Flutterby™! : too professional

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

too professional

2005-06-17 21:44:04.518575+00 by Dan Lyke 5 comments

/. pointed to an article that says that Wal*Mart is refusing to print digital images that look "too professional" because they're afraid of being an accessory to copyright violation. This SignOnSanDiego article has an example of two images by the same photographer, one that got stopped, one that didn't.

And, from the comments, Dry Creek Photo apparently has color profiles of at least the printers that Costco uses.

Hmmm... Just after I've decided that I'm not going to buy another printer. Period.

[ related topics: Photography moron Current Events Copyright/Trademark ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2005-06-19 17:28:56.568486+00 by: ebradway

Photographers used to take photos and then charge clients for copies of the images, he said. Now, more and more professional photographers are charging for their time spent taking the photos.

Even the photographers seem to be "getting it". This is contrary to the MPAA and RIAA. I've always had issue with the marketting model used by professional photogs and was really surprised that they really wanted to push the hard-sell of photo packages rather than just charge for their time.

For an option, the CVS in Riverview (where topspin works) now prints digital photos straight out of the machine for the user. I guess larger images are done on the big machine but 4x6s are never even seen by employees. Another option is to get familiar with the guys at local photoshop. I would suspect that CVS's equipment is at least as good as Wal*Mart's. And I suspect it's just a metter of time before the local EV6 shop has a digital interface.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-06-19 18:44:04.408113+00 by: baylink

Pro photographers did that because it was the only way to get paid what they were worth: people would pay for the tangibles, but not for the time.

If that's changing, more power to us.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-06-20 14:19:25.627378+00 by: petronius

Maybe WalMart wouldn't print the picture because the kid was so ugly....

I can see a number of strategies and implications of this imbroglio. If somebody is copywronging, the aggrieved party might decide to sue big-pockets Walmart instead of the penniless guy trying to get copies, so WM has a vested interest in reducing lawsuits. Issuing dire yet vague warnings to their lowly clerks isn't really meant to stop copywronging; its to lay out a history of "dealing strongly with the problem" for a better defense when the inevitable lawsuit occurs.

#Comment Re: made: 2005-06-21 17:57:10.86765+00 by: Jerry Kindall

I've always been shocked that if you hire a photographer to take photos of, say, your wedding, it's not considered a work for hire. The photographer gets paid for the gig and the prints AND keeps the copyright -- what a scam!

#Comment Re: made: 2005-06-21 22:58:45.605447+00 by: meuon [edit history]

A new breed of photographers is doing this as 'Work for hire'.. The fee's are about the same as what you'd pay for a good photographer to work a wedding. ie: $1-3k+ and you get all the originals, etc.. They'll sell you a print package and album as well, on top of their fees.

I saw one such job done by a friend of mine, she paid a newspaper reporter-ish photog, and was actually mad at one point because she was not seeing him. When she saw the photo collection, with some AWESOME and unique shots, she found out that he'd been there, in the bushes, tree's and other places with some very high end telephoto lenses and camera's. He had pictures of things that she had thought no-one could have capturred. Her and my favorite is one of her and her mother, walking in the garden "alone", with tears and smiles.. he also did some artistic black and whites.. It was an unconventional, artistic and unique set of pics, just like the couple.