Boots refuse to print student's snaps..

Sloper

Sloper

Suspended / Banned
Messages
408
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Made me chuckle, how ridiculous! I'd probably err on the side of being insulted rather than seeing it as a back-handed compliment though.
 
story was fine.. took them to boots on a memory stick.. shes a photogrpah student and she has a canon digital camera that she used..

however the following quote from her spoilt it

I could have developed the pictures myself in the darkroom. But I needed them done quickly
Click to expand...
 
KIPAX said:
story was fine.. took them to boots on a memory stick.. shes a photogrpah student and she has a canon digital camera that she used..

however the following quote from her spoilt it
Click to expand...

I was a bit confused by that. It wouldn't surprise me if she was misquoted by that rag.

And it was Boots that reported Julia Wotsername (TV newsreader) for taking photos of her own kids in the bath. Gah, what the hell is going on with this country?
 
KIPAX said:
story was fine.. took them to boots on a memory stick.. shes a photogrpah student and she has a canon digital camera that she used..

however the following quote from her spoilt it
Click to expand...

That's not the only thing that doesn't make sense about this story, although its certainly the most baffling.

Miss Kulinsha returned the following day with her friend's student ID and a signed letter proving she was studying for a degree in photography at Coventry University.
Click to expand...

She was, presumably, asked for proof that she owned copyright of the photos and produced a letter proving she was a photography student? :shrug:

'They were demanding a letter on headed paper to prove I was the photographer, but I explained to them that I was a student and did not have my own photography business.
Click to expand...

Do you need to run a business in order to write on headed paper? How would that prove anything in any case?

Just two questions among many. Looks like the story has been embellished somewhat.
 
Sloper said:
I was a bit confused by that. It wouldn't surprise me if she was misquoted by that rag.

And it was Boots that reported Julia Wotsername (TV newsreader) for taking photos of her own kids in the bath. Gah, what the hell is going on with this country?
Click to expand...

might have a printer in the darkroom and it was out of ink or somat, happens a lot in ours (mostly cos the students who buy the ink are skint :p)
 
As usual for the Daily Mail some good comments tenuously linking to New Labour nanny state etc :P

"Workers said the portraits looked to be the work of an expert and did not believe the 25-year-old student took them."

Errr, we seem to have missed out on one tiny eensy detail... What business is it of some jumped-up jobsworth in Boots to decide what to print or not? This is getting more and more like East Germany in the heady days of the STASI and the State informer in every home/shop/workplace.

Good job Boots were so crawling in customers and business tha tthey can refuse work based on a jealous and erroneous value judgement.

What this proves is that talent, ability and enterprise are DESPISED here in "New" Labour's benefit-culture prizes-for-all, dumbed-down Britain.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...raphy-students-snaps--GOOD.html#ixzz0jowInoHY
Click to expand...
 
I have had issues with Boots before. One store printed the pictures without question the other store printed the picture but refused to hand them over to my daughter. I even had to go to the store myself and get a refund for the money she had already paid. I made sure the original photos was ripped up before I left.
 
Having stupidly worked for a newspaper in my earlier days, I can sincerely say that reporters don't listen and 95% of what is written is incorrect, in my personal experience. If you read that article again, you will notice that the same sentace is written twice, ever so slightly different, but the same none the less. Misquotes are something the rags are famous for IMHO.
 
I never normally read the Daily Mail.

How refreshing to see it champion a Polish-born full-time student and a Polish mother-to-be in their complaints against a British high-street name.

And how refreshing that, even before the Digital Economy Bill becomes law, Associated Newspapers side with "Austin Mitchell, Labour MP ... and a campaigner for photographers' rights"

Maybe I should read the Mail more often!
 
Very overzealous by Boots, but at least photographers copyright was being questioned.
 
Yves Geza said:
How refreshing to see it champion a Polish-born full-time student and a Polish mother-to-be in their complaints against a British high-street name.
Click to expand...

LOL

well plaid by the photographer though. she got her photos printed (in the DM), published and paid :thumbs:
wasnt the normal way of doing it, but it worked!

oh and she needs to turn the hood around the other way
 
Grum said:- Errr, we seem to have missed out on one tiny eensy detail... What business is it of some jumped-up jobsworth in Boots to decide what to print or not? This is getting more and more like East Germany in the heady days of the STASI and the State informer in every home/shop/workplace.

I could not have put it better!
getsmiley.php
 
I've never used boots for developing my student pictures. Well there was one instance actually. I told the girl behind the desk (because I thought she may know about it) that the film had been pushed. Needless to say - gormless was the expression. Thats why I've never had them done at boots.
 
fabs said:
Nope, it was published well before.
Click to expand...

Finally someone who spotted the actual date on the article ;)

However, frustrating it must be to the people involved I do agree with the policy of not printing photos unless it's clear that the person has the printing rights. Although there does need to be some common sense applied and I think in this case there wasn't much of it :lol:
 
i feel a little disapointed now that no one has told me my shots are too good to be mine.. :'(

mercedes said:
Very overzealous by Boots, but at least photographers copyright was being questioned.
Click to expand...

indeed. i was in jessops at the weekend and overheard a member of staff who was helping an elderly lady on the machines for ordering prints. basically it looked like the lady was wanting a set of prints from a wedding that were supplied by an pro. and i quote the member of staff:

"we have to check that you have permission from the photographer to print these, but we can assume that you have"

assume on what basis? that the b&g have lent/copied the DVD of proofs to the lady?

it scared me a little to be honest.
 
david1701 said:
might have a printer in the darkroom and it was out of ink or somat, happens a lot in ours (mostly cos the students who buy the ink are skint :p)
Click to expand...

Could also be that students (or lecturers...) have nicked inks out of the college printer to put in their own printer at home. Or that the person who used the last of the ink couldn't be bothered to tell anyone so they could be reordered and replaced.
 
Nod said:
Could also be that students (or lecturers...) have nicked inks out of the college printer to put in their own printer at home. Or that the person who used the last of the ink couldn't be bothered to tell anyone so they could be reordered and replaced.
Click to expand...

Or as in our case that one of the students was doing 'Homers' at the weekend and not replacing paper and chemistry (in our Fuji Frontier) - and was re-setting the print counter to cover it up...luckily he hadn't really paid all that much attention and had forgot to re-set the master computer as well...

T'was a sacking-offence and he was binned off the course.
 
its not a april fools joke the original article first appeared on south west news service yesterday http://swns.com/ i found it via a link on twitter.
 
Then the chaps at Boots need a boot up the 'arris...
Fair enough to question the provenance of the images - rather it was that than the alternative alluded to above, but when the photographer and model both appeared in person, all should have been well...
 
If I remember right there is a disclaimer when you start to use one of their booths asking if you have the rights to reproduce the images. I'm no legal expert but if you click 'I Agree' then surely Boots are covered and the onus is then on the purchaser.


I know it doesn't make it right and people will click it, but you shouldn't be subject to interrigation by staff who may be having a bad day.
 
KIPAX said:
story was fine.. took them to boots on a memory stick.. shes a photogrpah student and she has a canon digital camera that she used..

however the following quote from her spoilt it
I could have developed the pictures myself in the darkroom. But I needed them done quickly
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Agreed, that just made me :cuckoo:. Clearly she has no idea how to develop digital photos if she wanted to do them in a dark room.

Durrr... Compact Flash card go in enlarger? Where paper come out?
Click to expand...
:D Also I noticed the pictures were copyright of some news agency. All of it just stinks.

::EDIT::
As already mentioned, it is more than likely a misquote :p

Also the picture of her at the end is atrocious, clearly see the flash has been used (so no diffuser I bet) and the bloody hood is the wrong way around! Kids these days, really :p
 
Dangerous business photography these days, not only are you at the mercy of Boots know nothing jobsworths, but even more hazardous you could be detained by PCSOs and forced to hand over your memory cards for even taking a camera out in public.
Click to expand...
That's what comes by having Patricia Hewitt on the Board of Directors. More New Labour lunacy.
Click to expand...
Open an account with Photobox online, pros or amateurs, all accepted, great service, forget cra**y second-rate high street stores, a revolution is definitely coming in retailing...freedom of choice counts for nothing if you don't actually exercise it!
Click to expand...
gotta love comments on the DM...

As a photographer myself, I would have assumed Joanna would have had access to her own photo printer if she can afford to own what looks like 2 grands worth of camera and have the ability to transfer the photos from the camera to another memory stick.
Click to expand...
oh man these keep getting better and better.... because boots just have a crappy little inkjet printer round the back, not a big professional minilab, don't they...

good that they're being zealous about 'professional' pictures but once brought in some proof that they could legitimately have been taken by the person who took them, it gets a bit silly really...
 
KavKav said:
What business is it of some jumped-up jobsworth in Boots to decide what to print or not?
Click to expand...

It's the business of that jumped up jobsworth to ensure Boots itself isn't breaking the law by printing copyrighted images that they have no permission to print.

Proofs I send out to clients on CD/DVD have the label on the disc stating that the contents are copyrighted and not to be printed/duplicated/distributed/etc. without written permission, and I would hope that high street printers, such as Boots, would respect my copyright.

So, I think it's great that they're keeping an eye on these things, although I will agree they went a bit too far this time.
 
Woblee said:
If I remember right there is a disclaimer when you start to use one of their booths asking if you have the rights to reproduce the images. I'm no legal expert but if you click 'I Agree' then surely Boots are covered and the onus is then on the purchaser.
Click to expand...

Only if you actually print your images using one of those machines and don't just hand the disc to the staff member (which a lot of the general public do because they don't know how to use those simple touch screen machines).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top