School photos
Phil S Stein
photographs taken by a portrait studio that specializes in this. These
are sent home unsolicited. When the parents get the envelope, there
is a form inside that instructs parents to send in money or to return
the photographs, presumably to be destroyed. Many of the parents do
not wish to have their children's pictures destroyed for cultural
reasons, and end up paying the rather expensive price, which is about
10 times what a similar package would cost at our local Wal*Mart.
I know that if they mailed the portraits instead of sending them home,
they would be mine to keep, and if the studio insisted on mailing me a
bill, I'd think it was mail fraud. If a local supplies company sent
home a box of crayons unsolicited and sent home a bill with it,
parents would be outraged. Yet the portrait studios seem to be the
only ones that get away with this.
Is there any legal basis for them to demand money or demand the return
of merchandise that they gave to a child in an unsolicited manner?
There is clearly no contract here on the part of the parents.
booger
its part of my culture. Is the school obligated to provide
me a male teacher? I dont think so....It appears to me
that the school and the studio is acting quite reasonably.
Maybe the family could ask the school not to even take
the photos and give your cultural mumbo jumbo there.
Make sure its done in writing.
Btw, what loony culture is this that doesnt like destroying images.
I mean, what if they have a digital camera? Does their culture
deny them the right to delete a bad image from the camera or
from their hard drive? Blah.
booger
"Phil S Stein" <stein...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bcc5bbc.03032...@posting.google.com...
Phil S Stein
> What if I say that I dont like female teachers. You know,
> its part of my culture. Is the school obligated to provide
> me a male teacher? I dont think so....It appears to me
> that the school and the studio is acting quite reasonably.
> Maybe the family could ask the school not to even take
> the photos and give your cultural mumbo jumbo there.
> Make sure its done in writing.
>
> Btw, what loony culture is this that doesnt like destroying images.
> I mean, what if they have a digital camera? Does their culture
> deny them the right to delete a bad image from the camera or
> from their hard drive? Blah.
>
answering the questions. If you have no relevant opinion, then
refrain from posting. This is not the place for racism.
The facts are that a company sent merchandise to people's homes and
insisted that they pay for it even though they did not order it. They
are taking advantage of people. My post was clear. Your answer was
irrelevant.
By the way, schools in my state are expected by law to respect
cultural and religious differences so long as they do not cause undue
interference with the educational process. Requiring a male teacher
would not be reasonable. It is not at all the same as allowing a
private company in a school to sell things using questionable tactics.
If you are going to use an analogy, use a relevant one.
McGyver
The practice was legal for most of our history, and still is legal in states
which have not passed laws against it. If you go to http://www.yahoo.com
and use the search function by entering
+law +"unsolicited merchandise"
in the search area, with the plus signs and quote marks, you will see 281
websites dealing with the topic. You can narrow it down by entering your
state in the search string. Use a plus sign and use quote marks if your
state has two words.
The few sites I looked at all describe laws dealing with the practice. In
some states, you can treat the merchandise as a gift. Other states go
further, making the solicitation a crime. In the few I looked at, use of
the mail was not relevant. If you have any trouble, post further, including
your state, and I'll take another look.
McGyver
Fred the Red Shirt
I don't see how they can photograph the children over the objections
of the parents. Tell them don't take the picture, then there is
nothing to send home.
--
FF
MyThoughts
like a strange process. A private company photographs minors at school
while they are essentially a captive audience and with the cooperation of
the teachers and other adults who are in charge. Then they get the minors
to bring the product home for free to solicit their parents, and they
instruct the kids to bring back either the product or money. The kids whose
families really can't afford to pay for the pictures, or who don't have
families (such as kids who live in group homes, etc) have to bring the
pictures back to school and turn them in, presumably in front of other
students whose parents could afford to buy the pictures. Picture day is a
big deal. The kids know about it and often have to dress up, etc. in most
schools. And, really, what's it all for? -- a fundraiser or some other
purpose? Is there really an educational purpose for the whole process?
I know it's a tradition, but it gives me a weird feeling all around. It's
not like they said, we're all going to have our pictures taken and you can
bring yours home to keep (for free) if you want to. It's a tradition, but
it's also a business.
So, in my opinion, you have a valid point. And now you have to decide
whether to just go with the flow, or make an issue about it. If it were me,
and I could afford it, I'd just buy the stupid pictures because that would
cause my child the least amount of discomfort.
Some battles aren't worth fighting. Others are. You have to choose, and by
now, you probably already decided what to do and did it.
But, again, I think you have a good point.
"Phil S Stein" <stein...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bcc5bbc.03032...@posting.google.com...
Stuart Pollock
taking process. End of problem.
John D. Goulden
> photographs taken by a portrait studio that specializes in this. These
> are sent home unsolicited. When the parents get the envelope, there
> is a form inside that instructs parents to send in money or to return
At every school that I know of (midwestern USA) "picture day" is invariably
announced well in advance, if for no other reason than to give parents a
chance to see that their children are appropriately attired that day. If the
parents know that they don't want the pictures taken, all they need to do is
opt out. No pictures, no problems.
> There is clearly no contract here on the part of the parents.
The school enters into a contract with the portrait studio. The school gets
a portion of the package price, which is why they are so expensive - school
pictures are also part fund-raiser. The school generally also gets a copy of
each student's picture for their yearbook even if the parents don't purchase
the package. If your school doesn't get these benefits, they should be more
agressive when they negotiate the contract with the portrait studio.
At my children's school, the studio sends portrait proofs (not an entire
package) home with the kids and we select the shot and the package that we
want, if any. The school (not the parent) is responsible for the return of
all proof packages to the studio, so naturally the school presses the kids
and parents to return the proof sets. If a parent refuses to return a proof
set, (or, more likely, the child loses it) the school must compensate the
portrait studio. However when this occurs in practice I'm told that the
studio currently used by the school doesn't press the issue because there is
quite a bit of competition for school picture business in our area and they
don't want to lose the contract.
--
John D. Goulden
jgou...@okcu.edu
Jonathan Ball
> I don't know about the legalities but, when I think about it, it does seem
> like a strange process. A private company photographs minors at school
> while they are essentially a captive audience and with the cooperation of
> the teachers and other adults who are in charge. Then they get the minors
> to bring the product home for free to solicit their parents, and they
> instruct the kids to bring back either the product or money. The kids whose
> families really can't afford to pay for the pictures, or who don't have
> families (such as kids who live in group homes, etc) have to bring the
> pictures back to school and turn them in, presumably in front of other
> students whose parents could afford to buy the pictures. Picture day is a
> big deal. The kids know about it and often have to dress up, etc. in most
> schools. And, really, what's it all for? -- a fundraiser or some other
> purpose? Is there really an educational purpose for the whole process?
What a bonehead! It's about memories. I just was at a
party a few weeks ago for almost a dozen high school
classmates (class of 1970), most of whom also had gone
to the same elementary school. One of the women
brought her class pictures, kindergarten through 6th
grade, and we puzzled over who some of the kids were in
the early years who didn't go all the way through
elementary school with us.
The issue of returning photos was a non-issue. If I
recall correctly, in the Glendale Unified School
District in the 1950s and early 1960s, only the really
small wallet-sized photos and the class photo were sent
home, and I think they may have been free; I'm pretty
sure the class photo was, anyway. An order form was
included, and if the parents wanted any of the larger
photos, they had to order them. My family was [ahem]
financially constrained, and we never bought any of the
larger pictures.
>
> I know it's a tradition, but it gives me a weird feeling all around. It's
> not like they said, we're all going to have our pictures taken and you can
> bring yours home to keep (for free) if you want to. It's a tradition, but
> it's also a business.
>
> So, in my opinion, you have a valid point. And now you have to decide
> whether to just go with the flow, or make an issue about it. If it were me,
> and I could afford it, I'd just buy the stupid pictures because that would
> cause my child the least amount of discomfort.
>
> Some battles aren't worth fighting. Others are. You have to choose, and by
> now, you probably already decided what to do and did it.
>
> But, again, I think you have a good point.
It's a lousy point. The guy is trying to make a
mountain out of a molehill. If he doesn't want either
the photos or some hassle, he should send them back.
It's this stupid, litigious tendency to want to disrupt
everything and/or "beat the system" that makes people
long nostalgically for an earlier era. I'm sure there
were some similar kooks back then, but it seems far
more prevalent today. This dumbass knows well in
advance that "picture day" is coming, and as another
poster replied, he can do something in advance to avoid
having to deal with it later if he's going to be such a
big, whiny crybaby about it.
Phil S Stein
> The school enters into a contract with the portrait studio. The school gets
> a portion of the package price, which is why they are so expensive - school
> pictures are also part fund-raiser.
I understand that they are a fund raiser, but I beg to differ about
whether that is what makes them expensive. To be frank, I have no idea
what percent of the money the school gets, but I suspect it is very
small. While I haven't looked into it for pictures, I have looked
into the issue for other fundraisers such as candy sales, wrapping
paper sales and fireworks sales. (The latter is actually done by other
community groups besides schools.)
A local private school in my area has fund raisers. Children are not
asked to sell anything or raise any money in general, which makes
sense to me since it's a private school. However, the student council
raises money with candy sales. They buy candy at a warehouse style
discount store. Candy bars end up costing about 20 to 25 cents each,
and students can buy them at a table in the snack bar for a dollar.
There is considerable "profit" and the money goes to the student
council.
In our public schools, where my child goes, things are different.
Candy bar sales result in high profits for the candy company. If I
spend a dollar on a candy bar, the school gets about 12 cents and I
get a 25 cent candy bar. It's not difficult to guess where the rest
of the money goes. If I merely donated a dollar to the school, not
only would they get more money but I'd also be able to buy the candy
bar with my tax write-off from the charitable donation and I'd have
money left over. They would have a dollar and we would all come out
ahead-- except for the fundraising company. The numbers are similar
for wrapping paper sales and other fundraisers I've seen.
There is one other difference. Instead of having an ordinary wrapper
on the candy bars used for fundraising, there is a special wrapper
that usually features a discount coupon of some sort for a national
pizza chain. I suspect that this chain underwrites part of the cost
of the candy so that their ad appears on it and they have this new
distribution channel. (The discount usually has some sort of catch,
such as requiring a related purchase for the rest of the family or at
least accompaniment by the parents, so the discount is not atypical of
what one might find in a local newspaper coupon.) I have been given no
indication that the pizza chain contributes anything additional to the
school, but part of the 12 cents might be from them.
So I doubt that the high price is really due to the extra money going
to the school. School fundraisers are a convenient way for schools to
ask for money without seeming to beg for cash. While it may seem
tacky to some if these students asked for a 15 cent donation as an
alternative to a candy sale, the school would be better off. But the
candy company would not like it.
If the school got as much as 10% from the photos, I could still give
them a $5 donation and take my kids to Wal*Mart for a photo package.
I would save a significant amount of money, the school would make more
money, and they could use the leftover money to hire a local
photographer to take yearbook photos. Or, if Wal*Mart can afford to
be competitive on the package in the first place, it would seem as if
other photographers should be able to be competitive in the school
picture arena too.
Tom of Bunyon
"Fred the Red Shirt" <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:ef427f7c.03032...@posting.google.com...
I know the Amish won't let themselves be photographed. These object on
religious grounds.
Fred the Red Shirt
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:ef427f7c.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > stein...@hotmail.com (Phil S Stein) wrote in message
> news:<8bcc5bbc.03032...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > >
> > > of merchandise that they gave to a child in an unsolicited manner?
> > > There is clearly no contract here on the part of the parents.
> >
> > I don't see how they can photograph the children over the objections
> > of the parents. Tell them don't take the picture, then there is
> > nothing to send home.
>
> I know the Amish won't let themselves be photographed. These object on
> religious grounds.
Indeed, Amish also object, on religious grounds, to their children
attending public schools. This would moot the issue in this case.
The Amish take the bilblical prohibition of graven images literally.
What little artwork the Amish permit themselves is abstract, like the
geometrical patterns of Amish quilts. So, if someone tries to sell
you an 'Amish hand painted saw' depicting a pastoral scene, I suggest
you pay for it with an $18 bill.
--
FF
Wai Doan Hsu
really an educational purpose for the whole process?
>
> What a bonehead!
>
Then he went on to say that it didn't work that way when he was
growing up and he was happy with the system that way, yet he insists
on supporting a different one now.
>
> It's a lousy point.
>
> It's this stupid ...
> This dumbass ...
> crybaby
Stop following me. You've never been to this group before and have no
idea about the legal issues. You've already demonstrated elsewhere
that you have no sense of ethics. If you think you can win an
argument simply by name calling, take it somewhere else. People can
call you a lot worse.
Tom of Bunyon
"Fred the Red Shirt" <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:ef427f7c.03032...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom of Bunyon" <t2...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<aBzga.68002$3m6....@fe07.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:ef427f7c.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > > stein...@hotmail.com (Phil S Stein) wrote in message
> > news:<8bcc5bbc.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Is there any legal basis for them to demand money or demand the
return
> > > > of merchandise that they gave to a child in an unsolicited manner?
> > > > There is clearly no contract here on the part of the parents.
> > >
> > > I don't see how they can photograph the children over the objections
> > > of the parents. Tell them don't take the picture, then there is
> > > nothing to send home.
> >
> > I know the Amish won't let themselves be photographed. These object on
> > religious grounds.
>
> Indeed, Amish also object, on religious grounds, to their children
> attending public schools. This would moot the issue in this case.
Actually, I talked to a bunch of them in the Wisc Dells once. Their kids are
required to attend until the 8th grade.
Fred the Red Shirt
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:ef427f7c.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > "Tom of Bunyon" <t2...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:<aBzga.68002$3m6....@fe07.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> > > "Fred the Red Shirt" <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > > news:ef427f7c.03032...@posting.google.com...
> > > > stein...@hotmail.com (Phil S Stein) wrote in message
> > > news:<8bcc5bbc.03032...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any legal basis for them to demand money or demand the
> return
> > > > > of merchandise that they gave to a child in an unsolicited manner?
> > > > > There is clearly no contract here on the part of the parents.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how they can photograph the children over the objections
> > > > of the parents. Tell them don't take the picture, then there is
> > > > nothing to send home.
> > >
> > > I know the Amish won't let themselves be photographed. These object on
> > > religious grounds.
> >
> > Indeed, Amish also object, on religious grounds, to their children
> > attending public schools. This would moot the issue in this case.
>
> Actually, I talked to a bunch of them in the Wisc Dells once. Their kids are
> required to attend until the 8th grade.
No doubt that varies by the state, and the degree of resistance varies
with the sect. At one time the Michgan legislature considered requiring
Amish children to attend schools certified by the state, but dropped
the issue. The situation in Michigan may have changed since.
BTW, are those public schools also attended by yankees? No doubt
operating their own private schools would be an option.
--
FF