This is my first post on the photography forum, though I've been putting photos in the gallery for a while now. I saw this article and just had to share it SOMEWHERE. Interestingly enough, it is related to the Wal-Mart threads that I'm seeing here right now, though I think the article deserves it's own thread.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=528&e=1&u=/ap/20050617/ap_on_hi_te/photo_printing_frustration

Charlie Morgan says that if it weren't for digital photography, he wouldn't have a bustling business that specializes in publicity shots for musicians. That's because Morgan perhaps being a bit modest says he's not a very good photographer. He relies on Photoshop editing software to make his work look sharp.

But digital sometimes presents a puzzling problem.

When Morgan's mother and a client recently took CDs with some of his shots to a printing lab, the photo technicians spurned them. They said that since the shots seemed to have been taken by a professional, printing the pictures might be a copyright violation.

The situation is not unusual, and it's getting trickier in our digital age.

Copyright law requires photo labs to be on the lookout for portraits and other professional work that should not be duplicated without a photographer's permission. In the old days, questions about an image's provenance could be settled with a negative. If you had it, you probably had the right to reproduce it.

Now, when images are submitted on CDs or memory cards or over the Web, photofinishers often have to guess whether a picture was truly taken by the customer or whether it was scanned into a computer or pilfered off the Internet.

That leads to some awkward moments at photo desks when customers' images get barred for essentially looking too good.

Like others who have been told their work was unprintable, Morgan is frustrated that photo labs lack clear standards.

"They really don't have anything etched in stone," said Morgan, who lives in Plant City, Fla. "The person that works in the photography section of Wal-Mart could take a break, someone from the underwear department could take their place, and they could decide to print the picture."

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jacquie Young said her company's photo departments are instructed to err on the side of protecting copyrights, even if that means a conflict with an insistent customer. She would not say what signs of professionalism the photofinishers are told to look for.

In the printing labs for the Kodak EasyShare Gallery, the photo Web site formerly known as Ofoto, professionally taken pictures are placed on the walls to remind technicians of such images' telltale signs, such as school photos and stylish backdrops in posed pictures of children.

"The majority of them are easy to spot," said David Rich, vice president of marketing. "We're doing our job as a good corporate citizen to protect the rights of others, just like we want our brand and our copyright to be protected."

There's also a more tangible concern: Professional photographers have successfully sued photofinishers for allegedly being lax about enforcing copyrights.

Steve Noble, who oversees regulatory affairs at the Photo Marketers Association, believes the situation will remain hazy unless copyright laws that were written in a different technological era are altered to reflect the possibilities of digital dissemination. Or, he said, for practical purposes photographers should consider charging more up front for their work and then signing away future copyright.

"We've got a law written back in the 1970s and we're trying to apply 2005 conditions to it," Noble said. "When you've got an eight-megapixel camera out there, which is what used to be reserved for professionals, and it takes professional quality, how is the processor going to know?"

Sometimes, even approval from a professional photographer doesn't settle the issue.

Kacie Powell takes pictures for Centre College in Danville, Ky. Several times, her Centre co-workers have been turned away when they tried to get her images printed at Wal-Mart, where employees said the shots looked "too professional."

So Powell went in and signed an affidavit stating that she was the photographer and that it was OK for the pictures to be printed. She included portraits of the Centre employees who were authorized to print her pictures.

Still, when one of the co-workers tried to print candid photos from Centre's graduation this year, Wal-Mart said no. The woman had to return to Centre and get another letter from Powell before Wal-Mart would make the prints.

"Apparently, they need something new each time pictures are printed," Powell said.

Last fall, Bill Wolfson of Columbus, Ohio, went to Walgreen's to order Christmas cards with a photo that he had taken in his backyard with an eight-megapixel Canon and retouched with Photoshop. It's a striking image: an extreme closeup of two bright red berries on a green yew shrub tinged with soft sunlight.

Walgreen's phoned Wolfson with the "too professional" rejection. He responded that he was flattered but insisted that he was a "serious amateur" who took the shot himself.

He pointed out that he had signed the photo in the corner so it could be used on his Christmas cards.

The photo supervisor wouldn't budge. How did she know Wolfson was really the photographer and hadn't forged the name on the processing order?

Not until Wolfson went into the store with his driver's license was everything resolved. The pictures were printed, and "the supervisor, three employees and I all stood around the cash register admiring my handiwork," he said.

Despite the pleasant ending, Wolfson considers the episode silly. After all, anyone with photo-editing software easily could add his name to the bottom of someone else's photograph.

"It's a real problem," Wolfson said. "And I think it's going to even get worse."

thanks Darren for posting this!!... can see both sides...

Very interesting, I can see why it is a hot topic right now. They need to get a system in place that works more efficiently, like the whole waiver signing business.

That's what I think. The signing off on it should do the trick legally. So implement a file system to keep records of it or something. Sure it would be easy to have someone sign a piece of paper whether they own the pics or not, but then it shouldn't be the store's responsibility any more. That's how it is supposed to work, anyway. Hope something happens soon though. :)

would be like saying it was ok for you to post copyrighted pics here at RR... i mean we had you agree to a waiver so we're not held responsible... does it make it alright? no... it's a tough call & good of them to be looking out for the copyright owner... might see if JenyK, our copyright expert has anything to add...

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are careful and everything, it just makes it difficult when there is nothing I can do to convince these people the pics were mine. That and the fact that she was really rude. (I use another word for it though) I just don't want to have to argue every time (or pay more at a prof. place). I'm cheap! :)

I can see both sides of this. It would be very frustrating if it happen to me. I think somehow camera mfg. could help with this by writing to the EXIF data the camera se#. I know my camera does this. Then the photo finishers can have EXIF viewing software to view the SE# and you can have your camera with the SE#. Sure EXIF data can be changed, but it is some protection for the stores. Would be nice if this data could be embedded as write only. This of course would mean having your camera as proof, when you went to the photo-lab or having your SE# on file, so the photo lab could match them. I sure don't want to be in a pissing contest with a clerk with an agenda, so something is going to have to be done.

oh no i'm not :]... she was definately rude about it... every job i have had has been in customer relations... but i do know what you mean, i'm always on the defensive when i go to print too there

I was thinking the same about the EXIF as Randy - where the Serial Number of your camera is embedded in the image. Then I remembered that as I use RAW mode in my 20d, and I convert these RAWs to TIFs for editing in Photoshop...all the EXIF info is lost as TIFs dont store EXIF! You wouldnt therefore be able use a serial number in an image produced this way, and would likely have to supply a secondary conversion in JPG of the original RAW...which is bound to cause more confusion for the average sales person.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?&Form.ShowMessage=2303053

What if the cameras could embed an owners name or something or some personal watermark, and when you send them in for processing it can record your files and always print for you. An initial sign up and verification of your camera register number would probably be in order however.Would be no problem if you tend to always use the same outlet for printing. Soon we wil have to come to this as the digital age takes over.Now if you sell your camera or buy a used one you would have to be able to change this code.

I think this is that typically American fear of litigation. Wall-Mart wants to cover their own behind. And I think they are going too far. They are basically saying you're thieves, without any proof. Even with the film and negatives there's no proof you didn't steal them from somebody. Will they ask you to prove that? You should step up and make the cretins prove you're guilty of copyright infringement if they want to. After all, a court has to prove you're guilty of something and why not some barely literate clerk who doesn't know a difference between a camera and a blender? You shouldn't meekly allow them to force you into proving your innocence. AFAIK, there's something in the American law called class action. Could a group of photographers take class action against Wal-Mart for libel, slander, discrimination, whatever?

High quality printers are becoming so reasonable now days, everyone should just print their own and screw Walmart!!!

But why should you prove anything? Have we come to the point that we have constantly to prove we are not thieves and criminals?

Tell you the truth, I really cannot see this 'happening' happening in UK.

The thing with my pics is I did postwork in PS so this data doesn't show up. I'm going to shop around for "real" photo finishers, but I will go to WalMart again, just to try to get them to realize they are taking this a bit far and try to work out some sort of system (yeah right). But if I can get a good price somewhere else, I will do that. All I know is something needs to be done to protect copyright, but at the same time allow people to print photos that have been mainpulated (and ones that haven't) without all the rudeness and arguing. :) I want to print there again because I want to see if she has been "talked to" or not. ;) I'm shy, but I still like to disturb the people who deserve disturbing. ha ha!