1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Sam's Club Photo Rant

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by qbee42, Apr 8, 2009.

  1. qbee42

    qbee42 My other car is a boat

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    18,058
    3,073
    7
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Warning: this is a major rant. If you don't want to hear a rant, turn back now.

    My wife has decided to hang a bunch of new photos. It's one of those typical wife things, where she suddenly decided that she needed to hang wedding photos of the kids and rock climbing photos from some of our climbing trips. She took down existing artwork, bought a bunch of new frames, sorted through thousands of digital photos, and finally uploaded a scad of them to Sam's Club. She picked Sam's Club because they print the photos locally, and she could pick them up this week and get them up before this weekend, when the kids will be home. Getting them up this weekend was important to my wife. We try to support local businesses, so local printing is a plus. We do try to shop locally, but it's getting nearly impossible.


    We stopped at Sam's tonight to pick up the photos, which should have been a simple process. It wasn't. The woman at the photo counter was immediately confrontational. She wanted to know who took the photos. My wife innocently answered that she really didn't know: some were ours, some were from friends at the wedding, and some were from the wedding photographer. That was the wrong thing to say. As soon as the magic words “wedding photographer†were uttered, the photos were unavailable. Sam's Club is worried about copyright violations. Sam's Club would not release the photos without a copyright release from the photographer. I understand the legal aspects. I was a professional photographer, and I still do some professional work. In this case the whole thing is silly beyond belief. The photos contain no copyright mark, digital or otherwise. The photographer is a friend who did the shoot as a favor. None of this made any difference to the drones at Sam's Club.


    Here is where this episode took a surreal turn. My wife prepaid for the photos on-line with a credit card. By doing so Sam's gave her a few extra prints as a bonus. The woman behind the photo counter told us we couldn't have the wedding prints, nor could she refund our money. The local Sam's Club does not take Master Card, and my wife paid on-line with Master Card, therefore the local store could not refund our money. The photo drone suggested we might be able to get our money back by applying on-line. We said we didn't think so. I'm normally a very patient person, but this pushed me past my limit. Fortunately the store manager was more rational and agreed to refund our money. We left without any photos.


    I find this whole experience disheartening. I liked getting prints from the local Sam's Club, but now I am disinclined to ever patronize them again. I suspect I will simply order from one of the many Internet photo printers.


    My other disappointment comes from our crazy copyright laws. If the photos aren't marked, why should it be the photo printers job to guess which ones are copyrighted and which ones aren't. It's madness. How can they tell? My wife could simply have said her husband took the photos and all would have been peachy keen. Sam's Club needs to rethink their policy.


    Tom
     
  2. jayman

    jayman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    13,439
    639
    0
    Location:
    Winnipeg Manitoba
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Tom

    Um .... hmmmm ... wow? Perhaps holy s***? Maybe holy f***???

    Surreal to say the least.

    On my home network I have a HP Color Laserjet 3600N. When you fiddle with settings and use laser photo paper, it does *very* good prints. I have an older HP PSC-1610 (Non networked) that also does *very* good color photo prints

    So unless you need something really huge, why waste your time dealing with Sammy, or anybody else?

    Anyway, it's not like the photos were hot steamy ones. Right?

    Um, right???

    jay
     
  3. Rae Vynn

    Rae Vynn Artist In Residence

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    6,038
    707
    0
    Location:
    Tumwater, WA USA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    I agree. That sucks.
     
  4. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,191
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I'm sorry it was so frustrating, but no copyright mark is necessary. if you submit anything that looks professional they really have no choice but to refuse to give them to you. Now, the other part (refund, confrontational attitude, etc.) is unacceptable and should, indeed, have been handled better.

    B/C I do some studio work and my photos are fairly professional I actually have and keep a release on file at the local wal-mart where we usually get our christmas photos made.

    But anything that looks like a scan of a professional photo that they do print and get sued for will kill them financially. They've got disclaimers all over the place. A release from you friend is likely your best bet in the future if you choose to use them.
     
  5. jayman

    jayman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    13,439
    639
    0
    Location:
    Winnipeg Manitoba
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Geez, with crap like that I think I'll just keep buying toner cartridges for my CLJ 3600N
     
  6. qbee42

    qbee42 My other car is a boat

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    18,058
    3,073
    7
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    I understand the legal issues, but they are asinine at best. That's why the last part of my rant was directed at our dumb-a** legal system. Why should a photo printer have to guess at what is copyrighted. Even crappy photos belong to their photographer. There is simply no good metric to determine what is copyrighted and what is not. For the time being, all you have is the word of the person requesting the prints, so have them sign a form stating that they have the right to reproduce all of the photos in the job. If a person wants to lie about that, they can also produce a bogus release form. They could take a page out of your book and submit their own release form. The whole process creates inconvenience and adds no value. The burden for obeying the law should reside with the person submitting the material, not with the service provider.

    I also understand why the photo shop gets sued in the event of an infringement. It's because they have money, and you always go for the deep pockets. I would say more, but this is a subject that deserves its own rant.

    If you want to talk about overhauling the intellectual property laws, I'm all ears.

    Tom
     
  7. jayman

    jayman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    13,439
    639
    0
    Location:
    Winnipeg Manitoba
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    IP laws ... photography. When I renewed my Canadian passport last summer, I needed to submit official Passport Canada documents and the photographer actually had to sign them. Everything comes in a big manila envelope.

    Passport Canada: Canadians - Photos

    Hey Tom, that one guy looks vaguely like you. He was rejected too. Hmmmmm.

    My Nexus card, I took care of that at the airport in Winnipeg. Actually, took care of most of it online at the Global Online Enrollment System portal, then went to see the CBP guy at the airport

    NEXUS Enrollment Centers - CBP.gov

    where I was fingerprinted and retina-scanned. As I was waiting for the final processing, I casually mentioned to the CBP guy I had a security clearance and my prints were already on file at AEFIS.

    He looked up a bit of information, then said "Yep, you are, and looks like you're already approved."
     
  8. qbee42

    qbee42 My other car is a boat

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    18,058
    3,073
    7
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    I should know better than to get upset by stupid laws. It's like Don Quixote tilting with windmills, but the sheer lack of logic drives me insane. I value logic and internal consistency.

    I may have to try Jayman's program of heavy drinking.

    And to answer Jayman's comment, yes, that guy does look a bit like me. Perhaps I was attempting to get a Canadian passport.

    Your comment about having the photographer sign for the passport photos made me think about what would happen if you took them yourself? Would you sign your own form? I've done that sort of thing on many occasions, where I was both the producer and consumer of some official item. I had to do that when we documented our sailboat. The documentation process requires forms from the manufacturer and the buyer. We were both, so I filled out and signed all of the forms, essentially selling the boat to myself. It was a bit silly, but it least it was logical and consistent, unlike some laws...:mad:

    Tom
     
  9. fuzzy1

    fuzzy1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    17,021
    10,004
    90
    Location:
    Western Washington
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    We paid a somewhat higher initial fee to our photographer to get the raw film, giving us ownership and possession of the negatives. But I recall nothing about a copyright release. Does this mean that we will have a difficult time getting additional prints in the future?

    This one is easy. No product delivered, no payment. Dispute the charge through the credit card company, and if you are upheld, I think the merchant even has to pay a chargeback fee.

    It is fortunate for everyone that the manager was more rational.
     
  10. qbee42

    qbee42 My other car is a boat

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    18,058
    3,073
    7
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    You will need a written release if you deal with an outfit like Sam's Club.

    After we got to the store manager she agreed to refund our money on the spot, in cash.

    Tom
     
  11. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,185
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Not me. I like a good rant.

    I also have this problem. The first thing out of my mouth is usually the truth. Your wife must learn to resist this impulse in our new bizarro society.

    And of course the drones must enforce copyright law, after all, someone has to do it.




    Both copyright and patent laws are in need of major overhaul. I believe copyright should only be valid for the original creator; no ownership by corporations and copyright ends with the death of the creator. And I agree that Sam's Club should not be attempting to enforce copyright law. They can barely give correct change with the register telling them what the amount should be.
     
  12. koa

    koa Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    980
    45
    0
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Just make up your own release form and get your photos. Oh, and be sure to sign it Joe Kirkland.:D
     
  13. jayman

    jayman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    13,439
    639
    0
    Location:
    Winnipeg Manitoba
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    When I was younger and a LOT more driven, and temperamental (I know, I'm bad enough being middle aged), that drove me bonkers

    With age, wisdom, and a vaguely sinister disposition, I've come to realize that lack of logic is ... normal. It really is

    I've managed to cope with that by creating my own space, where I can retreat to (The hobby farm is one obvious example of that). No outside bulls*** is allowed, no cell phones, no CrackBerry, phone ringer remains off, etc.

    After awhile, you find yourself very much at ease, calm, serene, gently petting your cats, etc. I have no firm proof that a person will live longer, but it sure FEELS better to escape like that.

    I've also developed a fairly obvious "who gives a f***?" attitude towards illogical folks, zealot folks, meth-mouth hillbillies who cry about losing the home they got a $397,000 mortgage on, etc.

    All things considered, I am FAR happier and healthier than I was even 3 years ago. One side effect of all that stress, I constantly snacked (A sure sign the body is reacting to extreme stress) and ballooned in weight. Losing the blubber helped me a lot too

    That's the easy way, to be sure. Long term, well, who needs a liver anyway? I'm not even vaguely sure where mine is, or if I even have one

    Hmmmm that might explain the security lockdown, and the SWAT team, at the airport that day

    Well, if I read the Passport Canada rules correctly, if you are a professional licensed photographer, and you took your own photo for the passport, yes, then you could do that

    Seems anybody who had a photography business could do that. The background check is pretty basic, just looking for outstanding warrants and felonies

    The NEXUS card is a lot pickier, as it should be. The retina scan is interesting, but what catches a lot of folks by surprise is the fingerprint scan

    The fingerprints are automatically run through AEFIS. Some folks have been caught right there in the interview room, when a positive AEFIS hit came back.
     
  14. jayman

    jayman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    13,439
    639
    0
    Location:
    Winnipeg Manitoba
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Me too. I'm disappointed he didn't drop the F Bomb more often

    Oh boy, don't even get me STARTED. Here is how things really work now:

    Truth = very, very bad
    Pull it out your a** every chance you get = become CEO of a major company

    I think I already related that surreal experience I had at a local Timmies around a month ago. The meth-mouth behind the counter was totally bewildered when, after paying for what my dad and I wanted, I gave a $20 bill, and assorted change so I would ensure getting a $5 bill back

    The events became so surreal I'm surprised a space/time vortex didn't open up right there
     
    1 person likes this.
  15. dogfriend

    dogfriend Human - Animal Hybrid

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    7,512
    1,185
    0
    Location:
    Carmichael, CA
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    The following exchange actually occurred at a K-mart (K is for Krap) several years ago. I swear this is true, as best as I can remember the event:

    GF is buying merchandise that totals $20.25. GF asks the DC (drone cashier), "Do you accept travelers checks? I have some left over from a trip that I want to use."

    DC says yes.

    GF fills out a travelers check for $20. Hands travelers check and a quarter to DC.

    DC accepts the travelers check and quarter. Enters amount into register. GF is preoccupied with items in purse, and I am looking somewhere else as this occurs.

    DC says "You owe 25 cents"

    GF is puzzled and asks "Why do I owe 25 cents? Wasn't the amount $20.25?"

    DC now looks puzzled, looks at register, looks back at us. "You owe 25 cents".

    I am now intrigued. I ask "Wasn't the amount $20.25?"

    DC nods affirmative.

    "And didn't she give you a $20 check and a quarter?"

    DC looks puzzled but agrees that she accepted a travelers check and a quarter.

    "Is there an extra charge for using a travelers check?" I am now trying to reconsile the amount.

    DC still puzzled, says "No, there isn't any extra charge"

    GF and I in unison "Then why does (I) she owe 25 cents?"

    At this point, the people in line behind us are trying to give us a quarter - I wave them off - "We have the money, we're just trying to understand the transaction."

    GF asks again, "Why do I owe another 25 cents?

    DC says "Because the machine says so"

    We both look at DC - I am now speechless for a few seconds - Then I ask "Are you sure you entered the quarter in?"

    DC stares at the register for several more seconds, then apparently a light came on - she realizes that she forgot to enter the quarter in the "machine".

    We take our krap and we are on our way.
     
  16. Zythryn

    Zythryn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    6,146
    4,137
    1
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    Other Electric Vehicle
    Model:
    N/A
    I also agree that Sam's club shouldn't be in the position where they need to enforce CR laws.
    Unfortunately our society has turned into an overly suit happy society where suing a big company is like hitting the lottery. Businesses HAVE to be overly careful to try to keep those lawsuits to a minimum.
    The service you received was abhorent, the reasoning behind the CR rules are also awful, but necessary in the current environment.
     
  17. qbee42

    qbee42 My other car is a boat

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    18,058
    3,073
    7
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Agreed, and therein lies another problem. The poor woman behind the photo counter becomes the face of this stupidity. She didn't make the laws, she didn't make the legal decisions that allowed someone to successfully sue Sam's Club for copyright infringement, she didn't even make the policy that says Sam's Photo employees have to guess what might be a copyrighted photo, but she does take the heat for all of the above. And someone like me, who knows all of this, still beats her up because she is the only one I can get to. The real culprits in this charade are safely hidden away. That's why it's so frustrating to all involved.

    I have a general problem with laws that can't be enforced. Let's look at this specific case, where Sam's Club can be held liable for printing a copyrighted photo. We need to ask ourselves some questions:

    1) Can anyone tell by inspection that a photo is copyrighted? If the photo is marked you can tell, but lack of a mark is not proof that the photo is free and clear. In the case of digital photos, electronic markings can be removed by software. At the very least a hard copy photo can be scanned and retouched to remove markings. In the old days I used to shoot copy negatives to duplicate photos. It's easy to do.

    The short answer is that no one can tell if a photo is uncopyrighted.

    2) Should the photo finisher be liable for reproducing a copyrighted photo? If they can't tell that it is copyrighted, then no. Holding Sam's Club liable for reproducing a copyrighted photo is like holding Ford liable for selling a car to a bank robber. The Ford dealer should have known that the bank robber was going to use the vehicle as his getaway car. Does that make any sense? No, it's laughably ridiculous.

    3) Given the current laws, how can a photo finisher guarantee that they won't infringe on a copyright? They can't. Given that there is no way to prove that a photo is uncopyrighted, every print is a potential lawsuit. Case law shows that the word of the person requesting the service is not enough. Without that, there is no proof. How do I prove that a roll of film belongs to me, and that I took the photos. How do I prove that digital images came from me? I can't. Unless we incorporate biometric scanning and ironclad digital rights management into digital photography, this will always be impossible. It can't be done, so photo finishers should simply close shop. Obviously they don't want to do that, so instead they play this silly guessing game and try to avoid the biggest risks.

    4) Let's say we change the rules to protect the photo finishers. If you can't sue the photo finisher, how do photographers protect their work? You do it the same way as with any other intellectual property: you sue the infringer. In this case that is the person requesting the illegal prints. So what is the problem with that? Who wants to spend money on a lawsuit to collect $100 worth of lost revenue. It doesn't make economic sense. Perhaps that is for the best.

    Copyright should be used to protect against infringement causing significant damage. In the case of wedding photos it doesn't make sense to try and police every print. That is why many if not most wedding photographers now charge more up front and then simply release the photos outright. That should be the default for non-commercial use of contracted photos. If someone uses your photos commercially without your permission, then you should go after them.

    This brings up a related question. Let's say I am producing a program for the school play and I steal some copyrighted artwork from the Internet. When the local printer prints the programs, are they liable for this copyright infringement? If not, then why are photo finishers liable for reproducing a copyrighted photo. If the printer is liable, then how do I prove to him that all of the artwork is free and clear. There must be some way to indemnify the printer. This whole issue is a swamp.

    If laws are unenforceable, they should be modified or eliminated. The current copyright laws, as applied to photo finishers, certainly fall into this category.

    Tom
     
  18. Politburo

    Politburo Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    971
    208
    0
    Vehicle:
    2009 Prius
    I really don't mean this in a preachy way, since I go to BJ's myself, but trying to support local businesses by going to Sam's Club is an oxymoron, imo.
     
  19. qbee42

    qbee42 My other car is a boat

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    18,058
    3,073
    7
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    You can look at it that way, but there aren't any better options for photo finishing in our area. When I moved to this area, we had no chain stores and no fast food - not a single McDonald's or Burger King - but that has certainly changed over the years. Traverse City now looks like any other major city. The county where we live, on the other hand, has no McDonald's, no Burger King, and only one stop light. We do have a couple of flashing traffic lights, but only the one stop light on the edge of Traverse City. Our village has a population of 600, and is the largest village in the county.

    This is another rant. I was going to save it for another thread, but here goes:

    I have pretty much given up on local shopping anyway, with the exception of groceries. It used to be that you would buy things locally for convenience. Mail order was a slow process, and it was difficult to know exactly what you were ordering. Mail order was reserved for things that you couldn't find locally.

    This changed over the years where mail order became attractive for cost savings, but all the other limitations still applied. The Internet changed all that. Now mail order provides faster service, better options, improved customer service, and a better selection.

    Keep in mind that I don't live in a big city. If I lived in NYC this could be different, but where I live, this is a description of our typical "local" shopping trip:

    We get in the Prius and drive 30 miles to Traverse City (TC). The distance involved means that we don't do this on a whim, but instead group tasks together. Any trip to TC kills an entire evening or most of a Saturday or Sunday. There is no such thing as a quick trip to TC. Arriving at the first store in TC, we find that the item we want is out of stock, or they have one and we need two, or they have two, but one is broken. We go to the next store and repeat this process. About four stores into this frustrating process my wife says "Screw it, let's just order it online. I know I can get it there", and so that is what we do.

    Given that this shopping experience has played out over and over, we have reached the conclusion that it is better to just start online and forget the local stores. They don't have stock, they don't have expertise with their merchandise, and they are slowly going out of business. This is a death spiral, but one that I think is inevitable. The Internet provides better selections, better service, and no hassle shopping. I find it sad to say that I prefer it to local shopping.

    Tom
     
  20. jayman

    jayman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    13,439
    639
    0
    Location:
    Winnipeg Manitoba
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    That applies to political messes, financial messes, the "war on drugs" (HA!) messes, the meth-mouth hillbilly housing market implosion messes, etc etc etc

    No, simply ludicrous to even believe so.

    Only if the finisher is part of a large global corporation with annual revenues in the billions. No, really, that's how the ambulance chasing lawyers think

    Now you've done it. You've given the ambulance chasing dirtbag lawyers something to think about ....

    My advice to you: if the weather allows, sit on the deck. Mix up a good stiff drink. Down the hatch. Repeat. Pet the cat. Enjoy the day

    If the weather is nasty, have a roaring fire in the stove. Otherwise, the parts about the drink and cat apply