Controversy Over Walmart Canada Photo Centre's "Rights Grabby" Terms, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

Topic started on 4-2-2013 @ 10:05 PM by TheComte

Controversy Over Walmart Canada Photo Centre's "Rights Grabby" Terms

www.petapixel.com

If you’re the type of photographer who’s wary of the rights you sign away when using most photo-sharing services, you might want to avoid having your photos handled by Walmart Canada’s Photo Centre. Reddit user Plerophoria noticed the following section in the service’s Terms and Conditions:

You grant to Walmart Canada Corp. a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, unrestricted, world-wide right and license to access, use, copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, display, perform, communicate to the public, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works fr

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
news.cnet.com

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:05 PM by TheComte

I realize this isn't a news source and that it is more like a blog, but I am reminded of the recent uproar caused by Instagram when they decided to change their Terms of Use to give them rights to your photographs. Protests eventually caused Instagram to backtrack, but it seems Walmart in Canada has been doing this for a while and not many people know about it.

It's crazy to begin with that a corporation can unilaterally declare that they have rights to your property, but it is extremely underhanded in the way they hide these terms in the small print so that no one realizes.

If they posted a huge sign saying "If you print your photos here, We own them" I'm sure they would see a decline in business, which they should.

Then again, some people probably don't care that Walmart can use their photos to make money without any compensation. I don't know. I wouldn't be comfortable with the arrangement myself.

I would love to be able to start a backlash similar to Instagram's that causes Walmart Canada to change their policy. Even though I don't use their service, I'm sure many people do and would like to know about this situation.

www.petapixel.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 4-2-2013 by TheComte because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:10 PM by Unity_99

Don't get it done at walmart obviously and when people realize this in larger numbers they'll be up in arms and this will be changed.

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:10 PM by CrypticSouthpaw

reply to post by TheComte

Someone get the raid and fly swatter. We got some corporate roaches to kill.

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:17 PM by Carreau

Why do several members such as yourself split an opening post of a thread into 2 posts that easily could fit into 1 post?

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:19 PM by TheComte

Originally posted by Carreau
Why do several members such as yourself split an opening post of a thread into 2 posts that easily could fit into 1 post?

That's the way Breaking News Forum works. It's a little different than other forums.

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:20 PM by Spookycolt

Sorry but I have a hard time feeling sorry for people to lazy to read fine print, especially when its something they may really be concerned about such as this.

Takes 20 seconds to scan the document and see what it says. If someone has an issue with what Wal-mart does simply go somewhere else. If you are easily fooled by something like fine print you kinda deserve it.

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:28 PM by TheComte

reply to post by Spookycolt

True, just like some people will adopt a sneaky, underhanded way of living; always trying to angle shoot their fellow citizens in order to gain any advantage. Everyone knows someone like that. I guess corporations naturally will gravitate towards such predatory behaviour. Doesn't make it right, though

For some people, it's too much to ask that the company is up front about its intentions.

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:30 PM by minkmouse

Originally posted by Spookycolt
Sorry but I have a hard time feeling sorry for people to lazy to read fine print, especially when its something they may really be concerned about such as this.

Takes 20 seconds to scan the document and see what it says. If someone has an issue with what Wal-mart does simply go somewhere else. If you are easily fooled by something like fine print you kinda deserve it.

I'd put money on the fact that all the contracts you have entered into in your life could have or possibly still will bite your butt someday. Twenty seconds to read the contract? Please....Somebody post the contract that Walmart put forth for its print services, if I can read and comprehend it in twenty seconds then I'll stand corrected.

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:37 PM by iwilliam

If true this is pretty insane, and I hope they get some bad press over this.

Getting pretty tired of seeing over-reaching corporate "rights." Especially when they try to sneak it in through the back door.

I heard facebook is getting sued over some app agreement where they made people agree that their mics / cameras could be activated at any time, without further prompt or permission.

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:42 PM by TheComte

reply to post by minkmouse

Here is the actual Terms and Conditions from their site. Good luck.

www.walmartphotocentre.ca...

If that doesn't work, this is the home page and the Terms and Conditions link is at the bottom:

www.walmartphotocentre.ca...

edit on 4-2-2013 by TheComte because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:49 PM by Goldcurrent

Wal-Mart is just scum. Plain and simple. Wanting to own the rights to the photographs you 'the customer' pays to process is just more whipped topping to the empire of evil.

I have boycotted this corporate menace for years. I don't understand why everyone else doesn't? Oh right. Semi-inexpensive goods made cheaply, by Chinese labourers. All the plastic crap and disposable electronics all at pennies cheaper than the competition. Just scum.

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 10:55 PM by minkmouse

reply to post by TheComte

Not sure why but I'm just getting a Walmart logo and a big white page in your link but thanks. "Good luck" gives me the impression of more than twenty seconds though.

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 11:07 PM by retirednature

reply to post by TheComte

I don't think many professional photographers bring their work to Walmart lol!!!

Granted, it's unfortunate that Walmart does this, and people should be aware. Yet, I don't think too many people are getting 'screwed' because of this. It could the greatest idea in the world for Walmart's marketing team. "We need models"... "Oh wait, we've got billions of images to sift through and can use photoshop."

edit on 4-2-2013 by retirednature because: clarification

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 11:30 PM by TheComte

reply to post by retirednature

No, this doesn't really concern professional photographers. But in this day and age of the internet when the movie industry and the music industry are going to great lengths to protect their intellectual property rights, why shouldn't the ordinary citizen enjoy the same rights to their own intellectual property? Why should a corporation be able to use our photos no problem, but if some girl downloads a dozen songs she gets sued?

Maybe I'll write my own Terms of Use. If a movie studio makes a movie that I might watch at some time in my life, I have exclusive rights to download that movie whenever I want and watch it for my personal use for FREE. And I cannot be sued. Sounds pretty good to me. Maybe I'll publish that on my BBM and well, I won't feel sorry if the studio doesn't take the time to read my Terms of Use.

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 11:37 PM by Philippines

Ok... I don't think it will change much, I would say most people don't care about their IP rights. Corporations do though and take advantage of the people.

Look at Flickr and other online photo sites, probably even twitter and facebook. I could be wrong, but I think people give away their IP rights of their photographs when uploading to these sites. It's not much different than Wal-Mart doing it, except offline / online etc.

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 12:02 AM by Lostmymarbles

Would it be considered stolen property with Wal-Mart possibly held to account for if someone other then "you" were to take your photos to get developed? Like a family member or other 3rd party.

Pawn stores and such can get in trouble for stolen goods no matter what they write on paper. So perhaps Wal-Mart too can be held accountable for stolen photos?

It'd probably have to be something really really major that the original owner profits off of but it could be possible?

There are loop holes for everything, just need to find it or make it.

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 12:04 AM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by TheComte

Its like going to Tony Soprano, buying a cd player from the back of his Expedition, and then having him say, "Oh yeah, by the way....purchasing that gives me the right to punch you in the nuts."

If you visit a federal website, they basically say, "By you visiting this page, we have access rights to your computer". They assume a cession of rights on your part, and then leave it up to you to object.

Look for it. It is everywhere.

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 12:40 AM by Lab4man

".....for the purpose of displaying Content to the people you select and to fulfill orders.

We will not use or modify your Content for marketing purposes or any other purposes without obtaining your express permission."

You give them only the part of the T & C that makes your "story" juicy. Interesting how the T & C you posted left off the last part.

reply posted on 5-2-2013 @ 01:08 AM by TheComte

reply to post by Lab4man

I've read through the document a couple times and I can't find the passages you are citing. Can you point out what section they are in, please?

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^