And I agreed. I don’t think Enola Gay is persuaded that the photo situation is akin to Nazis (and therefore would use it as justification); if so, we still agree. I simply stated the reason why.
This is exactly how it works. They provide a big envelope with 3 poses and for each pose there is an 8x10, 2 5x7s, and a sheet of 2x3s. They also have a"specialty photos" which consist of a 10x13 black and white of one pose with the other 2 poses as color ghost images in the background and another long one with all 3 poses in a row. You can buy the whole package for 140, which a LOT of people did. Then you can order coffee mugs, t-shirts, tote bags, key chains, lugggage tags, etc. I never worked out the average sale, but one family spent $675. Most spent between 60-200.
I would love to see the company’s financial data. I would think printing out all these photos BEFORE getting the commitment would be an expensive way to go since so many will be trashed. I print photos at home and the materials (print cartridges, photo paper) is not cheap. Of course I’m buying my supplies at Staples and not directly from a wholesaler in bulk, but still. I read a post from someone who said they could wash off the ink and reuse the paper, but if that is even possible, this company doesn’t do it.
Also I should point out that usually an agent from the company does the job that I have been doing. But this year, they were “short staffed” and didn’t have someone to send out and since I happened to be in the office that day, I volunteered to do it.
And one more thing, my daughter is almost 5 and will go to kindergarten next year, so this will be our last year with this school. Off to public school with a $14 photo package option next year.
My husband and I have been kicking this idea around but I can’t figure out how to do it. I’d never go out collecting contributions, because I think that would be humiliating for the families involved. Two have their homes in foreclosure and I wouldn’t want to add to their stress. And I’d feel funny telling them that I bought their pictures for them. If the positions were reversed, I’d feel **obligated **to reimburse someone who did that for me. ANd that might even take a chunk out of someone’s pride. But I’m definitely considering this, even tho we too have taken a big hit from the economy. But if I do it, I’ll probably lie and tell them I got them for free…which of course will also put me in the Express Lane to hell according to many posters here.
Back in the mid-seventies I got into photography, i.e. on film. About fifteen years into it, I read an article that said you need to be very careful with photo developing. The cheapest price may mean they’re using tired chemicals, off-brands of paper, etc., and the image isn’t as stable. So I went back and looked at old photos and sure enough…some had faded dramatically, heading toward a white-out.
I.e. pictures fade with time, but especially so if the processing was half-assed in the first place. And if they didn’t handle your negatives right, you may be SOL.
Of course now we’ve gone to digital so I guess theoretically at least you always have the initial image for reprinting. I just point this out b/c one would hope, if you’re paying GOOD money for photos, that they’ll last a long time. If the school changed photogs every year, choosing the latest fly-by-night, there might be some unpleasant surprises years later; by sticking to a reputable service, there’s someone to complain to, yadda.
Some people may look at the pictures for a year and then forget all about them. Then again, if it’s your wedding pictures and you’re hauling them out for display at your 25th anniversary reception, different story.
I think that there could be some pretty ugly repercussions for you if you got caught. I’m not squeaky clean, but people with money problems are not necessarily happy taking handouts. We’re not rich, and there are lots of things I’d love to have. But I would be very uncomfortable taking something from someone they had procured under less-than-honest circumstances.
You may be able to overcome the ethical hurdle, but any one of those parents may not. Once you hand the pictures over, you may feel great about having done a good deed, but you’ve just unloaded that whole ethics mess on the parent.
I would not give away the pictures because I know how much work goes into the production. I would, however, understand if you do. (I would not call you immoral; I might be tempted to call you ignorant on the plight of photographers.)
At the school where I teach, we have a contract with a particular photography company. Lots of folks grumble, because, whenever “formal” pictures are called for, the company has first dibs. Some folks don’t think the company is worth what they charge. (They’re not Helmut Newton quality, but they’re alright.) I was asked to be a photographer (sans pay) for a dance, and volunteered to set up a “couples” area. Let me tell you, it’s a heck of a lot of work. There’s set up, working with the subjects, and post-processing. That’s a biggie. Sure, I took a couple of hundred of shots, but I spent more time in post-processing by at least a factor of three. (And that was just to get the pictures “acceptable” to me.) Suffice it to say, when people complain to me about the prices that our contracted company charges, my response is simply: That’s what I’d have to charge if I were a pro."
So, I’d say the position you are in is not one-way or the other black and white easy to make a decision. I see why you’d want to give someone the “throw-aways”, but I also see why the company is asking you to destroy them.
Have you considered asking someone from the company? I mean, if I were to go pro, and someone asked me if they could give out the samples to families who want to buy, but are hard pressed by the current financial times, I’d tell you to give them out in a heartbeat. (Sounds like a good cause, and, it sounds like it would build good will redeemable towards future purchases.)
I phrased that badly. I was getting ready to head out of the office for an all day meeting. (just got back) I apologize for the implications and shouldn’t have said anything at that point.
I completely agree. I certainly have told a few lies in my day and regret every one of them. I make it a point in my life to maintain honesty in all things.
In this digital age, why don’t more photographers just print the proofs, on cheap paper so people can look at those and decide if they want them or not. It seems like it would save a lot of money. I think Walmart gave us some little fuzzy black and white copy to look at once. It wasn’t anything you could scan or copy.
They could print their company name boldly over it too, so no one would be able to scan it and make their own.
Not exactly on topic, sorry.
Y’all want to play Lady Bountiful to the poor hard-up families, do it at your own expense, not by misappropriating stuff that isn’t yours. I’m really struggling to see how this is a dilemma.
There was someone upthread taking the contrary view who I thought had some aspirations to being a writer. You’d think he’d taken copyright more seriously. “Hey, just thought I’d let you know I won’t be shelling out for your hilarious novel about your dysfunctional family; I got someone to run me off a free copy.”
It hurts the photographer’s ability to sell his product, if people get the idea that they can get the photos for free by just waiting. The decision of whether to give away the photographer’s work is his to make, not Enola Gay’s.
If these same families had ordered the set but then were unable to pay for them would you step in and purchase them as a gift?
If you’re not up to paying with your own money why would you feel you could do same with the company’s?
keep a 5x7 or 8x10 of each child. Attach the child’s name and address, and put them in an envelope whereever you keep important papers. Write “distribute 2018” on the outside. Then do so.
We’re talking about three families, right? OK, so how about this: call the Moms, and tell them you need a couple of volunteers for a quick project at school. Explain that these unpurchased photo packages have to be destroyed and you could use a couple extra hands. Make sure each Mom gets her own kids photos in her “to be shredded” batch. Explain that you promised to destroy them and had to sign a paper saying you would see to it. And then go get coffee for your helpers.
It took until page 2 for someone to get this? It’s not the paper, people. It is the ability of the photographer to sell next year. Giving them away is not “victimless.”
Ingenious solution but it rather puts the onus of stealing onto the parents. Besides the whole ‘know you’re broke’ issue remains. Sigh.
FWIW (absolutely nothing) I wouldn’t pass the pictures along. If the arrangement had been completely casual that would be a whole different kettle of fish, e.g. “Hey, we’re shorthanded, mind throwing these away or something?” But as it is, you were asked to sign–give your word–that you’d dispose of the unpurchased photos. By signing, you did promise. And no matter how you slice it, the photos aren’t yours to give away.
Knowing they’ll just be destroyed does make it hard to swallow.
The only ethical solution I can see is to explain the situation to the company and ask their permission. Hey, they didn’t mind using you as unpaid labor when they were in a pinch. You saved them some time and bucks. It’s some moral leverage.
The trickiest part, I think, would be giving the photos to the parents without ravaging their pride. It’s a situation where an anonymous gift might be the kindest. Put them in a plain envelope, accompanied by an unsigned note, perhaps along the lines of “You are highly regarded by many in this community who wish your family well.”
Thank you Brynda.
My ex was a photographer in JUST THIS situation.
Preschool pictures, print first then sell or destroy (or send back).
She would go back to the same schools year after year. Sometimes twice a year for special occasion pictures. If you give the families free pictures today they will be less likely to buy pictures next year, even if they are then in a position to afford them. After all they’ve got pictures that are only one year old, right?
My ex was not a rich person…if you give away her product you are taking money from her pocket. Every penny of her money went to support her beautiful baby girl.
Consider who you are harming, and don’t believe for a minute this is a victimless action.
Do not give away these photos.
This is my answer too. If you want to behave ethically, then behave ethically. Those photos have a price, and you have the opportunity to buy them ethically and above board. Everything else is looking for a weasel way to do what you know is wrong.
Are you willing to pay the price being asked? If not, why do you expect the photographer to do so?
Disclaimer - I sell photos as a sideline and I’d be pissed if someone stole my photos like this. And yes, I consider it stealing.
As several people have already stated, I’d call the agent and or photographer and explain the situation. Tell him/her about these needy families that really want those photos and ask why it’s OK to destroy the pictures and not give them to these families.
The photographer could do a few things, I’d think. One would be to outright say no, another would be to outright say yes, but there are other things that might happen as well. The photographer might not mind if the studio’s name is on the proof so it’s free advertising. Or the photographer might explain some other thing that you and I don’t know that would change what you decide.
But in the end, if the photographer outright said no, if it were me, I’d destroy the proofs. First, I don’t lie (if I can possibly help it and this is a fairly big one in my book) and also I’d feel horrible if I saw the scanned picture on someone’s myspace or facebook.
It hurts no one; the photos have already been produced and per the photographer, should be destroyed at a net loss to him. He wasn’t going to profit from these pictures either way, he was going to eat the cost, regardless. These families sound like several I know, who would very much appreciate some stranger’s random act of kindness, and don’t seem like the type to start the “hey, Helen, guess what…” train.
Just give them the photos. If you really need anymore moral justification, do what’s been suggested – physically throw the envelope in the trash. Advise company they’ve been destroyed. Return to trash and remove the abandoned property.
If this is the case, I stand corrected. Sounds like a pretty pisspoor business model to me, but what do I know? But I stick to my conclusion: Give the photos away. You sent them out without a pre-order, you accept the response.
Semi-related, unsubstantiated anecdote: The last company I worked for did a bunch of work with Chinese companys. Long story short: I heard it from a “go between” (basicly a translater for the guy that found companies in North America that could save a buck by shipping work overseas) that the Chinesese business culture consider anyone that puts up a deposit, or earnest money is a sucker, or weak. They, inturn, get the worst product and service in return! Completely opposite and counter-intuitive to the generally accepted concept of “money talks, bullshit walks”. This mind-fuck and dealing with the ever increasing paperwork for import/export is one of the reasons I opted for early retirement. I got sick of dealing with kind of shit.
This blew my mind. The photo people might want to take some lessons…