Yes sir, I'm the photographer! a rant...

rokklym

So I was heading into town tonight and I told my girlfriend to order a couple pics online from W-mart since I had to stop there anyways. I haven't printed out any of the good pics I've taken with my new camera and was excited to see them on paper.
I went to pick them up and they said they couldn't give them to me since they were "professionally done" and I needed a release from the photographer.
They didn't want to believe that I was the photographer since I didn't have the original media with. I told them I understood the law, but I took the pictures and would sign whatever I had to but they wouldn't give me the pics without the original. I told them just to throw the damn things in the garbage since I wasn't going to drive 40 minutes back to pick them up. I ended up getting the manager on the way out and told him the situation and they went back and had them reprint the pics for me after I signed a release.

I was a little ticked off, but at the same time flattered. I came home and wrote up a release for the future!

Here is the pic they questioned.


I took the pic and my girlfriend Kathy edited it in Paint Shop Pro Photo X2

:lust

DougNorCal

rokklym wrote:

I went to pick them up and they said they couldn't give them to me since they were "professionally done" and I needed a release from the photographer.

My wife has run into this a fair amount when she prints my pictures at Walgreens. I think they have finally given up and believe her that her husband does take "professional" pictures.

gluwater

You wouldn't be upset if they stopped clients of yours from getting unauthorized prints, would you? Those rules are set up to protect paid photographers. In the future just make sure you have a release form on file where you get your pictures printed.

Sweeper

gluwater wrote:

You wouldn't be upset if they stopped clients of yours from getting unauthorized prints, would you? Those rules are set up to protect paid photographers. In the future just make sure you have a release form on file where you get your pictures printed.

To add to this...
Take the "flattered" and run with it. And I am really glad to read that the photo center actually stood it's ground !! In Canada, we have been leader in ignoring copyright or at least we have been for some time. This is now dramatically changing. I see that "Wal Mart" with it's Kodak system in place now has a sign (albeit a small one) on the scanner table, stating that it is a Canadian federal offence, punishable by law, for duplicating a professionally made image without consent proof from the photographer. Cudos to WalMart ...

BTW, I knew immediately that your photo was a PSP effort. This effect as you know is called "Daguerreotype" and I made several photos using it. I'll find them and post them here later this week. Nice work.

Too bad PSP did not become the standard because they have all of the same attributes as the other $$$ one and even more. All of my photos are processed using Paint Shop Pro (formerly Jasc). I guess what bothers me is that every thread relates digital adjustments to Adobe when there are so many of us using PSP. Back then, it was simply a flip of a coin as to who would be "the standard" and Jasc did not win the flip.

rokklym

Sweeper wrote:

To add to this...
Take the "flattered" and run with it. And I am really glad to read that the photo center actually stood it's ground !! In Canada, we have been leader in ignoring copyright or at least we have been for some time. This is now dramatically changing. I see that "Wal Mart" with it's Kodak system in place now has a sign (albeit a small one) on the scanner table, stating that it is a Canadian federal offence, punishable by law, for duplicating a professionally made image without consent proof from the photographer. Cudos to WalMart ...

BTW, I knew immediately that your photo was a PSP effort. This effect as you know is called "Daguerreotype" and I made several photos using it. I'll find them and post them here later this week. Nice work.

Too bad PSP did not become the standard because they have all of the same attributes as the other $$$ one and even more. All of my photos are processed using Paint Shop Pro (formerly Jasc). I guess what bothers me is that every thread relates digital adjustments to Adobe when there are so many of us using PSP. Back then, it was simply a flip of a coin as to who would be "the standard" and Jasc did not win the flip.

Cudos to Walmart, that isn't something you normally hear!

Yeah, I'm glad that they held their ground, but I guess the thing that got to me is that they wouldn't believe me. I mean, they asked me if I had a release from the photographer, and I said I was the photographer. My signature wasn't good enough, but a signature from some unknown person on a formal looking letterhead would be. I dunno.

I finally got the PSP program to work on my junky computer and i think its pretty nice. I have an old JASC version also and there are some deffinite updates to the software. I've been playing around alot with the program today, modifying some of the pics I took this weekend and I like the results.






Yeah, I got a little carried away with the old age filters

Sweeper

I found one of the series of Dagueriotype photos that I took. Thought I'd get you to take a gander....

Three variations of light can be seen here:

http://sweeper.smugmug.com/gallery/3702664#212118158

...Steve

kdog

gluwater wrote:

You wouldn't be upset if they stopped clients of yours from getting unauthorized prints, would you? Those rules are set up to protect paid photographers. In the future just make sure you have a release form on file where you get your pictures printed.

I still don't get it. How would a client get image files of sufficient resolution to print if they were not authorized? The problem with this "Walmart Rule" is that it seems terribly arbitrary. And all you have to do is sign a release once and you're set for life?

I think that possession of image files of sufficient resolution to print is proof enough of ownership. I don't see it's Walmart's place to question whether something you possess is stolen. It seems kind of insulting, really.

Cheers,
-joel

rokklym

kdog wrote:

I still don't get it. How would a client get image files of sufficient resolution to print if they were not authorized? The problem with this "Walmart Rule" is that it seems terribly arbitrary. And all you have to do is sign a release once and you're set for life?

I think that possession of image files of sufficient resolution to print is proof enough of ownership. I don't see it's Walmart's place to question whether something you possess is stolen. It seems kind of insulting, really.

Cheers,
-joel

Yeah, your point is what I was trying to get at. If I'm willing to sign my name on a release, then they are free from their liability, which is their concern. The fact that they wouldn't take my signature but would take a random release is the insulting part.

rokklym

Sweeper wrote:

I found one of the series of Dagueriotype photos that I took. Thought I'd get you to take a gander....

Three variations of light can be seen here:

http://sweeper.smugmug.com/gallery/3702664#212118158

...Steve

Very nice! I love train pictures. The great part is that you had 3 generation of your family there!

nvisiblephoto

Save yourself the trouble and use mpix or smug for printing. You will definitely notice the quality difference between those and WalMart or Walgreens.

dangin

nvisiblephoto wrote:

Save yourself the trouble and use mpix or smug for printing. You will definitely notice the quality difference between those and WalMart or Walgreens.

yup.
if i absolutely have to have prints in a hurry and go to a walgreens, wallworld, or target i make sure i have plenty of my business cards with me and a copy of the release on my cell phone.