Wal-mart refused to print some of our pictures

[Dennis]

We dropped off a couple of rolls of film at Wal-mart yesterday. One of the rolls had a bunch of pictures Mary took of Joe and Frances in the bathtub with me. When we picked up the pictures, there was a note attached that said something to the effect of (I'm writing this from memory):

"It is our policy not to print indecent pictures. Some of your pictures were not suitable for printing. We have included all of your negatives. We apologize for the inconvenience and trust you understand or position."

We're not sure what they didn't print because they printed a lot of the bathtub pictures, although we haven't compared them to the negatives. The only thing we can think of is maybe a little too much of me made it into some of them.

Has this ever happened to anyone else?

Dennis

[Hilary]

:eek: I can't believe that and I worked in a photo lab for 2 or 3 years! :eek: Our policy was not to print anything obscene, but bath pictures sound fine to me. I mean, were they really looking that close at your pictures. Weird! I find it really amusing that we'd tell people who had really "bad" stuff on their film to take it to Walmart, because that's the only place in town that would do it. :lol:

[MaryNH]

It hasn't happened to me, but I'll tell you this..I would be hesitant to take "bathtub pics" into Walmart(or any like place) for developing. I know that the intent in taking the pics was innocent and you know that your intent was innocent. But there are some folks out there who would just love to "catch a pedophile".....even in a situation where one doesn't exist.and will look beyong the original intent behind a photograph for something more sinister Does that make any sense? ANyway, I'm sorry Wally World woudn't develop them!!! What a PITA!!!!!!!!!

[Dawn]

Oh, that's ridiculous!!!!! How can they consider that "indecent"????!!!!

I have a Wal-Mart developing story that is different from yours though. We took our daughter to Sesame Place this past summer. She had a picture taken with Big Bird. They allowed you to use your own camera to take the picture, which was great because I wasn't about to spend an arm and five legs for their pics. So we took the picture with my digital camera. I go to Walmart and put the memory stick in the machine & choose my pictures of which prints I wanted printed. I wanted wallets made up of Big Bird & Alexia (among others having nothing to do with Sesame Place).

I was told they can't develop it because of the fact I needed a letter "wherever this pic was taken" stating I was allowed to use/develop this picture. Anything that "looks" like it was taken at a studio or with a backdrop can't be developed unless you get permission from the place. That I can understand....but I guess I was so mad!! I think I was even trying to tell them that we hired Big Bird and that was taken at my mom's house so I asked "what?...you want me to get a letter from my mother?!" :lol:

Long story short....I put on my act of shedding some tears and stuff and they finally did it. We will be taking Alexia again this summer....and now I know to get a letter or something from them giving me persmission to develop it! It makes no sense that Sesame Place would allow you to use your own camera to take the picture but then your given a hard time to have them developed.

[Dennis]

Mary, there was a recent incident where someone brought in pictures like that and the photo lab overreacted and called in the police. So I do understand their concerns. I think it's funny more than anything.

Dawn, I've taken prints to use their self-service machine to make enlargements and they've asked to see the originals to make sure there were no copyrights on them. I think it's a CYA thing because they don't want to get sued.

Dennis

[MaryNH]

Mary, there was a recent incident where someone brought in pictures like that and the photo lab overreacted and called in the police. So I do understand their concerns. I think it's funny more than anything.

Dawn, I've taken prints to use their self-service machine to make enlargements and they've asked to see the originals to make sure there were no copyrights on them. I think it's a CYA thing because they don't want to get sued.

Dennis Unbelievable!!! Some people take their jobs wayyyyyyyyy too seriously:rolleyes:

[LoriS]

I can't believe that. Have you looked at the negatives that they didn't develop yet? I am curious to hear what you find.

[Cortney]

:rolleyes: Sorry Dennis!

[Emily]

I had old pictures that DIDN'T have a copyright on them and they wouldn't do reprints. They said "they look like they are professional so we won't reproduce"... so if your photos are good then screw you! And I took some old (30 year old) pictures of me and my DH in to have color copies made, not even reprints, just color copies, and they wanted a note. I said what???????? These are 30 year old snapshots, are you kidding me????????????

[Dawn]

And I took some old (30 year old) pictures of me and my DH in to have color copies made, not even reprints, just color copies, and they wanted a note. I said what???????? These are 30 year old snapshots, are you kidding me????????????HUH? That's just crazy!!

[Bev]

Well I think it was Wal-Mart that developed a photo of a male body part, that was taken on my camera, by some guy I asked to take a picture of me and my husband at a wedding. Well I gave it to the wrong guy, and DH said, "you know he's in the bathroom right now, and you know what he's taking a picture of!" OH NO! So I said, well at least no one will develop it. Wrongo! And you could tell that's what it was, I mean it was an extreme closeup but it was obvious what it was!! ((Shudder))

My Mom takes old pictures there to get redone all the time, and she's never had a problem. I think with the Kodak Picture maker, if you are quick and know how to use the machine, you can sneek a copyrighted one in there no problem.

[Calypso]

Wow, what a frustrating mess!

I sure am glad we use our digital camera and print our own pics on our photo printer.

[Rene]

Like Mary said, I would avoid ANY bathtub shots, even of the kids alone......if you want those kinds of pics, and who doesn't cause there's nothing wrong with it, use a polaroid camera for it. ;)

[Priscilla]

thats WIERD~

[Tracey]

Hi there. I just wanted to offer an additional perspective. I am a clinical psychologist and work in the world of child sexual abuse. A lot of perpetrators get off on nude photos of themselves with kids in various sitautions. Photo developers are mandated child abuse reporters (at least in the state of California). So if they suspect something might be fishy, they are supposed to refuse to develop the photos an alert the authorities.

I am sure your situation was totally innocent. But you really can not imagine how common this sort of thing is in the world of kiddy porn and the like. Unfortunately innocent people like you miss out of memories.

[Dennis]

Hi there. I just wanted to offer an additional perspective. I am a clinical psychologist and work in the world of child sexual abuse. A lot of perpetrators get off on nude photos of themselves with kids in various sitautions. Photo developers are mandated child abuse reporters (at least in the state of California). So if they suspect something might be fishy, they are supposed to refuse to develop the photos an alert the authorities.

I am sure your situation was totally innocent. But you really can not imagine how common this sort of thing is in the world of kiddy porn and the like. Unfortunately innocent people like you miss out of memories.

Tracey, I totally understand. The thing I don't get is they did develop most of the bathtub pictures. I haven't gone through the negatives to see which ones they didn't do, so I don't know what the difference is in those. It would've made more sense to me if they didn't develop any of them.

Dennis

[kristy]

wow, that is a surprise! I always thought they developed ANYTHING!!

[camprunner]

I needed pics of Mary last year and didn't have time to get professional ones done. I used a regular white sheet as a backdrop and they turned out horrible. I took the memory stick from my digital camara to get them printed at Walmart and they almost didn't! Just because I used a sheet as backdrop on our sofa at home!

[squintz22]

That's ridiculous that they would print some and not others! Makes me a little concerned about printing out any of the digitals I have that look good!

[TaraF]

That sounds very stupid to me! I mean, if the pictures actually were too indecent to print, you'd think it would be more of a legal matter, something they would report to the police. And since they didn't think they were that indecent, then why not print them?

Tara

[catalina]

That has not happened to me. In fact I've just developed a picture where I'm in the shower with my dog where I'm holding him and you can see 1/2 boob :eek: I still can't believe they developed that :blush:

[Lisa*]

You know what is sad about this whole situtation, 25 years ago this never would have happened. I can't tell you how many pictures my mom and dad took of me in the buff. It's scary how much the world has changed that if you take a picture of your naked kid you can be branded a pedophile.

Lisa

[Cazzle]

I hope it makes you feel better to hear that I know of other people who've had the same problem with Walmart. Like everyone these days, I guess they're afraid of being sued, so they (supposedly) have strict rules about what they won't print. The other people I recall complaining about them were having some shots of their kids in the bath developed, and Walmart refused to do it. There wasn't an adult in the other photos, just kids.

Ok, it's a sad world when innocent photos of children taken by parents who love them ring paedophile alarm bells, but on this occasion Walmart's heart seems to be in the right place. They don't want to be responsible for making prints for sickos - and so they have to make the rule apply to everyone.

[catalina]

No doubt that past times were always better :rolleyes:

[Kris]

wow seems weird they developed some but not all. Have you compared yet?

[Dennis]

We never did bother to see which ones they didn't print.

[corjack]

I currently work in a photo lab and I will tell you that it depends on the prude that developed them. I do not get offended by that sort of subject matter, but we had an older woman(late 50's) working with us that just went off the deep end about stuff like that. I say as long as it is not sexual in nature than it is ok. I did a lot of "Spring Break"(boob shots) pictures and "Oh I suprised you in the bathroom" sort of stuff. I don't see the big deal but like I said there is a overly nosey lady at every lab. Back in the day they did not bath with their kids sort of thing.

Jackie

[Missy]

This is all shocking to me! The rules make sense, but I would be sooo mad if they wouldn't let me print pictures that I had taken myself. I often take pics with sheet backdrops and some seasonal props at home to supplement professional pics, and if they wouldn't let me print them, I'd be furious! I mean, really, how in the world can they police that so closely with the high-quality digital cameras (and especially photo buffs who have professional grade cameras and really know how to shoot film) and equipment out there? There are so many books on how to make your home photography look professional, apparently they don't tell you that if you get any good at taking pics, you won't actually be able to print them anywhere! :lol: I remember I took pics at a wedding I was in, I took a lot with my own camera of the shots the photographer was setting up, so they were the same poses and everything. I bet trying to get reprints would be a problem :rolleyes: It's funny, b/c I have NEVER had a problem here in the city...all the workers are so busy and couldn't care less what you're printing up :tongue:

Missy