Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/19/2005 7:22:37 AM EDT
Gal comes into work today and said her next door neighbor lost her sister who lived in Georgia. The deceaseds daughter takes some family pictures into local Wal Mart to have duped for relatives. Photo lab persons says, "I can't copy these, they were done in a photo studio and are copyrighted."

Employee then SHREDS the pictures! Many were from studios long out of business- no way to go back and get the negatives. Gotta love a Photo Nazi.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:24:22 AM EDT
Call the police - that is destruction of property.

They had absolutely no right or reason to do that. Simply refusing to copy is one thing, but destroying originals is a crime.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:24:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 7:25:19 AM EDT by DzlBenz]
Story is complete and total BS.

There's no love lost between me and Wal*Mart, but I doubt that a Wal*Mart employee would destroy private property in such an instance.


ETA: Stranger's neighbor's sister's daughter seals it.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:25:33 AM EDT
lawsuit,
i had taken pic the where copyrighted and they said sorry can't do.then returned them to me.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:26:06 AM EDT
The originals?????

If it was her originals, the employee destroyed her irreplaceable personal property. I'd advise a consultation with legal counsel in that case.

If it was the copies, technically, the way I understand copyrights, the guy was legally correct.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:26:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Story is complete and total BS.

There's no love lost between me and Wal*Mart, but I doubt that a Wal*Mart employee would destroy private property in such an instance.


ETA: Stranger's neighbor's sister's daughter seals it.


+1 Shredding the copies I'd believe. But shredding the originals is stupid.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:27:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 7:28:42 AM EDT by NewbHunter]
WTF!?!

I smell BS...
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:29:28 AM EDT


Sorry, this one doesn't pass the stink test.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:30:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 7:33:13 AM EDT by callgood]

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Story is complete and total BS.

There's no love lost between me and Wal*Mart, but I doubt that a Wal*Mart employee would destroy private property in such an instance.


ETA: Stranger's neighbor's sister's daughter seals it.



Yeah, there are a lot of links in this chain. My employee is reliable, but I can't vouch for the rest. I'll try and update if anything comes of it.

ETA: as told to me they were the originals, with "Bubbas Photo" stamped on the front lower corner.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:30:51 AM EDT
The Wall-Mart employee should not have destroyed the pictures whether they were legit copies or not, it is not the place of Wall-Mart employees to determine if they were illegal or not.

I usually take my pics to a mom & pop store, where they don't observe the copyright rules as closely as the big box stores.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:40:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 7:40:45 AM EDT by Mantis_51]



Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:42:45 AM EDT
Go to Wal-Greens and do it yourself.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:44:40 AM EDT
I totally distrust all anti-Walmart information. The unions and liberals are out to destroy Wal-Mart and we know both lie all the time.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:48:02 AM EDT


Too illogical to be true, but then again, it is Wal Mart. Did they drawn down on the receipt checker?

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:49:49 AM EDT
Destroying the originals does sound like BS. However, many photo labs do refuse to print anything that might be copyrighted by someone other than the customer. I used to hang out on a photography web forum and there were some folks that had problems printing pictures THEY took, because the lab tech thought the picture was too good.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 7:52:14 AM EDT
I gotta call bs, I have heard this one before.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 8:00:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 8:09:07 AM EDT by DK-Prof]
Total BS


Perhaps this story was originally about a person who had copies made, and when the employee realized it was copyrighted material, they shredded the copies. But, to make the story more interesting (or an angry customer wanting more sympathy) the story got changed to the originals being shredded.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 4:11:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Total BS


Perhaps this story was originally about a person who had copies made, and when the employee realized it was copyrighted material, they shredded the copies. But, to make the story more interesting (or an angry customer wanting more sympathy) the story got changed to the originals being shredded.




Or perhaps, they intended to destroy only the copies but either got mixed up or inadvertantly detroyed the originals too, just out of a simple mistake.

Merlin
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 4:22:55 PM EDT
from another site:

What convinced the nation's photofinishers to become vigilante copyright cops? A 1999 lawsuit by the Professional Photographers of America against Kmart Corp. The PPA claimed that Kmart was violating federal copyright law by copying images without the permission of copyright owners. In 2000, Kmart settled the case for $100,000 and agreed to institute policies to prevent unauthorized copying of photographs.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 4:58:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By david_g17:
from another site:

What convinced the nation's photofinishers to become vigilante copyright cops? A 1999 lawsuit by the Professional Photographers of America against Kmart Corp. The PPA claimed that Kmart was violating federal copyright law by copying images without the permission of copyright owners. In 2000, Kmart settled the case for $100,000 and agreed to institute policies to prevent unauthorized copying of photographs.



The answer: lawyers
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 4:58:58 PM EDT
Whats this have to do with ArfCom or the buyout?
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 5:01:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NonConformist:
Whats this have to do with ArfCom or the buyout?



I was wondering the same thing...
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 5:01:28 PM EDT
I used to work in a photo lab. Sue the fuck out of them, legally they cant reproduce but theyu CANT destroy them
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 6:27:19 PM EDT
The people that work at every Walmart I've ever been to are complete mental retards.
Therefore I believe this story. There's a reason Walmart employees get paid $7/hour with no benefits.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 6:45:19 PM EDT
Shredding originals is illegal, sue those commie loving bastards to high hell.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 6:49:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Engineer:


Sorry, this one doesn't pass the stink test.



no joke walmart doesnt shred photos for nay reason
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 6:50:42 PM EDT
More anti-Wal Mart BS

v
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:27:34 PM EDT
Its probably not store policy, but I wouldnt be suprised if some working the photocounter did tear up some pictures.

I work at walgreens and one day we had some new guy up at the front register, and a customer tried to pay with a check, but for whatever reason it didnt clear so the guy told the customer "We dont take hot checks," and then he tore the check up and gave it to the customer. Yep, he got fired. It wouldnt surprise me that some stupid person did something stupid.

Anyways I work in photo, and while policy is that we dont do copyrighted stuff, I just look the otherway pretty much all the time.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:45:28 PM EDT
I dont think they are smart enough to shred pictures.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:53:53 PM EDT
Walmart developed all my "awesome" pics from mardi gras in new orleans one year without problems. The next year, when i was walking around waiting for my 1 hour photos to develop of mardi gras, i saw all the ladies standing around the picture machine making faces and whispering to each other. Then they saw me watching them and they resumed normal ops. when i went to pick up the pictures, there was like 1 photo out of each roll developed, and a little slip that said basically they couldnt develop the pictures. i dont think this correlates to your story too much but lets just say i dont go to walmart for picture developing anymore. Walgreens, on the other hand, had no problem printing my pictures, even after i explained to the girl exactly what was on them and that walmart wouldnt develop them.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:55:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:59:19 PM EDT by justthefacts]
I for one know that photo developers can not make copies of copyrighted material IE photos done by a studio.

The story is complete BS.

he
2nd they would hand them back after explaining the problem.

3rd they have no right or need to destroy someones property like that.. what would be the reason what would it achieve?

If you can't make a better troll post than this you should give up.he
retrainthechimp some stores can refuse to develope picture that show nudity.. it is just up to the one that developes them at that time... I NEVER said no
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 12:06:10 AM EDT


retrainthechimp some stores can refuse to develope picture that show nudity.. it is just up to the one that developes them at that time... I NEVER said no



Hell I wouldnt say no either, in fact, Ive thought of working part time at a photo developing lab part time just to get a glimpse at some homemade porn and to see freaky ass pictures people bring in. but then again, im a pervert, as my girlfriend has a tendency to tell me this every other day
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 12:10:21 AM EDT
LOL... sometimes it was great but MANY times i almost lost my lunch...My question was always.. WHY do butt ass ugly people take pictures like that?

Some things ARE better left to the imagination.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 12:33:43 AM EDT
Never say never because there are a lot of stupid people out there.

Just the other day my wife got carded for buying rum cake
The clerk said "its got alcohol in it so I have to card"
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 12:39:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:
I totally distrust all anti-Walmart information. The unions and liberals are out to destroy Wal-Mart and we know both lie all the time.




Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:22:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By justthefacts:
I for one know that photo developers can not make copies of copyrighted material IE photos done by a studio.

The story is complete BS.


First the person behind wouldn't have even accepted the pictures.

2nd they would hand them back after explaining the problem.

3rd they have no right or need to destroy someones property like that.. what would be the reason what would it achieve?

If you can't make a better troll post than this you should give up.

PS- i was in the film development business for 6 years so i actually know what really goes on in a supposed situation like this.

retrainthechimp some stores can refuse to develope picture that show nudity.. it is just up to the one that developes them at that time... I NEVER said no



I never said the thing was God's Own Truth- just a second hand story. While it may be that one can chose to put the story on the grill or wipe one's ass with it, I invite anyone with 37 posts here who calls me a troll to kiss MY ass.
Top Top