse against wal-mart and would have to go after you instead.

That was my attempt at a summary. If anyone has a better explanation or more information feel free to pick apart my post.

I think your explanation is spot on, but, for clarification, most contracts do not require a witness to be binding. In fact, many don't even need to be in writing.

stax wrote in post #12879078
I think your explanation is spot on, but, for clarification, most contracts do not require a witness to be binding. In fact, many don't even need to be in writing.

Yup, emails can be considered contracts, verbal agreements can as well. I've NEVER signed any of my contracts in front of anyone, maybe one or two but for the most part in private and mailed with no witness.

Josh_30 wrote in post #12879077
I've had the same experience with Walgreens. Sign the form and you're out the door.

A person can also sign someone else's name..... do they ever ask for a photo id?

TrulyBlessed wrote in post #12878967
Just said he's not worried about it. I asked him about their copyright policy and he said that it isn't an issue. Not too comforting if someone were to go in and print photos they didn't have rights too. :/

While Wal-Mart may not be too concerned some places get into a tizzy over Copyright violations, we sent a job over to Kinko’s which consisted of four large (2X4) quarter prints of the U.S. Bill of Rights which was to be used of part of a set we where building, I received a call back from the local Kinko’s manager stating the order was placed on hold until I could provide a license to duplicate the BoR…

Go figure.

Wayne

Channel One wrote in post #12882488
I received a call back from the local Kinko’s manager stating the order was placed on hold until I could provide a license to duplicate the BoR…

Go figure.

Not much to figure. There are lots of stupid people in this world and some of them are managers at Kinko's.

I've said this before, and it may be considered blasphemy in some parts, but I'm done chasing copyright issues. I charge for my time, my expertise and my product. I deliver the product, collect the money, and move on.

Some people will take my print, scan it at Wal*Mart and have them make more prints. The prints will look like my dog pi$$ed on them. I could waste all kinds of time and effort trying to stop it but that would be fruitless.

Two things would have to happen to stop the Wal*Mart violations. 1) The people at Wal*Mart would have to actually care, and 2) The people at Wal*Mart would have to be smarter than your average Kinko's manager.

Channel One wrote in post #12882488
While Wal-Mart may not be too concerned some places get into a tizzy over Copyright violations, we sent a job over to Kinko’s which consisted of four large (2X4) quarter prints of the U.S. Bill of Rights which was to be used of part of a set we where building, I received a call back from the local Kinko’s manager stating the order was placed on hold until I could provide a license to duplicate the BoR…

Go figure.

Wayne

That one may or may not be dumb.

The federal government does not have copyright to any federal document created by the government itself (documents contracted by the government produced by private entities might still be copyrighted to the private entity that produced them. If the federal government contracted you to take a picture for them, you might still own the copyright, depending on the actual contract).

Give the age of the Bill of Rights and the fact that it is a document directly produced by the US government, it is not copyrighted.

However, it is possible that a photograph of the Bill of Rights might have been taken by a private entity, and that particular photograph would be copyrighted.

OTOH, does Kinkos do the same thing with everything else they copy? Because 99.44% of everything else they duplicate certainly is copyrighted to someone.

TrulyBlessed wrote in post #12879063
Oh, I know...Maybe I shouldn't have posted, but was just kinda venting since he seemed to not care much. But you are right.

He makes like 8 bucks an hour. What did you expect?