Because, as has been explained multiple times in this thread, they are NOT merely proofs.
The photographer prints up full sets, with multiple sizes in each set, and brings them to the school for direct sale. These are not simply samples from which parents can place orders; they are the final product. The photographer presumably does this, rather than simply take orders based on samples, because it encourages people to buy more stuff. And the photographer also does this knowing that not all sets will be sold.
I still think Jodi’s solution, offered on the first page of this thread, is the best one. The OP should tell the photographer that she will not destroy the photos, and that she is not interested in signing some piece of paper that makes her responsible for their disposal. If the photographer wants them back, he can come and collect them or pay for them to be shipped. If he doesn’t want to do that, the OP will dispose of the photos as she sees fit, with no guarantees as to what will happen to them.
Exactly what is meant by “destroy”? Are you supposed to shred them, or just discard them?
If all you have to do is throw them away, you might consider this option:
Enola Gay: “Hi Parent, it’s Enola. I know how disappointed you were that you couldn’t have your child’s picture and I wanted to let you know that, per my agreement, I’ve had to throw them in the trash, which is located at 123 Main Street. Have a great day!”
You’ve abided by your obligation, and given the parent the choice as to whether they want the pictures badly enough to come get them out of the trash. They’ll get the not-so-subtle hint that that’s what you’re getting at.
I was on the parental end of this situation two years ago. When my son, a Kindegartener, had his pictures taken, we couldn’t afford to buy the package. The pictures were sent home for us to look at, and they were fantastic, but $57 wasn’t in our budget. I sent the pictures back to the school. About two weeks later, my son brought home a manila envelope containing every last one of the photo sheets. Now, I have no idea if someone purchased the pictures and then gave them to us, or if it was a situation like the OP where a kind volunteer took pity on us. But I do know that I was (and am still) grateful that someone did something so incredibly nice for me. I never told anyone else about it (until now) and I did buy school pictures in the years following.
Make of it what you will, but I’d get those families their pics.
I grant you that I’m accepting the families’ protestation of hardship as genuine, and so is Enola Gay. (Presumably she actually knows these people somewhat.) Real hardship isn’t the same as “I don’t want to pay for this, it’s too expensive.”
If you’re commuting to California from Virginia daily to bring your child to preschool, I agree that you probably can’t afford those photos, but I have serious questions about your priorities!
Uh, seriously, we’re not speculating anymore about why people choose not to buy school photos. There are tons of potential reasons, but the parents in this case made their reasons clear.
Huh, I tried to read through the thread to see if this had been one of the suggestions – guess I missed it. Oh well. I could live with myself if I did what I was supposed to in throwing the pictures away. If someone wants to root through my trash, that’s on them. For all I’d know, they might not do it and the pictures end up in a landfill anyway.
One thing we have lost sight of in this thread is that these are just photos of a kid (or three.) The kids aren’t dead, these aren’t the only possible photos of them left in the world. Yes, it seems wasteful that perfectly nice photos will be tossed away but new photos of the kids can be made. Portrait studios run specials every day, at least in stores and malls here.
My earlier posts were focused mainly on the extortionate prices school photographers charge and the kickback that the school receives. I still think both of those things are wrong, wrong, wrong but so is giving the pictures away without permission.
I am no photographer but I am 99% sure that business of washing the print off and re-using the paper was bullshit so the salesgirl didn’t have to tell me they would be thrown in the trash. Negotiating a lower price was not an option, because I asked. Full price or landfill.
I knew a woman who felt bad because her daughter couldn’t get a class ring along with her peers from the school-sponsored company. I said, “I think Wal-Mart sells them.” She ended up going that way and saving a lot of money. Her daughter was glad to have any kind of ring, not embarrassed that it didn’t match everybody else’s.
And that’s a big part of the issue here, isn’t it? People resent the fact that the school’s authorized rep charges a lot. Maybe it’s worth it, as I posted earlier, if those images are professional and durable. But if it’s just a matter of having your kid photographed every so often, there are cheaper ways. Maybe they can’t afford $60, but they could afford $20 or $30 at a discount place.
Photos of your kids do serve a practical purpose, IMO: if they ever go missing, you need to have a recent photo on hand. It seems like good planning and if the photog coming around once in a year reminds parents, I’m for it.
You want to help out someone in a bad situation by doing something that is unethical but potentially without any actual harm. When you make moral decisions, are you an idealist or a pragmatist? Do you make moral decisions based on principles, or real world benefits and costs?
Even assuming it’s the right thing to do, it’s against the rules. You would have to do it in such a way as to A) not get fired from your job and B) not get sued by the photography company.
If it were me, I would probably do it, but only if I was really well informed about the family’s situation, and also probably only if I actually knew the family.
Other things to consider:
There may be alternative solutions that do not involve moral ambiguity - you could pay for the pictures yourself, or take a collection or suggest a fund for families that can’t afford pictures. Or suggest that any future contracts with photographers include a clause that they give away a small percentage of free packages to needy families.
$60 minimum really? Unless this includes hair and makeup and 30 different poses, it seems a bit steep to me. I think it’s time to lobby for a different photographer.
The whole point of the OP is that it’s wrong. It’s not really a gray area, which is what all the maneuvering is about. . .trying to make it into a gray area by throwing it into the trash and picking it out, etc.
The contract states that the photos be destroyed and the OP either does it or she doesn’t.
The question the OP is posing is whether sometimes it’s OK to do the wrong thing for some purpose you might deem to be overriding.
The fact that a larger number of posters have said it’s wrong is hardly surprising.
I’d talk to the company, and ask them if they minded kicking a few photos to these disadvantaged families. Maybe if they were willing to even drop the price some, and you and your friends passed a hat…
You’ve slid from “what’s in the contract” to “wrong” here, and they aren’t the same thing. So yes: the question is, is it alright to do wrong by the photographer to do right by the families. Making that decision involves weighing how right and how wrong these things are. That isn’t “maneuvering.”
No, it isn’t.
Eh. I thought “Some reason you’re getting so defensive? Conscience prickling you?” was a little hostile.
These comments have been interesting. One of the things that became readily apparent to me in reading some of these posts is that the economy is clearly effecting people very differently. In fact, I’ve seen threads here titled ’ The plummeting economy hasn’t touched me in the least’ (or titles to that effect).
In my area (southern Cal), many people have been financially destoyed by the collapse of the economy and it was a sudden event. There have been many suggestions such as…why don’t you just create a fund for needy families at the school who can’t afford school pictures? Funny thing is that 2 months ago all these families were self sufficient and had the means to cover their expenses but things have changed drastically here. I’ll give you an example of how it has affected us: We have a mortgage in the amount of $X based on the value of our home when we bought it several years ago (peak of the market). Well, I got a letter 2 weeks ago from our mortgage carrier that said that they would no longer impound our account. This means we have to pay the property taxes as one lump sum and they are due in November. No problem, I thought…I’ll just write a check from our home equity account to pay the taxes. No dice. The home equity line of credit is now frozen due the probable decline in our home’s value. Now we have to find a way to pay a shitload of taxes in the next few weeks. But our problems are minor compared to a lot of people who have our issue PLUS they’ve been layed off. It has really been a catostrophic blow to many people in this area. So the people who say ’ well if they aren’t willing to pony up the $60 then they must not want them enough’ are not understanding the situation.
Anyway, I appreciate all the different perspectives expressed here. But since the jury was deadlocked I had to make an executive decision ;). I have to go get the kids in bed but I’ll be back in a bit to give you the full boring story.
I think being wasteful is a bigger “sin” than telling a lie, so with that in mind…
This.
Which I can understand. But if you feel so strongly about your product, wouldn’t you then pay the money necessary to get it back so that you could be reassured of its being truly destroyed? In my own case, I don’t think I’d leave something so important to a volunteer that I hadn’t even clarified how they should get rid of the prints.
Eh, I don’t mind copping to being that kind of girl. Taking the Moral High Road on something like this is an expenditure I’m not willing to budget for.
By which you mean that volunteers can’t be trusted to do the right thing, keep their word, and not give away property that isn’t theirs. So better pay the money to avoid leading them into temptation. I suspect you are right.
As far as i know, the volunteer never made any undertaking to do the job of destroying the pictures. She was simply told to destroy them by the photo people, and told that she would have to sign a piece of paper attesting to their destruction. Why should an unpaid volunteer undertake such a responsibility on behalf of a for-profit business?
Not only is the volunteer under no obligation to do the photo studio’s work for them, she was only involved in the process in the first place because the photo studio was allegedly “short staffed” on the day in question. In the past, the studio has sent out a paid employee to take care of this, and you would think that, if the integrity and the running of their business is important enough to them, they would have ensured that they had enough people there to cover the desk. The studio is, after all, making money from this venture; why should the school even provide a volunteer to help with the job?
And all this is why the OP should tell the studio to pay for shipping the photos back if they want to ensure their destruction, and should refuse to destroy them.
Why do volunteers volunteer? I suppose there are lots of reasons. It seems in this case that the OP wanted to help out at the school and the task assigned her was to deal with the photos. The problem is completing those dealings in an ethical manner.
From the OP
She didn’t have to volunteer, but once she did if she doesn’t like the task she should not do something she knows is not “fair” at the expense of those she volunteered to help. If she doesn’t like the task she is free not to volunteer for it a second time. If she doesn’t like the task she can refuse to complete it. Neither of those is ethically wrong IMO. Intentionally disregarding the wishes of those she volunteered to help, in fact intentionally harming them by going against their wishes, crosses the line to unethical IMO.
Right…two wrongs make a right…got it.
Yup…the picture company should not have the school use volunteers to conduct their business.
That doesn’t excuse unethical behavior by volunteers.
I have no problem with that. Just don’t give them away.
