Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 8, 2005, 8:32 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
suze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,338
Default

[align=left]Thought this was in interesting news article . . . apparently some outlets such as Walmart are refusing to print customers "professional looking" photos for fear of infringing on copyright.

Digital photos can look great, but some labs won't print those that appear too professional
By Kathryn Balint
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 30, 2005
[/align]
[align=left]See article at this link
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20050530-9999-mz1b30snap.html

[/align]
suze is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 8, 2005, 10:35 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

Thanks for that informative post.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 12:46 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Is this a case where the rights of a few(pro shooters) outweigh the rights of the many (amatures getting results that are too good for themselves) ? :blah:

At least the people mentioned found other sources to get their output. Myself I outright refuse to deal with anything wallymart like.

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 3:17 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
beernutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 293
Default

Ironically you have likely violated the copyright of the online newspaper by posting the story in this forum. :-)
beernutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 3:55 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
suze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,338
Default

oops :sad:

You're right Beer - Have deleted the text then - will leave the link only as that should rectify that.
suze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 3:58 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

beernutz wrote:
Quote:
Ironically you have likely violated the copyright of the online newspaper by posting the story in this forum. :-)
probably not, since she did include the author, date, and original periodical in which it was published.

how can Wal-Mart, or any other photo lab, for that matter, refuse to release prints to a customer based on what some half-educated, minimum-wage clerk, who probably wouldn't know a truly good photo if she found one in her soup, "thinks" or "feels"?? i'm sorry, but what a clerk "feels" is not my concern, and what they "think" has no bearing on my right to make a purchase. the only justification for this policy would if the clerk or processor could produce a reasonable suspicion that the photo might not have been taken by the customer. the clerk's "feelings" do NOT constitute grounds for reasonable suspicion.

i noticed that these cases involved people who'd submitted photos online, uploading from their PC's to Wal-Mart's website. perhaps if those customers were dead set on paying insolent, presumptuous Wal-Mart clerks to process their photos, they could get off their butts and take the electronic media to the store in person- that mightsolve the problem...

personally, i refuse to buy from Wal-Mart anyway, simply because 90% of what they sell comes from China, and 3/4 of the dollars we spend there wind up funding China's military build-up and supporting the communist regime, but this gives me one more reason never to set foot in a Wal-Mart store again.


squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 4:19 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2
Default

How's this for irony? Imagine buyine a camera at walmart and take your disk in and have them refuse to print it. Now I'm usually pretty mild mannered but this might just be enough to push me over the edge. I would not only demand money back for the camera, but also compensation for all the time I had invested.
username99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 4:52 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
beernutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 293
Default

squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
beernutz wrote:
Quote:
Ironically you have likely violated the copyright of the online newspaper by posting the story in this forum. :-)
probably not, since she did include the author, date, and original periodical in which it was published.

snip
Actually probably so, since the right to distribute the copywritten work lies solely with the copyright holder.
beernutz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 6:21 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
mlhm5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 121
Default

The only reason to go to Wal-Mart is if you don't have a Target close by. You wonder if anyone in the whole of Wal-Mart knows what the word clean means.
mlhm5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2005, 7:16 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

beernutz wrote:
Quote:
squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
beernutz wrote:
Quote:
Ironically you have likely violated the copyright of the online newspaper by posting the story in this forum. :-)
probably not, since she did include the author, date, and original periodical in which it was published.

snip
Actually probably so, since the right to distribute the copywritten work lies solely with the copyright holder.
ah, but isn't a news article in a published periodical considered to be in the public domain, and therefor open for distribution as long as the author is credited with the work?
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:00 AM.