WWYD - Walgreen prints some of your photos

[Jake]

So you find out that a sister of one of your clients copied a photo off your blog and took it to Walgreens to get printed.
The print has your studio name printed right on the front and it's a crappy lo-res print.

Do you have an attorney contact Walgreens or do you have a chat with the manager first?

[JohnT]

First of all... The nerve of some people. Argh.

I'd have a talk with the manager and my client. Nicely but firmly. In fact I'd ask my client to have her sister give me a call--that we need to talk about this.

[Howard Barlow]

Jake,

Did you register your images with the US Copyright office? If not, there really isn't much you can do about it.

[venchka]

This is indicative of the folks working the Walgreens photo services. Clueless sums it up pretty well in my experience. What the other have said would be good too.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Howard Barlow

Jake,

Did you register your images with the US Copyright office? If not, there really isn't much you can do about it.

Really? He owns the image that the sister swiped. Seems there should be some recourse.

[CobyPhoto]

Originally Posted by Howard Barlow

Jake,

Did you register your images with the US Copyright office? If not, there really isn't much you can do about it.

Thought this is the only way to assure awarded damages in court, I think a nice little chat with the Walgreen's Manager and client's sister, would probably do the trick.

Walgreen's has been sued before and they aren't looking for that again.

Education of your clients is key to preventing this sort of thing. If you let it slide, it will definitely happen again.

I had a client come in with a Print from a professional studio, and wanted a copy made. He said Wal-Mart, Walgreens etc. refused to do it. ( - wonder why ) I knew the studio and that the negative was no longer on file, so I explained to him that he didn't have the right to copy it, without permission.

The ass chewing I got from him was quite severe... "I own this photo! I can do with it what I want and no one can tell me I can't! I paid for it! *&%^#%$@%^$^*% Photographers telling me I can't copy a photo I paid for!" Etc. Etc.

After patiently listening to him, explaining and showing him printed information on copyright laws, he got quite and realized he might not know the laws in this instance. Finally, he left...came back about 4 days later and wanted me to contact the studio and see if I could get permission to copy the photo! Seems his son is a lawyer...and explained to Dad that he DIDN'T have permission to just copy that photo!

The other side of this is the younger set...they just don't care. If you don't prevent them, they are going to do it. No respect. So don't let it slide. It took musicians a long time and alot of effort to get to the point that they are now. We have an example, so learn from it and stick to your guns.

CJ

[brad]

Originally Posted by Howard Barlow

Jake,

Did you register your images with the US Copyright office? If not, there really isn't much you can do about it.

Untrue. There is an implied copyright the moment you click the shutter. Now, its easier to battle in court if you've register.. but it is not required.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Howard Barlow

Jake,

Did you register your images with the US Copyright office? If not, there really isn't much you can do about it.

Registering your copyright can give you a stronger case, and it allows you to sue for punitive damages and legal fees. But even without registration you can still sue for copyright infringement to recover the lost usage fees that they should have paid you.

I think there's also a 30-day window for filing the copyright but I'm not sure if it starts with first publication or first infringement.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by brad

Untrue. There is an implied copyright the moment you click the shutter. Now, its easier to battle in court if you've register.. but it is not required.

It is not implied, it is implicit. Big difference in semantics.

[Jake]

Thanks for the replies everyone!

I think I will go have a chat with the manager before I get an attorney involved.

I was kind of surprised they(walgreens) actually printed it. The print had my name right on it

Side note: I'm going to start posting smaller version on my blog. The print looked "good enough" for most people.
The picture in question -
http://www.jakemckee.com/jakestirblo...102%20Blog.jpg

[Orogeny]

Just out of curiosity, how did you find this out?

Tim

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Orogeny

Just out of curiosity, how did you find this out?

Tim

I was talking to my client and she said something about her sister printing the photo from the blog. She said "I didn't even know you could do that" I said "you can't legally" and then asked where she had it printed at.
Later she told me which store it was and give me one of the picture her sister had printed.

[CaptainTom]

I'd take it up with the Walgreens manager. Depending on their response, I would then take the issue up with national office. Your clients sister also needs to be made aware that what she did was not morally or legally correct.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by thejakestir

I was talking to my client and she said something about her sister printing the photo from the blog. She said "I didn't even know you could do that" I said "you can't legally" and then asked where she had it printed at.
Later she told me which store it was and give me one of the picture her sister had printed.

Currently facing the probability that my son's $370 camera was stolen at school, this whole thievery thing is really going all over me about right now.

[brad]

Originally Posted by srwatters

It is not implied, it is implicit. Big difference in semantics.

You're right, of course... I just try to use gentler language, even when it sometimes isn't appropriate. LOL Scott is correct, the "implied" of my statement is implicit.