Stepping beyond merely stocking censored versions of CD’s, movies, and video-games, WalMart makes sure your family snapshots are “Hayes compatible.”
According to the litigator, they have a company policy against printing “pictures of any male or female in a state of undress not allowable on a public street.” Regardless of age or context?
If this is true, I hope they get their pants sued off.
It also proves, Larry, that Wallyworld is run by a bunch of fuckin’ hypocrites. The last time I visited Wallyworld (and I try to visit that place as little as possible) they had many displays of ladies in lingerie in the women’s underwear section.
I think it’s hilarious that they’ll refuse to print private pictures of possible nude people but they’ll prominently display pictures of women in bikini panties (not that there’s anything wrong with that :D) where kids can see them.
I think we all should boycott Wallyworld. It’s corporate morals make the insurance companies look like knights in shining armor.
Isn’t that true, at least in theory, of all major chains with photo-developing depts.?
Funny story (from my Ten Short Stories About Urology):
Dr. J
Damn, where am I going to take my amateur granny-fisting porn?
I’m sure on what grounds she has a case against them. Are photoshop owners obliged to keep quiet if they develop a photo that shows what they believe to be a crime being committed?
Have I told you lately that I love you? 
You know, we have a picture of me with my dad in the bathtub before I was two. My dad used to take a bath every morning, and when I was a toddler, I would run in and join him. NOTHING showing, but it occurs to me now that I wouldn’t dare take a picture like that again.
And we have pictures of me and my sister-when we were in a tub, or running around with our bare bottoms showing.
Sad.
Apparently many places do this, though I don’t know if the “do not print” rules are quite as stringent as the policy that Wal-Mart has.
[semi-hijack]
When I was in college I worked as a research assistant in a psych lab. One day I had to pull a selection of slides out of a slide library that we had, and mail it to a photo processor in some other state to have them blown up to glossy 8x10" shots. This was for an experiment that had to, at times, evoke strong emotions of various kinds, so there were all sorts of photos involved. We had beautiful women in saris, little kids eating ice cream, sunsets, and beaches. Then there were the photos of autopsy subjects, a woman with such badly blackened eyes that they were swollen shut, a photo of a suicide where a good chunk of the guy’s head was blown off, a toilet that looked like it was from the worst gas station in the world and then someone with some extreme intestinal disorder had used it, etc. And we had 4 nude shots. Full frontal nudity, though nothing blatant (no spread legs, etc.), and very nicely airbrushed - nice-looking models too.
I got the photos back, and a small envelope was among them. It was labeled as not processed, and sure enough, the 4 nudes were in there. I called and explained it was for an experiment, and the very apologetic-sounding woman who answered the phone explained that their company (based in some southern US state, I don’t remember where) had policies about developing nude photos, but if I sent a letter on our letterhead explaining the situation, they could do it. I couldn’t help it - I asked incredulously that all of those horrible slides I sent could be processed, but not the well-done and obviously professionally-shot nudes?
[/semi-hijack]
Fred Meyer, which is a large chain through Oregon and Washington state, had no problems when I brought some pictures of a very interesting nature to be developed.
HYPOCRITICAL BASTARDS!!! It’s fine with them if it’s part of an ad campaign, but if it’s personal use it’s a big no no…
WHAT THE FUCK?!
Down with fucking wally world. I sometimes go there to purchase small things, but now, no way.
Why should they get their pants sued off? If you don’t like Walmart’s photo-developing policy, you can always take your pictures down the street to be developed somewhere else.
My SO once worked in a Wallyworld Photo Lab, and according to him they couldn’t (and/or wouldn’t) print frontal nudity shots. I was of the understanding that the policy was in accordance with state laws. Butt shot photos were at their on-duty managers’ own discretion of whether they felt like printing it or not. He mentioned refusing a couple of toilet shots, but that was because they were of people he knew from the small town he came from and he just thought it was gross. (If the individual employees refused the manager would either back them up or print the shots her/himself. They were pretty good about that.) He also refused to develop photos of some redneck hunter mimicking (at least I HOPE) screwing a dead deer.
I think his most common complaint from that era was: “Do people just not realize that we have to look at the pictures to develop them?!!”
Second most common was: “God, that was DISGUSTING!!!”
Anything resembling child porn was reported to the police. For drugs- people smoking joints, etc. they didn’t report on the theory that there’s no way to tell if it’s fake or not. They did, however, report any photos of large sums of money- probably because they were typically “trophy” shots of loot from illegal activities- selling drugs, robberies, etc.
I hope that was useful.
Wal-Mart uses Fuji processing.
I live near Rochester NY. Home of Kodak.
None of my film gets done in a Wal-Mart
People still use film cameras?
You evidently didn’t read the link. I think you’ll realize why after you do.
I read the link. I saw it on the local news tonight. I don’t see the problem, actually.
A potential child pornographer tries to develop film. Corporate policy is that they don’t develop those pictures so they didn’t. If she does not like that policy, there are other options available to her.
They didn’t give her her film back. That I don’t understand. They were her children and it was later discovered that there was no sinister motive for these pictures. She should get her roll back as it’s still her property.
The main issue doesn’t seem to be that, however. It’s $75,000 in actual damages. Actual, not punitive. We’re not talking about pain and suffering here. $75,000 for damages and losses she suffered over the course of 45 minutes. Does she make $100,000 an hour? Was that film platinum plated and ruby encrusted? Was she carrying a check for 75 thou and she dropped it on the way back to the manager’s office?
“They totally invaded my privacy, and they made me feel like a criminal.”
Guess what? You give up your privacy when you request that complete strangers carefully inspect your property. Don’t like it? Get your film back and set up your own photolab in your basement.
Most major shopping malls have camera store that will arrange developing for you, or even do it themselves.
Dump yer Instamatics, & buy a cheap, used 35mm. You can get 'em at yard sales for nothing.
Two anecdotes:
A while back, sex columnist Dan Savage was talking about this, and decided on an experiment. First, he took a picture of him kissing his boyfriend. Then, he took a picture of him kissing his sister. The trick was to see if Wal-Mart liked incest more than homosexuality.
Back in college I knew a guy who used to work at a film lab. One of his more interesting items was a photo album filled with other peoples’ photos - all nudes. Creepy as hell that this guy had a collection of other peoples’ photos. But hey, he was a teenager in a photo lab with access to paper and developer and stuff and people were bringing him nude photos to develop, so he just made an extra one for himself. In these enlightened days, if you want someone else to beat off to pictures of your or your loved one, just get a digital camera and a web site.
I wonder if he watched One Hour Photo with Robin Williams.