Pennsylvania-Philadelphia

Did anyone see this story?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA - parents sue wal-mart over photo's story.I saw it this morning. Thoughts?

Re: Did anyone see this story?

  • edited December 2011
    It's ashame the parents had to go through that but the biggest question on my mind is who the eff still gets pictures developed from film!?
  • angel33284angel33284 member
    100 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Steff, they were digital photos. Did you watch the story? Many people go into stores to have photos printed.
  • edited December 2011
    I couldn't watch the video at work but I saw an article on it & all it mentioned was that photos were being developed which made me assume film.
  • ButtonsPepperButtonsPepper member
    2500 Comments Combo Breaker
    edited December 2011
    Stef - They were digital prints.... I think it's a bit redic. but really you never know, so the girl did the right thing. I was a photo tech. for a while, and called the police 2 times during working there. First off, any store that is printing your pictures, you can not have nudity on there. The legal age to see nude pictures, and the age that photo tech's start, are different, there for the law is no nudity on hourly printing, that goes for digital and regular film, so they at least would have had the pictures taken away from them. Honestly, it should have stopped there, and the pictures should have just been terminated, and the couple should have been told they are unable to be printed. On the other hand, there are some sick parents that do some sick things to children.... so I guess the police had to be sure they were innocent pictures...
  • ButtonsPepperButtonsPepper member
    2500 Comments Combo Breaker
    edited December 2011
    you can read the full artical where she was taking her digital film in. You can leave your cd/chip with a sheet of what you want printed/size/how many.
  • edited December 2011
    I think it's rediculious.  They're a family, and meant no harm with those pictures. I wanna know why the guy @ walmart was peeping on the pictures? It's none of his business as to what the context of the photo is; it's not in his job description to look at every single photo being processed, and take actions if he finds something wrong with them. 
  • edited December 2011
    I think the whole thing is rediculous and am glad they are sueing Walmart and the county.  I was under the impression that digital prints print automatically without the need for someone to sit there and go through them...which it sounds like is what happened at this walmart.
  • edited December 2011
    I do sympathize for the parents because the situation was blown out the proportion. But at the same time I personally would print any questionable photos such as that at home to avoid a potential accusation & the whole mess considering how warped society is today.
  • ButtonsPepperButtonsPepper member
    2500 Comments Combo Breaker
    edited December 2011
    I wanna know why the guy @ walmart was peeping on the pictures? It's none of his business as to what the context of the photo is; it's not in his job description to look at every single photo being processed, and take actions if he finds something wrong with them. It IS your job to look through every picture when you are at a 1hour photo shop. Prints that are sent out, or sent through the internet to be picked up print from a machine, and are put in the package no matter what the quality.When doing 1 hour, you are only paying for pictures that came out well (no blur, no black pictures going back to the 35mm days). It's one of the "perks" 1 hour has, that you only pay for pictures that come out properly.Also, when you are processing someone's digital film, you literally have to select each jpeg picture (it shows a little picture of the picture) when processing it, so you HAVE to see it to select it. As I stated before, because of this, and the 1 hour photo rules, any nudity isn't permitted due to the fact that 1 hour photo tech. people don't have to be 18 to process film.
  • edited December 2011
     I think it's rediculous, and I am happy they are suing.Come on, people.  How many of us have naked baby pictures at home from when we were little?  I know I have some, I know my sister has some, and I know most of them were bath pictures.  I can bet you that most of the people who started this- the tech, the DA, etc etc- not only have some of themselves as children, but have similar ones of their children.This was blown way out of proportion, and the city acted out of context.  Someone needs to be administratively punished for doing this to the family, IMHO.
  • edited December 2011
    I understand the employee has a job and rules to follow and for that I commend them for doing their job. However, how far do you investigate and jump the gun on something like this? Someone with a more trained eye and investigator should have looked at the situation instead of all these drastic measures that took place. It just went way too far and I feel bad for the couple but happy that someone did their job and someone is looking out for child molesters. The middleman screwed up.
  • angel33284angel33284 member
    100 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Walmart needs to develop a process where the files are put on a computer and printed and bagged without an employee seeing them. They have no right looking through a person's pictures and determining what is right and wrong. I think the employee who saw he photos should be arrested and charged as a sex offender. What kind of person sees kids playing naked in a bath, some with their father, and thinks this is child pornography? That person has a sick mind because the rest of the world thinks that kind of thing is cute.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards