We went to Walmart the other day to copy some photos of me whan I was a
kid and of my kids when they were young. The pictures were taken in
late 30s - early 40s and late 50s - early 60s.

Walmart tokd me they couldn't copy some because they were taken by
professional photographers and doing so would violate copyright laws.
I was irritated enough to go home and read up on copyright law.

I think they make this stuff deliberately obscure to give the lawyers
gainful employment.

First, none of the photos had a stamp or any other identifying mark on
them, so they were not copyrighted acoording to the law at the time they
were taken. And of course that made it impossible to locate the
photographers (some of whom are probably dead by now) to get copy
permission even if they had been copyrighted.

Secondly there seemed to be a gray area called "works for hire" which
might, or might not, imply that I owned the copyright on my kids pics,
and by inheritasnce from my parents on my pics.

Finally, the basic import of the law seemed to be to protect the
"commercial value" of any copyrighted work. Much as I'd like to think
otherwise in my case, old pictures of ordinary children have no
commercial value, only sentimental value to the immediate family.

If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

Note that I would not think of using a photo from a published and
copyrighted work in something I did. At least not without getting
permission. Protecting commercial work is a good thing.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

lgb wrote:
If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

I doubt that Wal-Mart's lawyers had anything to do with it. It was probably
just some low-level employee excercising some (lack of) knowledge, or
(mis-)applying some policy on something that they thought was similar to
what you were asking.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.

Two solutions come to mind:

1. Go to another store.
2. Get a scanner, scan the pictures, and get the digital picture files
printed.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

I'm surprised that such a disclaimer isn't already part of the fine print on
the order form or claim check -- which is another reason why some low-level
yahoo behind the counter shouldn't even have to care about what pictures
you're trying to copy.

It really doesn't matter who's right, or what the law actually says. I don't
think you have a copyright issue, or any kind of legal issue at all. I think
you've got someone with power and control issues down at your local
Wal-Mart. And the easiest way to win isn't to go at them head-on. It's to
just go around them, and cut them out of the picture (pardon the pun).

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Have an outdoor project? Get a Black & Decker power tool::
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker/

"Warren" wrote in
:

lgb wrote:
If Walmart's lawyers are correctly interpreting the latest finagling
with the copyright laws, the laws need to be changed. I'll write my
senator and representative and send a copy to Walmart's headquarters,
but I doubt it'll do any good.

I doubt that Wal-Mart's lawyers had anything to do with it. It was
probably just some low-level employee excercising some (lack of)
knowledge, or (mis-)applying some policy on something that they
thought was similar to what you were asking.

Actually it's a corporate policy and not only Wal-mart. Employees are told
there are certain characteristics that distinguish professional and amateur
photography. If your photo looks too professional, the finisher/clerk
could choose not to duplicate/release it. It gets more press these days
because of digital photography. I'm guessing presenting a digital copy for
duplication won't make a lot of difference.

I'd be interested in hearing if others ran into this problem and how
they solved it.

Two solutions come to mind:

1. Go to another store.
2. Get a scanner, scan the pictures, and get the digital picture
files
printed.

I got my copies by signing a form saying I claimed the rights and
holding Walmart blameless if anyone sued us. I think I'm safe :-).

I'm surprised that such a disclaimer isn't already part of the fine
print on the order form or claim check -- which is another reason why
some low-level yahoo behind the counter shouldn't even have to care
about what pictures you're trying to copy.

It really doesn't matter who's right, or what the law actually says. I
don't think you have a copyright issue, or any kind of legal issue at
all. I think you've got someone with power and control issues down at
your local Wal-Mart. And the easiest way to win isn't to go at them
head-on. It's to just go around them, and cut them out of the picture
(pardon the pun).