# Boycott "The Picture People" photography studio!



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

This was originally posted in the diapering forum:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=171957


----------



## Katana (Nov 16, 2002)

Photo studios have to be SO careful. Especially with females subjects.

My dh works at a photo stuido, and what one parent considers fine, the next one considers indecent, so they have to err on the side of caution. Too many people are lawsuit happy, and the owners of these studios do not want lawsuits. It's nothing personal, they're just following a policy that makes sure they won't get sued.


----------



## indie (Jun 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Alison74*
It's nothing personal, they're just following a policy that makes sure they won't get sued.

Until they stop discriminating agains girl babies they *aren't* making sure they are not going to get sued.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *indie*
Until they stop discriminating agains girl babies they *aren't* making sure they are not going to get sued.

I agree, but I didn't have that experience with my dd. Now I'll ahve to check it out.


----------



## Summertime Mommy (Dec 5, 2003)

I don't think its discrimination. The fact of the matter is, that in our soceity it is acceptable for a man to go topless, but it isn't acceptable for a woman to do the same. I mean, people get offended by bfing!! (and we all know how dumb that is) Several other picture studios have similar policies. They are just trying to cover their butts so that some sue happy parent doesn't come along and sue them for taking "obsene"







pictures of their 13 month old little girl. No one would think to bat an eye at a topless pic of a little boy though, hence the double standard.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

I work in theatre and we are faced with all kinds of stupid ass rules (usually safety ones) all the time.

And usually when we hear a stupid rule our response is: "Wonder what genius actually did that?"

And when I read this - my response is...gee, they must have already gotten sued, or a studio gotten shut down or something due to them taking pictures of baby girls, over the age of one, with no top on. Chances are that is what this rule is about, someone got bent out of shape and took it out on the photo studio, and then the photo studio had a knee jerk reaction and wrote this "policy".

Stupid, but if they have gotten sued already, I highly doubt they are going to change it.


----------



## Katana (Nov 16, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by_*indie*
Until they stop discriminating against girl babies they *aren't* making sure they are not going to get sued.
Like Summertime Mommy said, our society has different 'okays' about topless kids. Photo studio policies a reflection of that.

A reputable studio makes you sign a waiver before any photographs are taken, that says you respect the policies and standards their and won't sue. It's in small, fine print, but it's there.

Quote:

_Originally posted by_ *Adina*
And when I read this - my response is...gee, they must have already gotten sued, or a studio gotten shut down or something due to them taking pictures of baby girls, over the age of one, with no top on. Chances are that is what this rule is about, someone got bent out of shape and took it out on the photo studio, and then the photo studio had a knee jerk reaction and wrote this "policy".










For every mother that wants their infant/toddler daughter taken pictures of with no top on, there's five that don't even want a male photographing their daughter at all, even if she's in a winter jacket and snow pants.

They have to cater to the parents that see indecency and pornography in every shot, more than ones that are a little laid back about it.

I'm not trying to defend Picture People, as I'm not a fan of it and wouldn't take my kids there anyway. I'm just familiar with the way it works at places like that.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Alison74*
what one parent considers fine, the next one considers indecent, so they have to err on the side of caution.

If the parents take the child's shirt off and say "here, take our child's picture this way," then those parents are obviously fine with it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Summertime Mommy*
I don't think its discrimination. The fact of the matter is, that in our soceity it is acceptable for a man to go topless, but it isn't acceptable for a woman to do the same.

We're not talking about "men" and "women." We're talking about fifteen-month-old babies!

And even if we were talking about men and women, it IS discrimination to allow men to go topless while not allowing women to go topless.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Summertime Mommy*
They are just trying to cover their butts so that some sue happy parent doesn't come along and sue them for taking "obsene" pictures of their 13 month old little girl.

It is completely laughable for anyone to consider a topless pic of a 13 month old girl obsene.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Summertime Mommy*
No one would think to bat an eye at a topless pic of a little boy though, hence the double standard.

What whacko would bat an eye at a topless pic of a baby GIRL?? Such a double standard is completely indefensible.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Alison74*
They have to cater to the parents that see indecency and pornography in every shot

So if some twisted parent thinks that a baby's bare feet are sexual, then should I have to make my kid wear shoes for a photo shoot?


----------



## Katana (Nov 16, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by_ *Sustainer*
If the parents take the child's shirt off and say "here, take our child's picture this way," then those parents are obviously fine with it.
They're fine with it that day, at that moment. Whose to say what will happen the next day, or the next week?

What if the mother is fine with it, but the father is not? And when he comes back to complain, what if the father finds out that a male employee took a picture of his daughter and considers it pornography? And it goes downhill from there.

You would not believe (or maybe you would) some of the things that have happened.

Quote:

_Originally posted by_ *Sustainer*
So if some twisted parent thinks that a baby's bare feet are sexual, then should I have to make my kid wear shoes for a photo shoot?
If there's been a bruhaha about it and it becomes policy that kids have to wear shoes, then yes.

It's frustrating and insane at times, I know.

Unfortunately, when dealing with policies and things like that, most of the time, you have to consider the







and







of the world. And it sucks for the 'normal' people.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I wanted to get a very "decent" BFing pic. done there and they wouldn't do it, I told them "no breast will show", but they still wouldn't do it. I think their policies are likely the result of having been sued already- but they should not discriminate against baby girls







. They have a right to make stupid (non-discriminatory) rules as they are a private establishment, but we all have the right to boycott them and tell them why.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Alison74*
They're fine with it that day, at that moment. Whose to say what will happen the next day, or the next week?

So the parents take the child to the studio, take off her shirt, plop her down, say to the photographer "take her picture like that," the photographer says "ok" and takes the picture. Then, the next day, the parents look at the picture and say, "My God!! What have we done?? How could that photographer allow us to take her shirt off?? Oh, the humanity! Let's sue the socks off him!"

And THIS is why I can't get a professional diaper shot of my daughter? (ok, she's not in diapers anymore, but...)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Alison74*
What if the mother is fine with it, but the father is not? And when he comes back to complain, what if the father finds out that a male employee took a picture of his daughter and considers it pornography? And it goes downhill from there.

I can't even find words to express how ridiculous that would be.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Alison74*
If there's been a bruhaha about it and it becomes policy that kids have to wear shoes, then yes.

Great. If we can get enough perverts, with enough different fetishes, eventually our children will be kept covered from head to toe from birth. And will that stop the sexual predators? If anything, it makes the problem WORSE! Keeping the body part covered FUELS the perversion. It's like admitting, "yes, my baby girl's chest IS sexual. Now stop looking at my daughter's forbidden fruit!"

We need to do the OPPOSITE. Girls should be running around topless everywhere. Images of topless girls should be everywhere. It should be a common, normal, uneventful sight. THAT is the best way to foster healthy attitudes.

When a body part is always kept hidden, unhealthy people become OBSESSED with it.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
Great. If we can get enough perverts, with enough different fetishes, eventually our children will be kept covered from head to toe from birth. And will that stop the sexual predators? If anything, it makes the problem WORSE! Keeping the body part covered FUELS the perversion. It's like admitting, "yes, my baby girl's chest IS sexual. Now stop looking at my daughter's forbidden fruit!"

We need to do the OPPOSITE. Girls should be running around topless everywhere. Images of topless girls should be everywhere. It should be a common, normal, uneventful sight. THAT is the best way to foster healthy attitudes.

When a body part is always kept hidden, unhealthy people become OBSESSED with it.

I completely agree and I "allow" my 7 yr.old dd to go topless outside and even have at the park before :shudder:







.


----------



## polka123 (Nov 27, 2003)

I like the place !
They have the right to make their own rules I feel.
Don't forget the fetish folks out there that would love to get photos of lactating women, babies, etc. - Do a web search & you'll be shocked.
There are such people out there & it is very prevalent & has been for many, many years.
Maybe they are just protecting themselves since obscenity laws vary greatly from state to state & they are nation-wide.

I love the typical "nekked on a bear-skin rug" photos of long ago but sadly, our society has changed greatly from those days.







:
I've modeled in my teens/20's & rules/laws have changed since then (I'm in my 40's).
Seek out a a private studio but make sure you can control the negs.
Or set up a sheet & some lights & have a friend help you shoot a few photos.


----------



## applejuice (Oct 8, 2002)

After being treated extremely rudely at Sears photo shop after standing in line for over two hours and being very pregnant, I bought a good camera, learned how to use it and have taken my own pictures ever since.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I did a quick search for Picture People lawsuits and the only one I found was a $6million one over them putting up a picture they had taken w/rude things written on it about the family.

What *I* have been told is that it is actually because picture studios have basically no screening and so may possibly be employing a pedophile. It is the *photographer* they are protecting (from seeing the indecency/getting aroused). Ick, ick, ick and double ick.


----------



## Summertime Mommy (Dec 5, 2003)

Quote:

They're fine with it that day, at that moment. Whose to say what will happen the next day, or the next week?

What if the mother is fine with it, but the father is not? And when he comes back to complain, what if the father finds out that a male employee took a picture of his daughter and considers it pornography? And it goes downhill from there.

You would not believe (or maybe you would) some of the things that have happened.
You know, I could seriously see something like that happenning. Some people have really weird ideas about what is appropriate. My dh is that way. He got mad at me for taking pics of my dd in the bathtub (she was 6 months old) because he thought it wasn't appropriate to take naked baby pictures. My older kids aren't allowed to take baths together when dh is home because they are opposite sexes (they are 3 and 5). Although my dh wouldn't go to the studio to complain, I could totally see someone doing that.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
What *I* have been told is that it is actually because picture studios have basically no screening and so may possibly be employing a pedophile. It is the *photographer* they are protecting (from seeing the indecency/getting aroused). Ick, ick, ick and double ick.

Yuck!! That is horrible!!! I really hope that isn't the real reason, although it most likely is.







What a truly sad thought.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *polka123*
They have the right to make their own rules I feel.

Just a hypothetical, here. Suppose there were data that children of certain ethnicities were victimized more often than others. Would they have the right to make a rule that only children of certain ethnicities must wear shirts?

Even if they do "have the right," as someone said above, I have the right to boycott them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *polka123*
Maybe they are just protecting themselves since obscenity laws vary greatly from state to state & they are nation-wide.

Point me to a law that prohibits BABIES from going topless.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *polka123*
I love the typical "nekked on a bear-skin rug" photos of long ago but sadly, our society has changed greatly from those days.

I say it's time to reclaim what has been lost!


----------



## polka123 (Nov 27, 2003)

Quote:

Point me to a law that prohibits BABIES from going topless.
please don't take this out of context -
you know what I meant - I explained as far as ped-freaks go.

most private photogs will keep negs so you must be careful going that way.

buy a 35mm & get a book on lighting & basic photography. Have a friend also learn with you & you can shoot each others photos.

It's tons of fun once you get the hang of it !

I love the quality/different poses of the photos the Picture People take.
I like the freedom they give you as far as bringing in other props, clothing & if you make an appt & ask for extra time - they come up with some killer photos ! If one does not like a particular business' policies, one might have to go elsewhere but I'm pretty sure most of the ''mainstream" studios are limited on the type of "photos" they can do.

I'm going to do my own "nekked baby photos" with DS. I did with my DD 22 yrs ago !


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *polka123*
please don't take this out of context

I honestly thought you meant that the studio might be afraid of breaking a law that prohibits taking pictures of baby girls' bare chests.


----------



## KirstenMary (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
So if some twisted parent thinks that a baby's bare feet are sexual, then should I have to make my kid wear shoes for a photo shoot?

If an employee from one of those photo places stole that photo of your baby's bare feet, masturbated with it, and then decided to stalk you and your child, would you still insist on such a pose?

It's sick, but it happens.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KirstenMary*
If an employee from one of those photo places stole that photo of your baby's bare feet, masturbated with it, and then decided to stalk you and your child, would you still insist on such a pose?

It's sick, but it happens.

Some people have hand fetishes, so should I also cover my child's hand with gloves? What if they have a glove fetish? Better just leave their hands completely out of the shot.


----------



## KirstenMary (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganmamma*
Some people have hand fetishes, so should I also cover my child's hand with gloves? What if they have a glove fetish? Better just leave their hands completely out of the shot.

I was using that example as a comparison. Granted, I would like the right to be able to have the PP photograph my daughter naked if that's what I want, but at the same time, I don't want to be the victim of a sick, twisted individual...all so I could just prove a point.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

If an employee from one of those photo places stole that photo of your baby's bare feet, masturbated with it, and then decided to stalk you and your child, would you still insist on such a pose?
But, there is no explaning what will "turn on" a pedophile. They could just as easily steal a picture of your *fully clothed* child to masturbate with and follow that up with stalking you. Maybe instead of a meaningless drug test, these photo places should require a criminal background check instead.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

I agree, TiredX2. Kirsten, following your logic, what I am trying to point out, we should never use a professional photographer because they might take a picture home, masturbate to it and begin stalking us. If you follow that logic, wouldn't it also be perilous to take pictures to the photo place to be developed because the photo tech might stalk us too, a la Robin Williams in that creepy movie. In fact, we might not want to take our kids out of the house because any ol' body can get a camera. Then they might have a picture to masturbate too and begin stalking us.


----------



## KirstenMary (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganmamma*
I agree, TiredX2. Kirsten, following your logic, what I am trying to point out, we should never use a professional photographer because they might take a picture home, masturbate to it and begin stalking us. If you follow that logic, wouldn't it also be perilous to take pictures to the photo place to be developed because the photo tech might stalk us too, a la Robin Williams in that creepy movie. In fact, we might not want to take our kids out of the house because any ol' body can get a camera. Then they might have a picture to masturbate too and begin stalking us.

Hardly. With a professional photographer, you have the opportunity to look at referrals and speak with former clients. Most developing places, ala Walgreens, do not have your personal information. Although they may ask for it, you also have every right to decline giving it out.

So, no, you are not following my logic.


----------



## KirstenMary (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
But, there is no explaning what will "turn on" a pedophile. They could just as easily steal a picture of your *fully clothed* child to masturbate with and follow that up with stalking you. Maybe instead of a meaningless drug test, these photo places should require a criminal background check instead.

I agree.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KirstenMary*
If an employee from one of those photo places stole that photo of your baby's bare feet, masturbated with it, and then decided to stalk you and your child, would you still insist on such a pose?

It's sick, but it happens.

I would expect the employee to be fired, as well as prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. What I would not expect is for the photo studio to institute a chain-wide policy forbidding all parents to choose to take their child's socks off, on the off-chance that they might hire another sicko with the same fetish.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KirstenMary*
Hardly. With a professional photographer, you have the opportunity to look at referrals and speak with former clients. Most developing places, ala Walgreens, do not have your personal information. Although they may ask for it, you also have every right to decline giving it out.

So, no, you are not following my logic.

Well, the Picture People is a profession photo studio. You can speak with former clients there, they are sitting right in the lobby picking up pictures! Most developing places DO have your info and if they see naked kids they can report you to CPS. Besides, you have to come in to pick up your pictures and you might pay with a check or a credit card. Even a phone number accesses a person's address on the internet in a few seconds. Anyone that comes in contact with photos of your child could masturbate to them, and any idiot with the desire to stalk your family could do so without your personal information being handed over. I think this is getting ridiculous.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sustainer*
I would expect the employee to be fired, as well as prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. What I would not expect is for the photo studio to institute a chain-wide policy forbidding all parents to choose to take their child's socks off, on the off-chance that they might hire another sicko with the same fetish.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganmamma*
Some people have hand fetishes, so should I also cover my child's hand with gloves? What if they have a glove fetish? Better just leave their hands completely out of the shot.

Exactly. Suppose there had been an incident involving bare hands and another incident involving gloved hands. Should all photos be taken with the hands behind the back? Would I be asked why I'm "insisting" on having my child's hands in the photo "just to prove a point"?


----------



## Katana (Nov 16, 2002)

I did a little bit of research about ages, poses and things.

Up until 3 months, Sears will do a 'bare butt' shot, but no frontal nudity. The other studios don't seem to do this. No one wants to take a picture of a parent holding any kind of completely naked child.

Up until 12 months, Sears, JC Penny and Kmart will do a topless girl shot. Picture People and Walmart will not do any topless girl shots. And yes, they might ask for a birth certificate, or some other kind of proof of age.

Management are put through extensive background checks and given profile tests similar to ones that the FBI uses. The $7-$8 hr. photographers are given background checks. Usually, the studios try to hire women, as a lot of people are uncomfortable with men taking pictures of their kids.

Many of the photographers do picture taking on the side. If you want to have a picture of your child naked or breast feeding or whatever, go ahead and ask if anyone would do something like that for you outside of the studio.

My guess is you would still have to sign some kind of waiver, but you could try that route.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I have been following along here and just don't see what the argument is about- the OP was letting people know about a sexist (IMO ridiculous) policy at Picture People, she wanted to let people know- people who agree with her could then boycott the place, and write them letters expaining why they are doing so. No one here HAS to boycott the Picture People b/c of this, but the OP was letting people here know, assuming many would be interested in the boycott (as I am).

Boycott if you think their policy is wrong, it's the American way!


----------



## KirstenMary (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganmamma*
Well, the Picture People is a profession photo studio. You can speak with former clients there, they are sitting right in the lobby picking up pictures! Most developing places DO have your info and if they see naked kids they can report you to CPS. Besides, you have to come in to pick up your pictures and you might pay with a check or a credit card. Even a phone number accesses a person's address on the internet in a few seconds. Anyone that comes in contact with photos of your child could masturbate to them, and any idiot with the desire to stalk your family could do so without your personal information being handed over. I think this is getting ridiculous.

Some photo places outsource the film to be developed. Once it leaves the studio, a client has no control over it. When I hired a photographer to take pics of DD, I asked him who did the developing. He did it all in his own studio, and I was very comfortable with this.

Yes, you're right that most places can call CPS if they see naked photos. But, they only have your info if you choose give it to them. Worried about a credit card? Pay in cash. Also, before bringing in your own naked film, ask about any policies the store may have pertaining to naked pics.

Ridiculous? I call it being concerned and protective of my daughter.


----------



## leavesarebrown (Apr 22, 2003)

THis is a way old thread, but my friend had breastfeeding negatives confiscated by WalMart when she took them there to be developed. She had to get a whole new roll taken. I was glad I knew about that, though, so when I got my homebirth pics developed I could take them to a professional shop instead of a place like WalMart.


----------



## cortsmommy (Jul 6, 2003)

I'll boycott!!


----------



## giggs (Aug 5, 2004)

I use to work at The Picture People. I was an Asst. manager there for over two years. It is policy to not photograph a naked children over the age of 12 months and you can never print a photograph if the child's privates even paritially (even accidently) show in the photograph. It's a policy MOST photographers and studios have in place.

To boycott them over this policy is lame. Now I can give you a dozen other reasons to boycott!! Such as they lie to the customers!!

They print five (sometimes more) poses in packages, 1 8x10, 2 5x7's and 8 wallets plus a 10x13. They present the entire five pose package for $195. If the customer doesn't look like they are going to purchase the entire five pose package, they will go down and say "we have a special for TODAY only!!" which is if you buy 4 packages you get 1 free, or buy three packages and get two free... it really depends on how desperate the store is to make goal (their quota for the day). If really desperate, they will even give 1 sheet free if you buy 2.

Oh! If the store IS making goal and they are not desperate, they will be hard and fast on the rules and wont budge on price. They pick and choose which customers to "give away" to and which ones they feel they can rob for every dime.

The best part is that they take all those pictures to the back and throw them in a box. That box sits there for months until full and then gets tossed into the dumpster. When the customer asks what they do with the sheets they are not buying, they say "we shred them" or "we recycle them" and it's not true. They get thrown away. So check you local PP dumpster and your child's picture may be there.

The employees are taught to lie. They "star search" to get a passing by customer in by giving them a free sheet. The trap is that they take five poses and present to you all five poses so you can't resist buying them all. The free sheet is usually the worst of the five poses.

Go with Kiddie Kandids or a local (non-chain) photographer. People People has the worst management and policies I have ever had the displeasure of working for.


----------



## giggs (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Alison74*
Picture People and Walmart will not do any topless girl shots. And yes, they might ask for a birth certificate, or some other kind of proof of age.

Management are put through extensive background checks and given profile tests similar to ones that the FBI uses. The $7-$8 hr. photographers are given background checks. Usually, the studios try to hire women, as a lot of people are uncomfortable with men taking pictures of their kids.

I don't know where you got your information for The Picture People because it's not accurate.

The Picture People has never done background checks on management or employees. I was in management.

It is not policy to ask for a birth certificate. We were NEVER told to ask for a BC. We would never question a customer if they said their baby was "such and such age" and we thought they were lying. We just had to take their word for it.

Picture People DOES do girl's topless up to 12 months. As well as bare buttom shots up to 12 months. Never any frontal nudity. Over 12 months they have to be fully dressed.

Picture People starts at $6 an hour for regular employees and $7.50 for Assistant Management. (crap pay!!!) Kiddie Kandids starts at $7 and Wal-Mart starts at $9.50.

They do not prefer women over men. When we hired we looked at both men and women. We hired based on experience, their attitude and how well they did on their "Audition". We had both men and women who worked at the studio.


----------



## giggs (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
Maybe instead of a meaningless drug test, these photo places should require a criminal background check instead.

The Picture People do not even preform drug tests.


----------



## polka123 (Nov 27, 2003)

Giggs - sorry to hear of the working conditions @ PP. That's sad to hear.
BUT in my experience of 6 yrs (2 different states), they provide the most innovative portraits @ an affordable price. I modeled in my teens to 30's & know what pro photogs charge
I'm one who brings in different props & my dd did her Senior portraits @ PP.
We carried in 3 bags of props & she has some of the most coolest photos of all her friends.
I've had my Big dogs done there.
While W-mart is down right cheap - they only shoot their photos.
Sears, JCP are not convenient to get to for me.
Y'know, one can find serious crap @ any job.
I worked banking/finance for 15 yrs & can tell you stories about all that.
I was 1 of the working poor for years while having the priviledge of approving 1/4 million $$ loans. I would get docked 15 min if I was 5 min late.
I was put on probation many times for using MY EARNED sick days.
It's the work force for the last 40+ yrs. All this is nothing new. My Mom worked in hospitals in the 50's & 60's & her woring conditions sucked.

I still say learn some basic 35mm photog & have fun !


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Polka123, I think giggs was mostly talking about unethical business practices, not poor working conditions. And besides, poor working conditions are never acceptable, even if they _are_ the norm.


----------



## chrfath (Jun 5, 2003)

You know, I read the post in diapering as thought that was just awful.

I have choosen not to go there for a different reason. After the birth of DD we started recieving promos from them for photos. Well. DD is special needs and I didn't really like the promo documenting all the "milestones". It just rubbed me the wrong way. Yes, I am sensitive. BUt I have a right to be.


----------



## DesireeH (Mar 22, 2003)

I think it is dumb as well. We had ds pic taken at 13 months in just a diaper. Did they just allow it because he was a boy? Obviously if the official rules were 12 months then they shouldnt have done it, even for my son, which would make them discriminating against girls if they told the next parent no for having a girl.

I would never go back anyways, they were in such a rush to get us out of there and hurry hurry, the pics were terrible too with horrible background colors that they didnt let me pick.

I would go to private photographer. Or invest in a nice digital camera and some good quality photo paper!


----------



## polka123 (Nov 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DesireeH*
I would go to private photographer. Or invest in a nice digital camera and some good quality photo paper!









this is what I keep saying BUT be vary careful of private photogs - most of the time, the negs are their property. There is tons of Unethical private photogs posing as good ones. Look @ all the stars having old photos "pop" up.
Really, there are positives & negatives to every business. You just gotta pick your battles.


----------



## veggieeddie (Aug 6, 2004)

I'm a photographer at the Picture People and I'm here to dispell some false ideas you guys seem to have. (some wuotes are also from the diapering forum)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hunnybumm*
I think it depends on the place. I took my son to the Picture People in CA and he was naked in a wash basin, he was 7mo.

Two things: It soesn't depend on the place. Corporate policy is that no baby can be photographed nude over 12 months of age. If the baby is under 12 months of age, the baby can be photographed nude, but only so their genetals aren't showing. On girls, obviously there's a difference in anatomy on the upper half of the body as well, therefore we can not photograph it. The reason this rule is in place is that we don't want to be the reason that some pedophile get his hands on nude shots of the baby. No matter how cute you might think it is, there are creeps in the world. It's sad but true. We do it to protect the child.

Also, some employees just don't pay attention to the rules and guidelines. They are supposed to, but they don't.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marielle*
actually when you get pictures taken at PP you sign your rights to the pictures over to them (I know several parents don't go there for that very reason) I think it's in very small print on their standard paperwork

There is no paperwork you have to fill out to have pictures taken at the Picture People. We own the rights to the photos because we took them. That's the same way it works at all studios, not just PP studios. The reason is that we don't want to have people come in and buy one sheet and then make copies to hand out to people because it lowers the picture quality which can reflect poorly on us and it eliminates the area where we make up for the inexpensive photo shoots. The only time you sign a photo release form is when you enter a photo taken from a shoot into one of the anual baby contests. It just says we can use the picture in advertising and things like that.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lupineperriwinkle*
They have some strange requirements. If your child is under 6 months they won't put them on anything but the bean bag. We had to bribe one guy to get my neice and nephew on a bench together.

They do this for the same reasons that they have warnings on happy meals that say "not intended for children under 3." Children under 18 mos. aren't allowed in the airplane, children under 24 mos. aren't allowed in the fire truck and so on. It's for safety. We don't want your child to be hurt just as much as you don't want your child to be hurt. Also, sometimes props are just too big for a child. If we put a one year old baby in a pictur with winnie the pooh, it would look like it's a picture of winnie the pooh with the baby as a prop instead of the other way around.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lucysmama*
I also hate the Picture People because of the $$$ it costs.

We cost more than other places because each photographer is trained for at least 2 months before they can even have their first real sitting. Also we have many more original props, backdrops and accessories.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Izzybee*
Next Tuesday, we're taking dd to get her pictures taken. She'll be 1 on THR. She shouldn't be 1 till September, she was born 1 month early.
So where do you draw the line?
It's ok to have shirt-less pix taken on TUE, but on THR it would not? And if she had waited those 4 weeks, then we would have more time to get pix showing off her diapers.
YKWIM?

I guess I could say the same for drinking laws, smoking laws, driving laws, and any other law that has an age requirement. And where do you draw the line? Well, it has been drawn right at 1 year.

Lastly, salaries are different in different stores. I, for example, started at $7.35 an hour as a photographer. To the x asst. manager:

Those dishonest policies must be something unique to your store. I never read any literature saying to lie like that. Also, we always told the customers that we throw the pictures out. How can we do anything different? We can't just give un purchased sheets to the customer. It's like a car dealer throwing in some optional luggage rack or some such just because it was lying around. If they don't pay for it, they won't get it, just the same as it is at any other buisness.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

The PP manager here told me that they have to send all the photos that aren't purchased to their District manager to prove that they didn't just give them to us.


----------



## veggieeddie (Aug 6, 2004)

That's a lie. They tell people things like that so a problem doesn't ovvur. There would be so many times when a person would make a purchase and then after they pay for one or two sheets, they ask "can I have the rest of the pictures now? they'll just be thrown out anyway." We can't do that though. If we gave 10 sheets to people who just pay for one, we'd go oput of buisness.


----------



## MelMel (Nov 9, 2002)

the big picture people have lots of rules to keep us silly moms in line









thats why i dont do any of this kinda stuff. what a wacky world. it all sounds so ridiculous. if i cant do it myself, it doesnt need to be done. why buy into their crazy system, then complain about?

as 'veggieeddie' said....'there are creeps in the world. It's sad but true' yeah, and i know exactly who they are :LOL


----------



## polka123 (Nov 27, 2003)

veggieeddie -














thanks for clearing up many of the myths posted here.
personally, I love PP & the quality & innovativeness of the photos / photogs.
Read some of my earlier posts.
when I need cheap pics for relatives, I go to W-mart when I want something cool - I go to PP


----------



## giggs (Aug 5, 2004)

I no longer work for the PP. I own a photography business that specializes in weddings. I also do families and children on location at the customer's home or a local park. I would be more than happy to share any photography tips if some of you moms want to take your own pictures. (BTW, I always release the negatives for free after 12 months because I don't have the heart to throw someone's negatives away!!)


----------



## giggs (Aug 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veggieeddie*
Those dishonest policies must be something unique to your store. I never read any literature saying to lie like that. Also, we always told the customers that we throw the pictures out. How can we do anything different? We can't just give un purchased sheets to the customer. It's like a car dealer throwing in some optional luggage rack or some such just because it was lying around. If they don't pay for it, they won't get it, just the same as it is at any other buisness.

Perhaps unique to our area. There are about five-six studios in our area and I filled in at a couple of studios when they first opened. They all use the same lies. No, it was never in our employee packets or training but the manager told us what to tell the customers. Lying is wrong. I agree, you can't just give the pictures away but don't lie!! (not you but those who did/do).


----------



## KirstenMary (Jun 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *giggs*
I no longer work for the PP. I own a photography business that specializes in weddings. I also do families and children on location at the customer's home or a local park. I would be more than happy to share any photography tips if some of you moms want to take your own pictures. (BTW, I always release the negatives for free after 12 months because I don't have the heart to throw someone's negatives away!!)

You know what I did? I bought a digital camera, and I take my own pics. I am _very_ happy with those. Here's the link:

Jordan's Pictures

You can click on any thumbnail to see an enlargement.


----------



## azedazobollis (Feb 27, 2003)

I like to support local mom and pop businesses. Find a long time photography studio in your phone book that isnt part of a corporation. These are the people we should be supporting in our community not the big corporations in the mall. Or, call your local community college and get hold of the Photograpy Dept. Support a local college student by having them take photos.

Just a thought.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veggieeddie*
. If the baby is under 12 months of age, the baby can be photographed nude, but only so their genetals aren't showing. On girls, obviously there's a difference in anatomy on the upper half of the body as well, therefore we can not photograph it.

um, can you explain to me what the "difference in anatomy" on top is between a 1 year old girl and a 1 year old boy?


----------



## sincitymama (Sep 20, 2003)

Oh come on though. WE know there is nothing sexual about babies, of either sex. But they still don't do pictures with genitals showing. And you must know as well as the rest of us that in our society, there is a huge difference between male and female nipples. I don't think it's right, but I know it's definitely there, the majority of people feel that way, and a business is going to cater to the majority. Of course it's discrimination, the same way it's discrimination to not allow women to run around topless. I guess my issue is understanding why anyone would be surprised? Maybe in other countries where they're not so uptight about this stuff but in the USA can you really expect any different?


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse*
um, can you explain to me what the "difference in anatomy" on top is between a 1 year old girl and a 1 year old boy?

Thank you! There is ZERO difference in anatomy between a 1 year old girl's chest and a 1 year old boy's chest.

SarahNH, Yes, society treats women's and men's chests differently because there is a difference in appearance as well as function. But we're not talking about women and men here. We're talking about BABIES. There is NO difference, appearance, function, or otherwise, between a baby girl's chest and a baby boy's chest.


----------



## veggieeddie (Aug 6, 2004)

I've been gone for a while, but something happened at Picture People last night that I felt like I wanted to tell about. It was about an hour before we closed so there were no customers in the store. Not many people have their kid's pictures taken at 8:00 at night. Anyway, My manager, another employee and I were sitting in the loby replacing the glass in frames that the glas had broken in when a 45 year old man walks in. He was wearing an old dirty shirt, hadn't shaved and had messed up hair.

He stands at the door for a minute and starts looking around at all of the posters and things on the wall of children who have had their pictures taken there. He started breathing really heavy. Then he turns to us and asks us for an application. By this time, we're all creeped out. My manager gave the guy an application and said we aren't hiring just so we could get him out of the store. (we'd never actually hire him).

But if that wasn't enough, as he was walking out the door he turns to us and says "Well maybe I'll just bring my video camera in and make some money that way." Then he ran out the door and away. The manager got on the phone with the store manager right after and warned him about what happened.

That's why all of these rules are in place. I never met anyone in my life who made me feel that sick to my stomach, I'm just glad the store was empty. We're trying to protect your children from creeps like this.


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

I get that the guy was creepy. I still don't get the rule. How does that ridiculous rule protect me and my children from creeps like that?


----------

