Walgreens won't print my grandma's picture without proffesional release from photographer for copyright? Why?

I never heard of this, but I borrowed my grandmas picture & photoshop d torn edges and white dots. Then I wanted to reprint it and used Walgreen photo service. This morning I hear from them saying they can't release the photo without a release from a professional photographer because of copyright reasons. I told them that picture was taken in another country and in the 1980's. I wouldn't even know how to get ahold of them or if they're still open. She just told me there is a copyright for 100 years. Now I know I'm just going to go buy ink and print it from my computer then, but this is what I don't understand. Maybe you guys can help me.
Since I retouched it doesn't it mean it's not the originals photographers work now? Also does the fact that it was taken from another country matter because I know that most business in that day didn't need a license. It was just family owned. Was going to bring my grandma to Walgreens today to surpise her, guess not anymore. Thanks Walgreen :(

You should be able to do this if you can prove that you made a "reasonable effort" to find the copyright holder. But to define that you would probably have to talk to a lawyer.

Copyrights are universal, it doesnt matter what country it was made in when it comes to photography (international laws are written this way and its not just implied). Otherwise something that you did here could be marketted from another country, even here, and they wouldnt have to pay you a dime for all your hard work.

Walgreen is just tired of being sued because people try to rip off images and get it printed. You will probably see the same thing just about anywhere you go.

It's someone else's work--even if you have "retouched" it.

You may own the paper it was printed on, but the original photographer has the ownership of the photo he took, simple as that, I am afraid.

Has nothing to do with being taken in another country nor the license.

You would think differently if you were the photographer. Walgreen can be sued for this so they're covering their ***.

A couple things you can do:

#1..try printing at walmart. Some associates may not notice any logo and let the picture fly by...some associates may notice a photographer's logo and refuse to print still.

#2..try mpix.com. It's more professional, it's usually where the pro photographers go to print their stuff w/ logos on.

#3..use photoshop to edit out the logo so it's no longer copyright material.

Hmm, I had a picture refinished after some damage at Sears, but they charge around $100, but it was so worth it. Another suggestion, try uploading it to a site, my favorite is kodakgallery.com, and then ordering a print that way. How did they know it was from a professional photographer. I've also had good luck with CVS, maybe try them too!

Unfortunately, when you protect the many sometimes the few get hurt.For every ONE like you there are hundreds or even thousands trying to rip off hard working photographers.

No, retouching does not make it your own image and Walgreen's is to be respected for protecting photographers.

People tend to be touchy on here about copyrights, especially for print reproduction. They have good reason, after all, it is the intention of photographers to reprint for you (at cost). But, in your situation, one cannot be expected to be held to copyright standards where reproduction is concerned. The prudent thing to do would be to contact the original photographer in the watermark on the back of the original print. What you may find more convenient is to either scan it yourself, thus creating a new .jpg file, then take it to be printed, or printing it yourself on a photo-grade inkjet printer. Flatbed scanners up to at least 640 dpi are readily available, and in some cases bundled with all-in-one printers, and very cheap these days, and one's that will scan up to 7200 dpi are even cheaper than they once were. Walgreens and Costco are simply covering their own legal intersts, you can't blame them. But if you can't beat 'em, join 'em if you get my drift.

So yeah, I'm sure to get a few thumb downs for this answer, but I don't really care. Who cares about a 30 year old international copyright. A person shouldn't have to be made to go through such inconvenience to either replace a damaged print or make a surprise for a loved one through a retouched photograph. Photographers who get bent on this issue are such because they feel themselves being one-upped by the idea that a person should be able to take advantage of cheaper and more convenient print services, and are finding themselves outbid by the vast majority of mainstream photographers that are simply selling copy print rights (or god forbid, giving them away for free) to their customers instead of nickel and diming them to death. Get over yourselves. Seriously. You people will give me a negative rating because you don't like my answer, I give my answers to be helpful, not to win a popularity contest.

Retouching photos do not mean that you now own the photo.
That's like taking a celeb image from online, retouching it, then claiming it as your own. Same thing for thinking pictures internationally - many photographers take pictures in other countries (think: Iraq, China, Europe...) but it still belongs to them.

I do agree that your situtation sounds a bit extreme, but consider Walgreens doing the right thing, for it's protecting photographers. If you were a photographer, you wouldn't want the chance of your work getting ripped off, simple as that.

try walmart. lol. just upload your pic to http://photos.walmart.com and order it.