Walmart Won't Let Family Print Photos Of Dead Relative For Funeral

[Electric Monk]

http://consumerist.com/5407746/walmart-wont-let-family-print-photos-of-dead-relative-for-funeral

After the death of a relative, Mike put together a photo tribute for the funeral, in order to "remember the good times," he says. Only a Walmart cashier put a stop to his purchase. Here's what happened. Do you think Walmart was in the right?

(snip)

So my grieving wife and I go to Walmart the morning of the funeral to print them out. Normally we wouldn't go to Walmart for this, but the funeral is in a small town and time is limited. Everything goes well with the printing, and I'm kind of amazed at the convenience and quality of the output. "Who says technology is cold and heartless?" I think to myself. It really came through in our time of need.

Then we get to the counter to check out, and the warmth of humanity kicks in.

"I'm sorry, I can't sell you some of these" the lady says. She then proceeds to go through the stack, pulling out every school picture and talking about copyright.

"Even the ones from 1956?!?" I asked.

"Yes, copyright is permanent" she replies.

more...

http://consumerist.com/5407746/walmart-wont-let-family-print-photos-of-dead-relative-for-funeral

[virgogal]

1. I had the same thing happen to me at CVS with school pics. That's

the way it is.

[michreject]

24. Me too at CVS.

Pics of my dogs taken by a professional potog. She had stamped them on the back as her copyrighted photo's.

[Octafish]

2. Whatever happened to ''fair use''?

And copyrights aren't permanent.

This thread needs a lawyer.

[enlightenment]

7. Not a lawyer, but there is this:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?
Photocopying shops, photography stores and other photo developing stores are often reluctant to make reproductions of old photographs for fear of violating the copyright law and being sued. These fears are not unreasonable, because copy shops have been sued for reproducing copyrighted works and have been required to pay substantial damages for infringing copyrighted works. The policy established by a shop is a business decision and risk assessment that the business is entitled to make, because the business may face liability if they reproduce a work even if they did not know the work was copyrighted.

In the case of photographs, it is sometimes difficult to determine who owns the copyright and there may be little or no information about the owner on individual copies. Ownership of a “copy” of a photograph – the tangible embodiment of the “work” – is distinct from the “work” itself – the intangible intellectual property. The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph. If the photographer is no longer living, the rights in the photograph are determined by the photographer’s will or passed as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

There may be situations in which the reproduction of a photograph may be a “fair use” under the copyright law. Information about fair use may be found at: www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. However, even if a person determines a use to be a “fair use” under the factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act, a copy shop or other third party need not accept the person’s assertion that the use is noninfringing. Ultimately, only a federal court can determine whether a particular use is, in fact, a fair use under the law.

[Toucano]

16. Wow. What insanity! n/t

[Octafish]

22. Thank you, enlightenment!

So, it looks like it's up to the courts to decide what's "fair use."

I've got a good idea of how that case would turn out.

[Trekologer]

20. It is not fair use

A commercial reproduction (such as a store making and selling a copy) is not fair use

[RC]

23. It is fair use. You hired the store to make copies of pictures you owned.

You were not going to sell them of otherwise profit from them. If from an outside source, as long as you do not pass them off as yours and/or give credit to the source. Mr. congeniality was wrong. Neither are copyrights forever.

[JonQ]

3. I guess walmart was right to do so

sentiments do not take precedent over copyright laws. If indeed that was the case. The fact that it was for a funeral is irrelevant.

[Kceres]

4. It happened to me when I tried to print a couple of pages out of a book at a office supply store.

You have to find a self-service place and do it yourself.

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. Ummmm......

This isn't a Wal-Mart issue. It is a copyright issue that is much broader in scope.

Same thing has happened to me at a number of other stores. I was trying to copy a photo of a deceased family member. Photo had a photographers copyright mark on it therefore no one was willing to permit me to copy it. So happens that the photographer was a family friend and his business closed shortly before his death. Impossible to get a release to duplicate those photos. But you can scan 'em and then digitally alter/remove that copyright mark and then the frickin stores will print them.

[izquierdista]

6. I see the problem here

The first word in the subject line.

[ixion]

8. moral of the story: get your own photo printer

and tell walmart to pound sand.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Or, find a geek with a scanner

who doesn't give a fig about some incredibly silly interpretation of copyright liability.

[951-Riverside]

10. Copyright enforcement is getting out hand and none of the behemoths respect Fair Use

About 2 years ago I lost my youtube account because the family video I uploaded contained a copywriten song. These media behemoths routinely use "copyright" to censor unfavorable content and content providers like youtube, stickam and blogtv, let these companies delete content as they please, there is no court order and no takedown requests.

[DrDan]

11. if they had a chance to make a buck - they would print them

there must be some basis in their position.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

12. I got the same shit at Costco - over photos I took myself

I took some great pictures at a wedding earlier this year, the grooms parents asked me for prints of them so I went to Costco where they proceeded to tell me that the photos were copyrighted - only after presenting the memory card out of the camera I took them with could I persuade them that I had the fucking right to print these pictures!

The manager apologized profusely but said Costco had been sued for printing wedding photos so any wedding photo that doesn't have the corner of somebodies thumb over the picture is assumed to be professional and copyrighted.

[krawhitham]

13. clone tool & photoshop

removes the copyright in the corner

[slampoet]

14. Only Walmart's Ignorance is permanent. Copyright needs to be enforced to last

Also it needs to be a registered copyright and it runs out after 70 years OR WHEN THE ENTITY WHO OWNS IT IS OUT OF BUSINESS.

I bet you not one of the photographers who took the photos or any of the schools live up to even one of these conditions.

[etherealtruth]

17. I thought it was 30 years .... ?

Are you sure its 70 .... I'm not sure where I even came up with the 30 , so I'm just curious.

[Ms. Toad]

25. It does not need to be registered.

Copyrights come into being when the work is first reduced to to a tangible form (something that is capable of being reproduced, essentially). No registration is required (although it must be registered in order to sue for infringement). No copyright notice is required.

You are correct about 70 years, but the 70 years starts with the author's death - and it doesn't cease when the entity who owns it goes out of business.

[slampoet]

26. You are confusing the 70 year copyright of songs with everything else.

[Ms. Toad]

28. No I'm not.

The 70 years after death applies to all copyright.

17 U.S.C. § 302. Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978

(a) In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death.

Emphasis #1: Work - not just music, but any work that is granted copyright protection.
Emphasis #2: Comes into being at the moment of creation - not the moment of registration. No registration is requried for copyright to exist.
Emphasis #3: Life of author + 70 years. There are some exceptions for joint authorship, or for when the author is not a human being (certain works are considered authored by a company if done by an employee in the course of business), but for a single human author, it is life + 70.

For works created before 1/1/78 the rules are quite a bit more complex - they are in the sections that follow the current rule if you feel like sorting out the particulars of any individual copyright.

Copyright is one of those things a lot of people talk off the top of their head about, and unfortunately are usually incorrect.

[Toucano]

15. Minimum wage earning cashiers are now copyright lawyers?

I had no idea this even existed.

[Bitwit1234]

18. Well you can get around that.

Even out here in Minnesota in the Iron Range the WalMart has a machine where you can make your own copies. So the best thing to do is just go there make them and pay for them. They can't stop you from printing them out.

[Trekologer]

19. Walmart (and other stores) are correct here

Photographs are copyrighted materials and the copyright holder is the person who took the picture, even if it is a picture of you. An origination of professional photographers sued Kodak over their Picture Maker machines a couple years back because the machines can be used to reproduce copyrighted photographs. Kodak lost and now most stores have adopted a strict policy on reproducing photographs. If the store produces a copy of a copyrighted material, they can be held liable for it.

[MidwestRick]

27. It sucks

but is true. They are only doing it for CYA.

[lunatica]

21. My artwork in California is copyrighted even when it was used commerically

It didn't stop anyone from stealing it to use again and again. It would be nice if it worked, but if you go after them they make sure you don't work anymore.