CharlesA Loc: New Jersey

"But I would seriously consider slashing all four of your tires and announcing right here on this forum that you are a low-life thief deserving of a life-long case of genital herpes."..............................Cliff

No he isn't. He spouts that crap then says "I was only joking." He can ram his sense of humor where the gastro-enterologist works for all I care.

Charles

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Really - that is so over the top I cannot see how any intelligent person cannot see it as a joke.

CharlesA Loc: New Jersey

Right, Cliff. You've got more intelligence than anyone else here. Keep up the condescension, fits you to a tee. Wishing genital herpes on an anonymous stranger is pretty much like wishing AIDS on someone. So we know where you come from. As for me, I wouldn't wish those 2 things on anybody, even you. Even as a "joke".

How about I say I wish you were struck with MS or cancer? Oh, wait a minute, that was just an over the top joke. What's the matter? Can't take a joke? You must be thin-skinned, right! Pompous @ss.

I think I'll grab all of your "student" shots and make my own gallery on pbase and then come there and slash all 4 of your tires. What's the matter, can't take an "obvious" over-the-top joke? I'll post the link when I complete it. Give me your lawyer's email so I can send it to him, too.

Cliff, your brain has gotten twisted - you come here and pompously proclaim it's perfectly fine to talk in hyperbole, as long as it's you doing the talking. Then when you get called out for saying something disgusting, it's like "Can't you tell when I'm joking?" You're not a class-act in my book, you're a run-of-the-mill hypocrite.

medavis43 Loc: Folkston, GA

When my granddaughter has photos made of her sons and gets the CD, the photographer gives her a release for prints for each copy of CD that she gets. Walmart accepts those with no problem. If I took a personal photo in and they gave me trouble, I would write a release right there in their store for them to print for me and sign it.

kiddrich

Will one of you experts please show me information on any lawsuit involving Walmart having to do with copyright infringement.....and/or photo processing....

kiddrich

Also a signed release to show a Walmart employee is nonsense...releases are all over the internet....seeing a signature is meaningless....grandpa could have signed it...where is the intelligence here???

medavis43 Loc: Folkston, GA

Who said anything about intelligence?!! We're talking Walmart but Walgreens and other places won't let you scan and print pictures that are marked by studios - read Olin Mills. Nowadays, everbody and his brother (or sister) is a photographer and charging for pictures that are not so wonderful so it's meaningless for some of the releases.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

wall mart is a lot cheeper than doing it your self . you get them the way you want in your program photo shop etc. then take them wall mart on a disk ,
USB jump drive . there way cheeper . buying your own ink $75, $100 or more
and it's gone in no time . and a decent printer for photos is $1000 or more yea I know you can get them a lot cheeper . then your buying one every six months . they will give you one . they make it up selling you ink that cost them $2 to make and sell it to you for $75, $85, $100 or more I have saved
a lot by farming out

treadwl Loc: South Florida

I agree with Captain C. I have done charity work and have just given them a CD with the files. they could not get them printed until I wrote a letter releasing the right to print. Now I just give them the letter when ever I do charity work. It just saves time. Actually, I', glad to see the various print shops are that careful.

taylorzacre Loc: Cypress, TX

I had the same problem, at both Wal-mart and Costco. Both of my younger children, in their teens, needed head shots for college entrance auditions for the drama programs. The kids needed around 25 8x10 B and W matte prints to include in their applications and it was cheaper to have a third party do the printing. I was also told that my pictures were too good not to be professional and that we would need to letter of release from the pro who took the pictures in order to have them printed. I finally took the SDHD card to Wolfe Camera, before they went out of business, and had the prints made there. I no longer have any printing done at either Wal-mart or Costco, and, even though it's more expensive, I now print my own.

Ray32506 Loc: Pensacola, FL

Funny, the same thing happened to me. I felt good that they considered my photos too good not to have been done professionally, but was annoyed at the same time. Finally, the manager decided to believe me and let me have my prints. Wal-Mart has obviously had a problem with people having prints made of someone else's photos.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I believe your second paragraph is a reference to the "Fair Use Doctrine" which you will fine quite limited in scope and very difficult to apply in the case of a photograph. Although there are exceptions to a copyright, it is the responsibility of the person allegedly violating the copyright to convince a court that such a violation is allowable under the Doctrine of Fair Rights. There are many other exceptions, but the copying of a copyrighted photograph to avoid having to locate and gain the permission of the copyright owner is NOT one of these exceptions.

That having been said, a service such as Walmart or Costco has the obligation to make a "good faith effort" to avoid being a party to copyright infringement, and fulfills that obligation be merely asking if the customer owns the copyright or has written permission from the copyright owner to make a copy. They can refuse to make copies, but have no right to confiscate or otherwise refuse to return the original. If I go to Costco with a legal print of Moonrise (by Ansel Adams), and they agree to make the copies, but later change their minds, they must destroy the copies, but they cannot refuse to return my original nor can they make me pay for the copies they destroy. And do not forget that I have solicited complicity in what may be proven to be a felony. On the other hand, if they accept one of my photos - and my declaration that I am the copyright owner - they can still refuse to make or sell me the copies. A business DOES have the right to refuse service to anyone IF said refusal does not violate any laws.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Ok this got me intrigued, especially the mention of felonies being committed in breach of copyright.

Applicable law for me is the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. in Ireland.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/print.html

140.—(1) A person who, without the consent of the copyright Offences. owner—


(a) makes for sale, rental or loan,


(b) sells, rents or lends, or offers or exposes for sale, rental or loan,


(c) imports into the State, otherwise than for his or her private and domestic use,


(d) in the course of a business, trade or profession, has in his or her possession, custody or control, or makes available to the public, or


(e) otherwise than in the course of a business, trade or profession, makes available to the public to such an extent as to prejudice the interests of the owner of the copyright,


a copy of a work which is, and which he or she knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work, shall be guilty of an offence.

note c) specifically excludes "otherwise than for his or her private and domestic use,"

I read that as it being legal for me to have an unlicensed copy of a photograph hanging up in my home. However if I was to sell it or publically exhibit it, then I would be liable.

In the case I was to falsely claim copyright then I could be fined €100,000 and sentenced to a maximum of 5 years in prison. (thats in another section)

Anyway thats no herpes for me :) under Irish Law and will probably be the case within the EU in general as thats what was drafted to comply with EU law here in Ireland.

There is also specific mention of 2d representations of a 3d work or photographing stuff (in the 2000 act). In laymans terms that is legal however making a model of a copyrighted 3d work isn't. So if you want to produce postcards of a place that is fine just don't make models.

So there is generally a right to photograph in Ireland.

Obviously the law differs in different jurisdictions

e.g http://visualartists.ie/the-manual-a-survival-guide-for-visual-artists/protecting-yourself/copyright-and-the-visual-artist/

Mere copying is not always easy to assess in the context of an artistic work. In the Bridgeman Art Library case, in 1998, a US court decided that photographs of paintings were not original, as they were mere copies of the paintings (3). This case has not been followed in the UK, where it is generally believed that photography of painting is a skilled task and meets the requirements of originality, even though the purpose of the photographer is to produce a faithful copy.

The laws a complicated beast isn't it.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Oh, it certainly is - even within one country. For example, I live in California. It our state, if you infringe on a copyright and a civil court rules that actual damages (not punitive damages, legal fees or court costs) total 01¢ to $1000 (up to $2350 depending on charges and specifications)you may then be charged with fraud, petty theft or related crimes, which may be misdemeanors. However, if the amount exceeds the maximum limits (above), you can be charged with a felony. In a case many years ago in Southern California, a young man who had recently been dumped by his girlfriend, entered her house and, finding mo other mischief to cause, set about ripping up every picture of her he could find. Everything was OK until he ripped up a family portrait for which the late father had paid a famous photographer more than $600 to create (this was under the old laws). At that time, the limit was $500 and, inasmuch as the father had been a federally elected official, the court gave him the maximum sentence for Grand Theft, 25 years to Life. Of course, the public outcry resulted in the Appellate Court reducing the sentence to a year in jail, including time served, and the man was out in a few months. The reason for the year instead of 30-90 days? The Appellate Court would have to re-try the man if the crime for which he was convicted had been reduced to a misdemeanor. Some of those laws have been changed, but our Federal laws sometimes appear to be burned into stone tablets. Oh, yes, a complicated beast indeed!

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

Who are you to judge on the Wal-Mart workers? :thumbdown: