Copyright protection the Wal-mart way

Fire in the sky

…In addition, we will not copy a photograph that appears to have been taken by a professional photographer or studio, even if it is not marked with any sort of copyright, unless we are presented with a signed Copyright Release from the photographer or studio.

When I visited my friend Richard back in May we stopped at Wal-Mart to get a few prints made. While there, a young lady was trying to get copies made of a picture that her dad had taken of her for her high school graduation. Admittedly, the photos looked really nice and ‘professionally’ done.

This young lady had the images on a CD, but she brought some print copies with her for color matching, I assume. Anyway, she wanted to insert her CD to make the prints, however, a Wal-Mart employee was giving her a hassle about copyrighted images saying that the pictures that she was about to print looked professional and that they wouldn’t allow her to print/purchase the prints. After a short argument, the employee finally relented. After all, she did have the files and her dad had taken the pictures. They wanted her to have a copyright release form. Mind you, anyone can make this form for themselves, bring it to Wal-Mart and get anything made. I would guess that the only reason to have this form would be to eliminate any copyright infringement liability, not necessarily to protect the photographer.

Fast forward to an incident Richard, my friend, experienced the other day where a man was trying to scan a ‘professional’ looking picture. The Wal-Mart employees wouldn’t allow him to do it. It would seem that, according to Wal-mart, only ‘professionals’ have a copyright.

I applaud Wal-Mart’s attempts to protect photographer’s rights, even though it is a bit misguided, giving too much latitude to their employees to interpret whether or not a photo has a copyright. All photos have a copyright to the original owner unless intentionally signed away. As soon as you take the picture, you have a copyright. It’s just plain silly to assume that only professional ‘looking’ prints have a copyright. Naturally, this is a knee-jerk reaction to the 1999 lawsuit against KMart, filed by the Professional Photographers of America, or PPA. The PPA won a $100,000 settlement.

This is a slippery slope, I think. For example, should I want to have some pictures printed at Wal-Mart, for some reason, if I provide Wal-Mart with a CD of images that I want to print, even if I own them, they are within their rights to not print the images if they appear professional. I’d have to take my business elsewhere. Even though the policy deals with copying/scanning of copyrighted materials, it would appear that the employees have interpreted this as being anything that looks professional.

Perhaps Wal-Mart should get out of the picture printing business, except for printing unexposed rolls of film. That might be safer for them. Perhaps a better understanding of the copyright law is required. Perhaps they should have expert legal counsel running the photo lab! Perhaps…