Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,499   Posts: 1,543,254   Online: 997
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,275
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I was thinking the same thing... Wonder if walmart keeps those negs or destroys them... Maybe they have 6 boxes of negs too... Lol
    rather than starting rumors that aren't true, call fuji labs and ask them
    what happens to the film ...
    if you do, you will easily learn that fuji throws away the negatives after they are scanned
    they have no use for other people's film.

    you will also learn
    fuji labs only processes c41 and chromogenic (kodak) b/w
    everything else, cartridge film ( 126 ) 110, 120, superxp2, 16mm, 8mm super8, 35mm (e6+b/w ) goes to dwaynes.
    dwaynes will return everything, but since walmart doesn't pay for return shipping, fuji doesn't return the film they process.
    from what i have heard the DWAYNE'S film might be returned ...

    so fuji process the film, and the film is scanned and the images are uploaded to walmart to a kiosk and printed and a cd burned.

    if you want your film returned, go to rite aid ..
    they don't have the kiosks ( or didn't last fall ) and will return everything.
    neither walmart, dwaynes nor fuji has any use or any need to hold on to anyone's film.


    sorry to ruin your conspiracy theory stone
    Last edited by jnanian; 05-19-2014 at 06:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,387
    If Fuji labs don't return the film, it's hard to believ they'll be keeping it though ?

  3. #23
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,312
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    If Fuji labs don't return the film, it's hard to believ they'll be keeping it though ?
    Is it Fuji labs or Dwayne's?
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #24
    omaha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    362
    Images
    6
    I can't imagine the advantage to Fuji of keeping the film (essentially none...I doubt anyone who gets film processed at WalMart is going to pay for a repeat, high-resolution scan if they find something that they want enlarged) being worth the cost. Can you imagine the indexing and archiving costs?!?

    I'd bet big money that the first frame is in the trash before the last frame is scanned.
    I shoot digital when I have to (most of those shots end up here) and film (occasionally one of those shots ends up here) when I want to.

  5. #25
    yurisrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New York Metro Area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    Is there really enough information in the linked story to determine that? There aren't a lot of details, but it sounded to me like Walmart is claiming the photos were works-for-hire, while the studio is claiming they were done under contract terms that left the copyright with the studio, and I don't see how we can know which is right without looking at the actual contract terms under which they were made.

    I don't like Walmart either, but I'm pretty sure Arkansas contract law doesn't take that into account. Could we try to, you know, look at the actual content of the case before rushing to judgement?

    -NT
    True, one should never jump to conclusions, especially when there is only sparse information provided. For example, the author states that her defense team has appealed to a higher court yet he/she does not elaborate on the reason why. Now in retrospect and after re-reading the article, I think that little particular is quite important and it makes me curious, (from the journalistic viewpoint) why does the PPA feel rather confident that the law is on her side: "The complaint further states that the Waltons own intellectual property rights to the photos (they don't). The fact is, under federal law, photographers own the copyrights to their own works." ?
    "The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin

  6. #26
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,312
    Images
    225

    So who owns the rights to the photos you create

    Quote Originally Posted by yurisrey View Post
    True, one should never jump to conclusions, especially when there is only sparse information provided. For example, the author states that her defense team has appealed to a higher court yet he/she does not elaborate on the reason why. Now in retrospect and after re-reading the article, I think that little particular is quite important and it makes me curious, (from the journalistic viewpoint) why does the PPA feel rather confident that the law is on her side: "The complaint further states that the Waltons own intellectual property rights to the photos (they don't). The fact is, under federal law, photographers own the copyrights to their own works." ?
    Actually it does state why its going to a higher court, maybe you miss this important fact, but the reason is that the issues regarding photographers rights are covered under federal guidelines not state guidelines so the attorneys for the defendant wanted to escalate the issue to a federal court so that their defense would hold up being that it was a federal law.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #27
    yurisrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New York Metro Area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Actually it does state why its going to a higher court, maybe you miss this important fact, but the reason is that the issues regarding photographers rights are covered under federal guidelines not state guidelines so the attorneys for the defendant wanted to escalate the issue to a federal court so that their defense would hold up being that it was a federal law.
    Sorry, my wording wasn't very clear in my previous post, but, from what I gathered, the defense's argument is that they were hired as "independent contractors" and how this falls under copyright law. What I am referring to is the appeal itself, (the defense's chess move) otherwise, which holds precedence, the contract (if there was one in the first place, whether it's in writing/ verbal, etc; ) or the artist's copyright (in this case part of an estate). And how I felt this small tidbit of info should've been elaborated on.

    The way I see it a person may have the "right" and be in the right, but one small stip followed by a signature (or handshake in some states) can void that right whether its at the local, state or federal level.
    "The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin

  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    Walmart is just a place I can go if I'm in a mood to grieve over what's happened to America. I'd rather have a toothache that to go there.
    Last edited by Tom1956; 05-20-2014 at 12:35 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin