Photo printing services...did you know???

Photo printing services - Services which will print hardcopy photos for you (for a fee) from either digital files or negatives.

These services have been around for years, there are advertisements for them all over the TV, radio and the web.

Did you know that if you send files (or negatives) to these people that they can reproduce your images for their own use...WITHOUT your permission??? They can use them for advertising, they can sell them to others, they can do just about anything they like with them. AND, in many cases, if something bad happens as a result of them using your images (like a lawsuit), they defer all liability to YOU as the original owner.

You still "own" your images, but by using their services you consent to these "Terms of Use" as part of your transaction.

I had known for a long time that most of the social media outlets have similar terms, but I was surprised to learn that photo reproduction companies had these kinds of terms also. At first I didn't believe it, so I spent some time tonight reading the fine print of most of the major photo printing services...and they all pretty much say the same things. And believe me, this stuff is buried deep in the finest of the fine print, so you have to really dig to find it!!

Now, some may wonder why anyone would want to use such a service when you can print photos at home, right? Well, can you print 24"x36" prints? Or, large frameable prints on canvas? Or, on glass, or on foam board?? No, not many people can afford the multi-thousand dollar printers it takes to print these types of images, especially when they might only need 1-2 prints like this made, hence the need for these services.

I'm sure some will respond with answers like...well, I just show pics to my friends on my phone (standard answer anymore), or on FailBook, but some people like to frame certain prints and display them in their homes or offices. Used to be that film enlargement services were just that, and only that; people never had to worry about what would happen with their images, but not anymore!

I don't know about you, but I was pretty shocked to learn that there is almost no place (that I can find anyway) which doesn't have these types of clauses in their Terms of Use clauses when you use their services. In fact, in one case there was even language in bold, capitalized, letters which said by using their service you..."CONSENT TO ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF MEDIA SUBMITTED TO US, WHETHER DIGITAL OR OTHERWISE, WITHOUT LIMITATION" !!

**shocked look!**

**Crawls back under rock I've apparently been living under**

Just thought I'd share this info in case anyone is considering using a service like these. Just make sure you read the Terms of Service/Use before you click the "Buy Now" button. (most times you don't even have to click a box acknowledging your agreement to these terms either!)

Note - This message provided as a public service announcement for other under-rock dwellers like myself apparently.

As an added footnote, I also spent some time tonight going out and looking for photo enlargement services from some of the big-boys who used to be in the business enlarging film negatives. Most of them are gone now, and I wasn't able to find one.

Kind of makes me wonder how some of these guys who still do photography in the medium format film cameras get anything developed unless they have their own darkrooms complete with large format color enlargers (something which is getting increasingly more difficult to even buy due to environmental regulations (i.e. chemical disposal, etc.)).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

most of the social media outlets have similar terms

Not true with FB. Some people stole my artwork (some photos) and FB went above and beyond to stop it.
They take intellectual property rights seriously. I asked one user to please remove my artwork from her post
And she cussed me up and down. FB banned her permanently.

a reply to: JAGStorm


LOLOLOL!!! Yeah, and then FB probably turned right around and sold your images to Google!! Count on it!!

Of course they're going to give the 'appearance' they take a hard stand on this...when they're the very same ones who are profiting from all that data behind the scenes! If you think otherwise, I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken!!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: JAGStorm


LOLOLOL!!! Yeah, and then FB probably turned right around and sold your images to Google!! Count on it!!

Of course they're going to give the 'appearance' they take a hard stand on this...when they're the very same ones who are profiting from all that data behind the scenes! If you think otherwise, I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken!!

www.copytrack.com...

You’re right and wrong on this.
If you post publicly and people share it’s kinda fair game. If you post privately and someone steals, and shares it’s a different story.

The link above actually talks about a case and the photographer won.

There is actually a group of lawyers specifically for copyright infringement cases on social media.
It has been a moving target and from what I’ve read about crypto they are doing things to solve some of these issues.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Understood, and that's all fine and good, but I think you're missing my point (in the FB case). What you're referring to is the public side of FB, the part everyone can see.

Surely you don't believe that FB, Google and others aren't collecting and disseminating information to certain alphabet agencies (and law enforcement) for far more sinister purposes...do you?? You're not ever going to read about any of those things!! (and they pay a lot better money too).

That was my point about FB. The other services I referred do in the OP just openly state they are going to use your material. Sure, they state you still have ownership, but that you consent to them using your stuff for whatever they want by using their service.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

We usually just go to the Walmart self serve photo printing service. It’s a little kiosk your insert a thumb drive into and you can print them like that.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they kept a digital copy though

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm glad you brought this up. It's not common knowledge and it should be announced from the rooftops to the shame of these businesses. Not that they have any shame, or they wouldn't be doing it to start with.

I know there are still some good independent processors out there, but I can't give you a name at the moment. It has been a long time since I used one of these services. I will see what I can find.

They wouldn't even print the pictures on one roll. Just gave me the CD. I was racking my brain trying to figure out what could be on it.

Then I looked at them.
Oh boy. LOL
Hubby had went to a Survivor motorcycle club party I forgot about.

I don't think they will be using those for any advertising.
(These were old 35mm rolls, of which I still have about 10 to develop, can't wait to see what is on those!)

thanks for OP / info
old-school film processing is a dying art. everything's digital now.
I think it would be both annoying and flattering to see an ad or something online and recognize they're using your picture.

[Macenroe82 said: I wouldn’t be surprised if they kept a digital copy though]

buddy of mine used to refer to The Big Computer. 'yep, once you put it in, it's in the Big Computer forever'.

a reply to: Klassified

I know there are still some good independent processors out there, but I can't give you a name at the moment. It has been a long time since I used one of these services. I will see what I can find.

Thanks! I do sincerely appreciate that!

I haven't been able to find any in my search so far.

a reply to: Macenroe82

I would actually be kind of shocked if they didn't!

I dug through their terms of use for their Photo Center service offering and here's what it says (underlines and bold text by me)

Walmart claims no ownership rights to the photos, photo files, albums, projects, captions, or prints (collectively defined as “Photos”), that you place in your Walmart Digital Photo Center Account. However, by uploading Photos into your Walmart Digital Photo Center Account, you agree to waive all moral rights to those images. In addition, you grant to Walmart a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable license, so we can download, upload, copy, print, display, reproduce, modify, publish, post, transmit, distribute, and otherwise make available the photos included in your Walmart Digital Photo Center Account for the following purposes: (1) displaying displaying Photos to the people you select; (2) fulfilling orders; (3) improving the Walmart Digital Photo Center service and enabling it to work as designed, including by using automated systems and algorithms to analyze and customize your Photos; and (4) developing new technologies and services for Walmart. We will not use or modify your Photos for any purposes other than the foregoing without obtaining your express permission.

That's just one section I picked out. There's more for the photo services offering, I just didn't think some of the other stuff was really relevant.

To be honest, it's a little bit less onerous than most I've seen, but it still has some concerning language in it. That last underlined part (item #4) could mean pretty much any reason they could dream up, and I'm sure it would fall into that category.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Klassified

I know there are still some good independent processors out there, but I can't give you a name at the moment. It has been a long time since I used one of these services. I will see what I can find.

Thanks! I do sincerely appreciate that!

I haven't been able to find any in my search so far.

After thinking about this for a few, I want to note that some processors of film and print are covering their collective arses. In many cases, once your negatives are scanned, they can be viewed and downloaded on their website by you and anyone you give permission to view and/or order prints from said site. On these sites, the TOS is (broadly) worded to cover the service from liability in such cases. For instance this, from a known and respected online service...

The Darkroom does not claim ownership rights in any image contained in your account. For the sole purpose of enabling us to display your images through the Service and fulfilling any orders for you or those you have shared your images with, you grant to The Darkroom a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, distribute, and display those images. Please note that when you share images, you allow the recipients to share and make photographic prints from those images.
The DarkRoom TOS

The permission you are granting is for the service requested. In your case, since you are only getting prints, it would not apply, because there is no reason for them to be displayed online through the service. Nevertheless, I would call them first for your own piece of mind.

a reply to: Klassified

Yes, I understand that angle. Unfortunately though, some less than forthright companies can use that exact same language to do other, less than above board, things with your material. (Maybe not that particular example, but others I've read, like Shutterfly and some of the others).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
True enough. That's why the smaller independents are a better bet. Here's a few more I dug up from my archives...
Richard PhotoLab - Jennifer Lawrence is a client. They gotta be good, right?
Rapid Photo
Dwayne's Photo
In case you need high-end scanning services...
Memories Renewed

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
True enough. That's why the smaller independents are a better bet. Here's a few more I dug up from my archives...
Richard PhotoLab - Jennifer Lawrence is a client. They gotta be good, right?
Rapid Photo
Dwayne's Photo
In case you need high-end scanning services...
Memories Renewed

Thanks! I really appreciate this!

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I had a few meetings to deal with.

Thanks again!