It doesn’t strike me as keeping something she doesn’t want. It looks to me more like it’s a hassle to send it back. If they want it back, they better make it easy by including a SASE with the photos.
My kid’s school has the same sort of deal, except that our letters are clear that we will receive the whole package,not a sample. I prefer buying these pictures to the ones I have to order and pay for before I’ve seen them.
As far as I know, the “unsolicted merchadise is free” applies only to the mail, unless ,of course, your state has bothered to pass a law that would really apply only to school or team pictures and other fundraisers (How many other situations are there like this?)
If you knew you didn’t want the pictures and had such objections to them being sent home on approval, why didn’t you instruct the school to simply not take the picture. It seems to me to be a lot easier logistically to not take one child’s picture today than to remember weeks later not to send that child’s pictures home.
How is an SASE easier than putting in back in the backpack?You return it by the same method you got it.
Here I am. I think Reeder is one too. But we hesitate to comment because this is too fine a case. It’s going to be governed by state law which we don’t know (and we don’t even know the state), and it cuts very close to the bone. Sending the pictures is an offer, and it might be reasonable for the seller to assume that acceptance of the product is acceptance of the contract. (Offers can be accepted in this way.) OTOH, it might not be. Absent a provision to the contrary in state law (which is too niggling and will be too hard to find for us to go looking for it just to satisfy curiosity), it could go either way if brought to court.
–Cliffy, Esq.
>> It doesn’t strike me as keeping something she doesn’t want. It looks to me more like it’s a hassle to send it back
Well, that’s not the way I interpret the OP:
It seems to me she wants to keep the stuff without having to pay for it, not that she finds it a hassle to return it and therefore wants to dump it.
In the case of the Postal Service the law is clear because it would be a hassle to have to be returning things one did not order, even if there was a prepaid envelope. Besides, unless it was registered no one could prove you received it in the forst place.
In the OPs case, if she objects to the hassle of returning unsolicited stuff, then she should do so in other ways but just keeping the stuff is not ethical IMHO. I am ssuming photographers also have to put food on the table and send their kids to school etc.
I disagree. OP never wanted to get the stuff in the first place, and let that be known. It’s not just the inconvenience of sending it back, it’s being put in the position–against one’s will–of having to take some action to avoid being liable for payment.
What other ways exactly? When the stuff has been foisted on you, what options are there besides keeping it or returning it?
And how ethical is it for photographers to pull this kind of coercive crap? First they dangle stuff in front of the kid, knowing that the typical child will want it and thus provide psychological pressure on the parent(s). Then they reinforce this by putting it in the kid’s possession. And to add insult to injury, the parent is now expected to see to it that the “sample” (hah! It’s the whole package!) gets returned.
I see this approach as pushy and manipulative. If the photogs choose do try to do business this way, I think they deserve to lose the product as well as the sale.
I wonder if anyone thinks kaylasdad might be a guy. Hmm.
First of all let me say I have no idea how I assumed kaylasdad99 was a she.
So, let’s see, he’s asking if he can keep it without paying but that’s not really what he wants to do? I think I’ll let the OP clarify it but Gary your interpretation does not hold water.
>> When the stuff has been foisted on you, what options are there besides keeping it or returning it?
First off: returning it is no big deal and that was not a complaint in the OP where he was just asking if he can keep it. Options: Writing a letter of complaint to the school principal, the school board, his congressman, the Pope… Making clear before the fact that he did not want the kid to have pictures taken, rather than dressing her up (duh).
>> And how ethical is it for photographers to pull this kind of coercive crap?
>>I see this approach as pushy and manipulative.
We might agree there but if he is concerned about business ethics of photographers, the way to do something about it is to do something which will prevent this from happening in the future. Keeping the photos is just personal gain and does nothing to accomplish that.
>> I think they deserve to lose the product as well as the sale
You gotta be kidding. You think those pics are worth anything to the photographer? What’s he going to do with them? Is there a market for pictures of kids no one knows?
We seem to be looking at this from different angles, sailor. Here’s what I’m seeing.
OP did not want pictures, or even a sample. Resigned himself to having to get a sample, but did not expect to get a complete order. Is pissed at being put in the position of having to return the package or pay the bill. (It’s not the trouble involved, it’s easy enough to send the stuff back. It’s the principle of being forced to act after clearly expressing no desire to make a purchase or even see the sample.) Wants to say “screw you” to the outfit involved and wants to know if he’s on firm legal ground.
Letters of complaint might result in no recurrence, but don’t solve the problem at hand–the stuff is at his house.
The value in his keeping the photos isn’t in his getting them for free, but in the photo outfit knowing that he got them and they aren’t getting paid. If it gets around that people can keep the stuff without paying, a number of folks might do that, inducing them to change their marketing technique. True, the pics aren’t worth anything to the photo company, but that giving them away is not what they want to do.
To sum up, my interpretation of the OP is not that he’s scheming to get the pics for free, but that he’s plotting to teach the bastards a lesson. Obviously, this view stands to be corrected by the OP if I’m mistaken.
Why teach the photographer a lesson? The photographer didn’t randomly show up at the school-it was pre-arranged with the school getting a cut. The OP didn’t make any mention of a photographer being told the photos weren’t wanted- that conversation was with the school office.
Clearly, the easiest response is to send them back the same way they came: in her backpack.
But I understand (I think) where you are coming from. This is a vaguely slimey way to get parents to pay for something they didn’t specifically ask for. (When we have school pictures taken, I always preorder the smallest package. It’s nice to have a school pic, but they almost never take a picture good enough to order more than that; nor should they be expected to, given the limitations of the job.) I would be rather put out myself to be presented with a (rather sizable) order of photos I had not requested with an expectation of payment.
kaylasdad made it clear to the school that he wasn’t interested in purchasing these photos. I think that, given his effort to “unrequest” them, he has reason to be annoyed by this company’s business practices.
Given that there is a phone number available, I would call the photography studio and express my displeasure. I would give them the option of picking up these unwanted photos at the school, at my home, or sending me a postage paid envelope. Of course, I would take names, just in case. I would also make a point to attend my school’s next PTC meeting and share my opinion of this company.
So, he should have made her be the only kid in the school who didn’t get to dress up that day?
I wonder what would have happened if she–or some of her classmates–had actually lost the photos on the way home? Or, not knowing that they were un-ordered “samples”, if the kids had traded photos in class/on the bus? Or if some kid dropped his/her envelope and the photos were damaged/run over/blown away/etc.?
The school took the pictures without the parents consent. And then sent them home with a little girl who could hardly object. The photog. has no right to the kids image.
How about teaching her not to let people stuff crap down her throat?
Sound’s good to me. I’ve been there. Keep 'em, and tell your daughter why.
I’ve nothing against fund raising, not at all, but using little kids in this way really bugs me.
Peace,
mangeorge
I’d just make it simple. Call the company, and tell them that they can come pick them up at your house. You will leave them on the front porch. Get names.
Done. ?
This kind of things irks me.
I’m surprised they assume that the kids will get the pictures home in one piece.
What if the daughter had damaged the photos in some way…would the parent be held responsible?
Yes, the PTA/school office are complicit in this situation, and are perhaps due a come-uppance for being party to it. But you can bet it’s the photo company who came up with this “send the package home with the kid” ploy. Whoever did what, the school and photo company are welcome to sort that out between themselves. I just think it’s wrong to put parents in the position of being obligated–even to do so much as send the stuff back–without their having had any input into the arrangements.
If I were in this position, and the law allowed, I’d keep the stuff. Not to have the stuff, but to make the odious sales tactic backfire. And I’d make sure the responsible parties knew why I was doing it. Heck, I’d call other parents and encourage them to do likewise. Imagine if half the school did that–things would change quickly.
Do not copy or scan them. The photographer owns the copyrights to the photos.
I have not looked this up, so this is not official legal advice, but the short version is that you should send the pictures back. While I suspect that if you fight you may get to keep them, you don’t want the time and expense of fighting, and a possible adverse credit report. It just isn’t worth it. Send them back.
Send an invoice for your time spent reviewing the photographs, a modest modeling fee of $50 for your daughter’s time and likeness, and a $10.00 shipping and handling charge. Send the SOBs a letter every month reminding them of their obligation. Don’t do anything else to collect, but have a good laugh.
DPWhite feels that;
Dunno 'bout that, DP, but I do know that you have to sign a release for a photographer to use your image. I tried to look this up but can’t wade through the legal language. This is a case where they took pictures of a minor, without the permission of her parent.
I know you’re not condoning the school’s actions. It’s just that your statement struck a chord with me. I hope someone on this thread has a better understanding of the issues involved.
Peace,
mangeorge
I’m back with some clarification/new information, and an update on my actions.
I made three phone calls on Tuesday a.m. With each call, I asked specifically how the legal doctrine of not being obligated to return or pay for a gift applied to this situation. The CSR at the photography firm didn’t directly answer my question but she did keep coming back to the fact that I wasn’t obligated to keep them or pay for them. She wouldn’t be pinned down to a statement that I was obligated to take any action at all, including returning them. However she did stress that it was a PTA fund-raising event (with the clear implication that I, by not paying, would be depriving the PTA of money). Next, I called the school and tried to speak with the principal. Unfortunately, she was booked for the day, and couldn’t talk to me. I asked the school secretary what the school’s position was on the question of the legal doctrine, but she didn’t have an answer to that question either. We spoke for a while about the PTA and its fund-raising practices, as well as my discomfort with the school using my daughter as a captive customer base. I don’t think I communicated very effectively, because I got the distinct impression that the woman felt she was defending the PTA from my attack. She was unable to tell me how I could get a copy of the PTA’s charter, or any other type of organizational document, but she did make an appointment for me to meet with the principal on Wednesday afternoon. My third call on the subject was to the California Attorney General’s office. My persistent inquiries were rewarded by a confirmation that, under California law, unsolicited merchandise is a gift, that the method of delivery is not relevant (hand-delivery doesn’t turn it into an event that obligates me to respond in any way), and that I am free to do with the goods as I please.
I met this afternoon (Wednesday) with the principal at Michaela’s school. She also brought in two of the officers of the school’s PTA chapter, because I had expressed some dissatisfaction with the level of outreach the PTA had extended to me as a member during the past seven months. They were all quite nice to me, and were happy to answer all of my questions. It turns out that this was NOT a PTA fund-raising activity, but rather, a school-sponsored event. PTA’s only involvement was to send volunteers to assist with getting the kids through the process as smoothly as possible. There was no option of having a child sit out the photo session; all students were photographed. The event wasn’t even a “fund-raiser” in any real sense; the sole benefit to the school was a one-dollar remittance from the studio for each picture packet sold (so you could say the school was pimping out its student body at a dollar a throw for access to a fairly substantial-sized pool of likely customers—but I didn’t say that, as I was trying to keep the meeting friendly :D). The principal had no answer to my question of whether the school gets any remittance from the studio on re-orders. Actually, she did, have an answer: it was, “I don’t know. I’m going to have to look that up in our agreement. After all, we are responsible for generating the sales from the re-orders, too.” I told her the answer I got from the AG’s office, and she didn’t have any problem with me taking the position that I intend to exercise my rights as a consumer and keep the package. I pressed her specifically on this point, and said that I didn’t want to be responsible for getting the school into a legal hassle with the studio, and she replied that the school was not going to be held liable for anything. In fact, she said, the studio knowingly took the risk that some parents will exercise their consumer rights as I am doing, and they have already built the cost of that risk into the prices they charge. If a substantially large number of parents begins to follow my lead, the studio will simply raise their prices again to cover the increased risk.
Please don’t think that I haven’t wrestled with my conscience over the ethical ramifications of keeping the photos without paying for them. sailor correctly notes that I have not stated that I don’t want the products. The package is quite nicely put together, and the image is at least as good as Michaela’s fall pictures (one thing is certain: Michaela wants them). But the way I see it (and feel free to call it rationalizing if you wish), in law, I have just received a gift, with no strings attached. This vendor is allowed to try to make me believe that strings are attached, but I am under no obligation to submit to the manipulation. GaryT nailed my cause for annoyance. All right, this is a perfectly legal marketing device, but it happens to be one that I find obnoxious. My only tool for effectively stating my disgust for it is to exercise my right to refuse the manipulation. If enough people do as I am doing, perhaps it will lead to higher prices; but there is also a faint but real hope that the vendor will give up the device.
As to the issue of making myself vulnerable to harm to my credit record, I am not worried. The studio doesn’t know my name or address.
One final rationalization as to why I’m not losing any sleep over the studio’s loss of income. The studio spent a certain amount of money producing this package, with the hope of realizing a huge return. If I return the package, that money is lost to them, as there is nothing they can do with the goods except to destroy them. Well, that money is lost to them anyway.
On preview: mangeorge, DPWhite is correct. In fact, on the back of the prints, there is a watermark-style message to the effect that professional images are copyright-protected.
Thank you to all who have responded.
Thank you, kaylasdad99 for the wrap-up. Not all posters do that.
While I do have a problem with the copyright issue, it’s on a personal, not legal level. I say “Not Fair”. Naive, huh? 
Peace,
mangeorge