Perils of Competence

Julian Sanchez | June 7, 2005

Via Boing Boing, we learn that Wal-Mart and other stores that will print photos from a customer's digital camera are refusing to print those that look too professional... in the subjective assessment of whoever's manning the register at the time. They've apparently been bullied into the policy by photographers' professional associations wielding the threat of copyright infringement lawsuits.

Now, I'm curious: Kerry Howley and I just got headshots done by Declan McCullagh, a journalist by profession, but a serious photographer whose work looks as pro as anything you're going to find. Can he get his own shots printed?

Comments

|6.7.05 @ 2:49PM|#

Walmert getting bullied? Unpossible.

|6.7.05 @ 2:55PM|#

Since when does Wal-Mart care about what anyone else thinks?

|6.7.05 @ 3:07PM|#

Are they going to post warning signs about this? "We will only print your pictures if they look like crap."

|6.7.05 @ 3:16PM|#

Note to the "photographer's professional associations":

Technology is passing you by. It is much easier and cheap now to reproduce images. Yes, life sucks. Adapt your fucking business model.

|6.7.05 @ 3:24PM|#

Since when does Wal-Mart care about what anyone else thinks?

Probably since some lawyers found that they could sue massive corporations for a gazillion dollars even when they are obviously not the ones at fault.

For reference please see tobacco litigation, gun litigation, (impending) food litigation, and every other stupid lawsuit brought primarily because of the potential of either a huge payoff or ridiculous settlement.

|6.7.05 @ 3:25PM|#

That photo copyright stuff is insane. Some while back, my mother- in-law went to have a baby photo of me reproduced to have in a frame at my wedding (you know, cutesy little displays around the reception place, side by side baby pictures of me and the wife? so, anyway.....)

The guy at the photo place wouldn't copy it! It's my goddamned photo! Of me! Taken thirty-mumble-mumble years ago when I was a baby!

She said, "who the hell does the copyright belong to that we have to ask him for permission?" The guy at the photo place said "I don't know."

I don't know! Why on earth are they worried about a thirty some odd year old photo that doesn't even have an indication of copyright anywhere on it, nor of who the copyright would belong to! Then it dawned on me: this must be some kind of bureaucratic protectionist bullshit or other.

|6.7.05 @ 3:29PM|#

I had this happen to me with some graduation pics a very skilled friend took for me. He had encountered this problem in the past, so he gave me a letter explicitly stating his consent to have the photos reproduced (from the CD he gave me), with his card and contact info attached.

RobAtSGH|6.7.05 @ 3:31PM|#

Notsoniceguy: Photographers and their professional associations _are_ adapting their business models. Very quickly. I doubt you have the slightest clue as to how the industry operates and the changes it is presently undergoing.

This is a store policy, not an industry guideline or any facet of emboddied copyright law. If Wal*Mart wants to be paranoid to the detriment of their customers, their customers will find other places to get their images printed. Basically, their policy is a draconian CYA - in the lack of any obvious indication that the customer is not the copyright holder, is the processor's judgement as to whether or not to reproduce a photo. In the old days of film - that was pretty simple. If you had the negs or slides, chances are that you were the copyright holder. With digital, the processor can't be sure, absent a watermark or other telltale indicator. In the case of Wal*Mart, they leave it up to the discretion of their minimum-wage counter workers to decide, and since the average Wal*Mart employee isn't the brightest bulb in the pack, they train them for maximum reduction of liability. Who'da thunk that'd go wrong?

|6.7.05 @ 3:32PM|#

Technology is passing you by. It is much easier and cheap now to reproduce images. Yes, life sucks. Adapt your fucking business model.

I hear this said all the time, and am inclined to agree, at least on a philosophical level. However, what recourse is there for a photographer, musician, artist, etc. who has their work copied and used by someone else to turn a buck without compensating the original artist?

Ultimately, the scenario that seems most likely to happen is that many artists who do such work professionally end up abandoning it to the amateurs willing to do it for free.

To that end, there is at least one website I know of that offers amateur photographers the chance to have their work used professionally. The big catch is that they do it for free. The work is uniformly top-notch, and there have been very few times that I haven't been able to find an appropriate image.

Here's the url:
http://www.sxc.hu/

PintofStout|6.7.05 @ 3:35PM|#

From the snippet above...They've apparently been bullied into the policy by photographers' professional associations wielding the threat of copyright infringement lawsuits.

|6.7.05 @ 3:59PM|#

Actually, I think technology is passing Wal-Mart and other photo finishers by. You can easily get a consumer grade laser printer that will do a pretty nice job or creating prints, on print quality paper, from a scanned image.

fyodor|6.7.05 @ 4:27PM|#

Deep pockets make big targets.

|6.7.05 @ 4:46PM|#

The copyright holder of a photograph is whoever took the picture, not the person in the photograph, so yeah, the store may technically be violating copyright law to make an unauthorized copy of it, in some of the cases mentioned above. (Rachel's friend handled it exactly the right way.) But I don't see why the stores couldn't have photo-finishing customers sign releases testifying that they are the copyright holder or that they have permission to make copies for the use intended, and agreeing to be responsible for any damages.

It is idiocy, but happily the stores with such stupid policies will eventually be left behind.

|6.7.05 @ 4:51PM|#

You could just go to Wal-Mart, buy an inkjet printer and glossy paper, and print as many dang photos as you want (assuming you already own a digital camera).

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=3432145&cat=4470&type=19&dept=3944&path=0%3A3944%3A3951%3A37807%3A4470

And if you can't stand Wal-Mart...

http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/ref=br_1_1/602-6458039-8461420?%5Fencoding=UTF8&frombrowse=1&asin=B0000ACOW0

Larry A|6.7.05 @ 5:28PM|#

This could get interesting. My wife (with a degree in photojournalism and dozens of press awards) is due home from her trip to Italy Saturday. If Wallyworld turns her down will she:

• Take it as a complement?
• Go back wearing her "Never insult someone who buys ink by the barrel" T-shirt?
• Demand to know why, if she's that good, she can't find a job in journalism after the last two papers she ran were sold to the competition?

Odds available on request.

the regulator|6.7.05 @ 7:13PM|#

This is old news! The Walmarts here in Salem, OR, have had signs advising customers of their policy for over a year. If you go over to photo.net and do some searching you'll find tons of discussion on the policy from both sides of the fence.

While Walmart gets the press about it, it's the small shops that fear the lawsuits the most, because a 100-150K judgement would probably put them out of business. A couple of small shops that I have used have been very vigilant in checking out the pictures.

Basically, if you're a photographer good enough to have your work confused, you probably already know your lab people, regardless of who you use. If you don't, then you should!

Oh yeah -- Walmart isn't going to get left that far behind. If you really want to do it, you can scan them at home, upload them to walmart.com, and get the prints sent to you without question (like snapfish or winkflash).

|6.7.05 @ 7:19PM|#

Since anyone has a copyright the moment he takes a photo, Wal-Mart is on the hook (in theory) for any pictures it duplicates for someone other than the copyright holder or licensee. Professional status is entirely irrelevant to the cause of action (though it could affect the damages). Frankly, the pros should probably just accept the digital age and grant licenses to copy (for a low additional cost). Or they should lobby Congress to apply the death penalty to all who dare to violate copyright law in any way.

I don't see any real threat to Wal-Mart, despite the sword-rattling of the professional associations. If a work lacks a visible copyright notice, getting any kind of money out of Wal-Mart should prove difficult. Nailing the knowingly infringing customer is another thing altogether, but that's no good. Unless your customer is Bill Gates.

|6.7.05 @ 8:00PM|#

PintofStout, you wrote:

"From the snippet above...They've apparently been bullied into the policy by photographers' professional associations wielding the threat of copyright infringement lawsuits."

Did you have an actual point to make?

|6.7.05 @ 9:31PM|#

I think PintofStout's point was this:

- Mr. Nice Guy blamed "professional photographers' associations" for the problem by clinging to an outmoded business model.

- RobAtSGH said, no, you ignorant slut, this isn't the fault of professional photographers. They're adapting as fast as they can. It's just WalMart being stupid, so blame them.

- Then PintofStout quoted the H&R item: "They've [meaning "WalMart and other stores"] apparently been bullied into the policy by photographers' professional associations wielding the threat of copyright infringement lawsuits."

|6.8.05 @ 7:58AM|#

Ignorant slut! I resemble that remark.

Rob:

You ding me by saying that photographer business is rapidly evolving as we speak. That's great, man. Tell me how.

I got married back in the 90s, and the flim-flam I had to put up with hiring a photographer sure seemed familiar to everything I've heard.

Yes, I concede to the concept of free contract, but an agreeing customer can still think the terms are bullshit, especially if there seems to be collusion. And one term in particular is the photographer "owning" the negatives, after charging an arm and a leg for the initial run. And let's not get into the fact that some of these douchebags fuck up their archives and the customers are shit out of luck.

Here is a brilliant concept: photographers charge only for the picture-taking and the initial processing of the photos. Then they hand over the negatives. Everything is up front and over and done with. Problem solved.

|6.8.05 @ 8:15AM|#

let me amend my rant:

"..there are douchebags who fuck up their archives.."