Walmart The Big Bad Wolf
All of which has nothing to do with this case, in which, apparently, the photography studio took the pictures as a professional job, using their equipment and time. The Huffs were not employees of the Walton family or the Walmart company. But Helen Huff is not as easily intimidated as they probably thought. What Walmart thought was a straightforward case in their favor was moved from the state to the federal court. She is now countersuing to stop Walmart from using the photographs without her permission. She asserts that both her husband and her father-in-law, who co-founded and owned Bob’s Studio of Photography in Fayetteville, AR, were not under “work-for-hire” contracts but working as independent contractors when they took the photos and had given the Walton family copyright notices to inform them that the Huff owned the rights to reproduce the images exclusively.
Sometimes is not so cut and dry. Looks like Walmart is trying to evoke the Baylee Almon decision. It was a case of a man who worked as a photographer for a gas utility selling photos he took after the Murrah disaster. ONG contended he was on the clock at the time, ONG owned the camera, film, and even paid for the processing. But Lester Larue insisted that no matter who owns the equipment, who pays for the services, or who pays for developing, the photographer always owns copyright even in a situation where they are paid by a company to shoot photographs. But a federal judge ruled that if you are under the employment to do photography, the company you work for owns the copyright. Larue said it bankrupted him when he lost because he also had to pay back the tabloids who bought it from him. His legal fees exceeded that amount so he was too broke to pay people back. ONG fired him in the process so he wound up destitute.
The Walton Family...controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. I honestly don't know which is worse: Offering $2000 for objects they consider
Sometimes is not so cut and dry. Looks like Walmart is trying to evoke the Baylee Almon decision. It was a case of a man who worked as a photographer for a gas utility selling photos he took after the Murrah disaster. ONG contended he was on the clock at the time, ONG owned the camera, film, and even paid for the processing. But Lester Larue insisted that no matter who owns the equipment, who pays for the services, or who pays for developing, the photographer always owns copyright even in a situation where they are paid by a company to shoot photographs. But a federal judge ruled that if you are under the employment to do photography, the company you work for owns the copyright. Larue said it bankrupted him when he lost because he also had to pay back the tabloids who bought it from him. His legal fees exceeded that amount so he was too broke to pay people back. ONG fired him in the process so he wound up destitute.
The Walton Family...controls a fortune equal to the wealth of the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. I honestly don't know which is worse: Offering $2000 for objects they consider