«

"Samuel" <> wrote in message
news:MZIbc.67625$K91.156726@attbi_s02...
> How do I print a photo that cannot be copied with the machines at WalMart
> like the Professional prints from photographer? Does the software detect
a
> watermark on image or is there a something on the back of the paper?
> TIA
> Samuel

Oops, just caught the problem.

From what I understand, Walmart visually checks the copies to make sure they
aren't the type they watch out for. Atleast they did that acouple months
ago. What I find odd, is that if a genuine copyright issue came up,
technically "they" didn't copy anything. Finding them accountable, from a
legal standpoint, is like suing the manufacturer of the knife you used in a
robbery. It's pointless.

I believe that if they need to go and interfere like this, then they need to
inform you on the commercial when they show you how "easy" and "convenient"
it is to copy all your photos at a nearby Walmart store. My sister and her
boyfriend wasted alot of gas driving to 2 separate Walmarts, when the photos
they were trying to copy were taken by her boyfriend. Both times, the
employees refused to allow it. If it's so commonplace for them to stop your
copying, then they shouldn't show it on the TV. It's what they call false
advertising, and that can be argued in court, unlike their phantom
"accessory" to copyright violation BS.

But, that said, on to the copying issue.

Whatever "software" Walmart might use, is Walmart's software. Copying these
things on your home copier should be without any problems.

In article <jaicc.422308$> ,
"Chris" <> wrote:

> "Samuel" <> wrote in message
> news:MZIbc.67625$K91.156726@attbi_s02...
> > How do I print a photo that cannot be copied with the machines at WalMart
> > like the Professional prints from photographer? Does the software detect
> a
> > watermark on image or is there a something on the back of the paper?
> > TIA
> > Samuel
>
> Oops, just caught the problem.
>
> From what I understand, Walmart visually checks the copies to make sure they
> aren't the type they watch out for. Atleast they did that acouple months
> ago. What I find odd, is that if a genuine copyright issue came up,
> technically "they" didn't copy anything. Finding them accountable, from a
> legal standpoint, is like suing the manufacturer of the knife you used in a
> robbery. It's pointless.
>
> I believe that if they need to go and interfere like this, then they need to
> inform you on the commercial when they show you how "easy" and "convenient"
> it is to copy all your photos at a nearby Walmart store. My sister and her
> boyfriend wasted alot of gas driving to 2 separate Walmarts, when the photos
> they were trying to copy were taken by her boyfriend. Both times, the
> employees refused to allow it. If it's so commonplace for them to stop your
> copying, then they shouldn't show it on the TV. It's what they call false
> advertising, and that can be argued in court, unlike their phantom
> "accessory" to copyright violation BS.
>
> But, that said, on to the copying issue.
>
> Whatever "software" Walmart might use, is Walmart's software. Copying these
> things on your home copier should be without any problems.

Why is Walmart and other stores, as well as labs, so careful?
PPofA has successfully sued, and won large amounts, from stores and labs
that have copied work that was performed by professional studios.
They also send out people to try and get images copied in violation of
photographer's copyrights.

The PPofA web site does have a small warning about copyrights and
copying.

"The Copyright Act protects photographers by giving the author of a
photograph the exclusive right to reproduce the photograph. This
includes the right to control the making of copies.

It is illegal to copy or reproduce these photographs elsewhere without
the authors permission, and violators of this will be subject to its
civil and criminal penalties."

I am sure that PPofA would be happy to go into further detail about what
the law states and their efforts to protect their member's work if you
contact them. The same would hold true with commercial groups like ASMP.

And if you ask Walmart and others you will find that the overriding
reason for their compliance is the don't want to be sued - they do have
rather deep pockets) and they don't know if you are testing their
response for a group like PPofA or not.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

A little more regarding what is on the PPofA web site regarding
Copyright protection:

"
PPA Protects Your Copyrights

Scanners. Photo Quality Printers. Copy Stations. Copying a
professionally created image has never been easier. That's why
Professional Photographers of America works tirelessly to protect your
copyrights - through education; advocacy; and when necessary, through
litigation.

Copyright is a property right. Under the Federal Copyright Act of 1976
(effective January 1, 1978 and amended when the USA joined the Berne
Convention in 1989), photographs are protected by copyright from the
moment of creation. Assisting members; educating the public; and acting
to protect the rights of photographers in the industry, government and
legal forums are top priorities for PPA.

PPA's advocacy efforts include working closely with the U.S. Copyright
Registration Office and Congress to support photographers' rights.

PPA has always worked behind the scenes to ensure your interests are
protected. In 1995, PPA led the movement to establish Industry Standards
for Copyright Protection, working with associations representing photo
finishers, labs and industry suppliers.

In the Federal Courts, PPA has acted, in selected cases, to establish
precedents and to uphold photographer's rights to the public and the
industry. These include precedent setting cases against Eckerd Drugs of
Texas and Linn Photo. In the media, PPA educates consumers and
journalists about the rights of photographers.

At a member's request, PPA will contact companies, stores and
individuals with a PPA Copyright Warning Letter. This letter informs
them of the law and addresses specific copyright infringements."

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <bob_salomon-> on Mon, 05
Apr 2004 15:49:04 -0400, Bob Salomon <> wrote:

> In the Federal Courts, PPA has acted, in selected cases, to establish
>precedents and to uphold photographer's rights to the public and the
>industry. These include precedent setting cases against Eckerd Drugs of
>Texas and Linn Photo. ...

I couldn't find any reference to an Eckerd Drugs of Texas precedent. The
second case is presumably Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo Co. That case turned
on copyright notices stamped on the prints. I know of no precedent that would
inhibit the copying or prints that lack such notices, particularly where the
consumer has signed a statement of ownership.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]

"John Navas" <> wrote in message
news:wxjcc.3954$...
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <bob_salomon-> on Mon,
05
> Apr 2004 15:49:04 -0400, Bob Salomon <> wrote:
>
> > In the Federal Courts, PPA has acted, in selected cases, to establish
> >precedents and to uphold photographer's rights to the public and the
> >industry. These include precedent setting cases against Eckerd Drugs of
> >Texas and Linn Photo. ...
>
> I couldn't find any reference to an Eckerd Drugs of Texas precedent. The
> second case is presumably Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo Co. That case
turned
> on copyright notices stamped on the prints. I know of no precedent that
would
> inhibit the copying or prints that lack such notices, particularly where
the
> consumer has signed a statement of ownership.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas
> [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
> <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]

Lets settle this once and for all.
Deut. 27:15; Ps. 97:7 "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"

Book of Samual

"Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> "Dan J. S." wrote:
> >
> > "Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> > >
> > >
> > > Samuel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > How do I print a photo that cannot be copied with the machines at
> > WalMart
> > > > like the Professional prints from photographer? Does the software
> > detect a
> > > > watermark on image or is there a something on the back of the paper?
> > > > TIA
> > >
> > > Do you understand that by copying a photographer's photos without his
> > > permission you are stealing from him?
> > >
> > > You could always buy "copies" from the original photographer, yes?
> > >
> > > Lisa
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > Is English your first language? Read the original post twice next time!
>
> I'm sorry if I've offended your perfection. The original post was not
> completely clear, and the subject is a sensitive one to anyone who makes
> a living selling photography.
>
> Lisa

It's not about perfection. It's about reaching a conclusion too quickly,
which is the slippery slope of our current society.