At least in the US, labs have language stating "Submitting any tangible or electronic media, image, ... constitutes an agreement that any loss or damage to it by our company, subsidiary, or agents, even though by our negligence or other fault, will only entitle you to replacement with an equivalent quantity/size of unexposed photographic film or electronic media." Seems to me that their turning it over to the police caused you loss of this single image. You should demand that the lab give you an equivalent amount of unexposed transparency film. Since they can't give you a single shot, you should demand an entire roll, and since only 36-exp. rolls are still manufactured, you end up with 36 shots of transparency film for the cost of one single image.
Shoot more film.
There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.
So... How much money did you USED TO spend at that establishment?
Do you think the owner ought to be made aware of that?
Regardless of what the law might be, I think it's funny that people who aren't legal professionals, who don't have degrees in psychology or who aren't sworn officers of the law would take it upon themselves to make judgements that they are clearly not qualified to make.
What would you say if you took your car to the auto mechanic and he threatened to call the cops because he thought your vision wasn't good enough to drive? What if your doctor said you couldn't leave his office until you fixed the headlights on your car? You'd tell them to go to hell. Unless there is a clear danger, those people people have no business making those kinds of demands. A photo lab operator is just as unqualified to make such a decision.
I don't think that the law reads that every bare bum must be scrutinized. I think the people in that shop stepped way over the limit. I don't think that business should be rewarded with a portion of your hard-earned income for being so stupid.
On the heels of the NSA revelations welcome to 1984 where the governments uses their citizens to spy on others.
The funny thing is that I suspect people who produce pornography have been using digital cameras for some years to avoid a problem such as this. There is an obvious solution, process you own film.
Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 06-15-2013 at 10:40 PM. Click to view previous post history.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
My contention exactly.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
Maybe the image should be posted here and we can help determine if it is naughty or nice.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Remember those old naked baby portraits on bear skin rugs? Is that porn?
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
Lowly ! Just let everybody know the details of the photolab (name, address). Should i come down under i will simply avoid it....
That only applies to erroneous acting of the lab (losing, mis-processing etc. film). In this case they may have acted rightly.
Originally Posted by ME Super
I am a lab owner and have worked in very large labs my whole career.
I would say this is a very grey area. But in Canada we are not obligated by Law to report what comes through our lab.
Personally I have never came across the situation where I had to make this kind of decision, I have many clients who photograph their children and have never seen issue.
I have had photographers warn me of subject matter before I process and print. I am given the opportunity to decide. Also since I control my shop I can make sure who handles the work.
But in a very large lab, its another can of worms. You have no idea who is working the floor and one is opening themselves up for scrutiny or poor decision making. If a technician complains and refuses to work on the subject matter there is nothing the Lab Owner can do but comply.
At BGM Colour Labs in Toronto , I remember the RCMP bringing in days and days of processing of their investigations.
The whole processing area was secluded, the film processer operator was given the film , and the film was loaded onto the processor and an RCMP officer would stand at
the end of the Refrema processor and sleeve the film... Nobody from the lab, was allowed to see the film , even the film operator.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
Originally Posted by AgX
I can't sell you a hot dog without taking a course on food safety and undergoing health inspections. I have to have licenses and pay fees for all of this.
Originally Posted by Bob Carnie
But, who trained the employees of that business in pornography detection?
How were these employees informed that they were responsible for detecting and reporting pornography? Did some government official send them a letter? Did they get a visit from the police? Did they just read about it in the newspaper? Who told them to interpret photographs in order to report them?
Who taught them the legal standards for judging photographs as pornography? Don't give me the, "I know it when I see it," argument. This is different. A man's liberty and property are at stake. It's not just a case of freedom of speech.
Which employees took a seminar in pornography detection? Are they lawyers? Are they criminal psychologists? Where are their degrees? Where are their certificates? Who paid the fees and secured the licenses? How can untrained, unlicensed and uneducated store employees be expected to know the law and act correctly? We're talking about the possibility of sending a man to jail, here!
If a store owner hired a security guard to look out for shoplifters, that person would have to be trained in civil liability, the legal standards for shoplifting as well as the proper methods of confronting potential shoplifters. I know. I have taken those courses.
If a store security guard confronted a customer who is not actually a shoplifter, he could very well be held liable for damages. He could be charged with false arrest and, himself, be thrown in jail. (If it is an egregious offense.) He and the shop owner who hired him could be held liable for (money) damages. It could easily be enough to ruin the business.
If I owned a store, I would instruct my employees to NOT confront shoplifters. I would simply tell them to follow the guy to the property line, get his description and write down the license number to his car if they can then call the police. My security cameras would have recorded the crime and would be evidence of guilt.
I don't care if this happened in Adelaide or Albuquerque. If I owned a photo lab, I would instruct my employees to NOT report any photographs to the police unless it was absolutely, crystal clear that something illegal was taking place in the pictures.
I don't think the business owner was right, in any sense of the word, to do what he did.
I make it a point to shop at my local camera shop whenever I can. Maybe I don't spend $1,000 every week but I am a regular customer. If I just need batteries for my TV remote control, I'll stop there if it's convenient. I'm pretty sure I spend $1,000 over the course of a year. I don't know any store owner who wouldn't be, at least, disappointed to know that he has just lost $1,000 per year for the foreseeable future.
If ten other people who read this and who might have gone to that shop also stop going there, that figure could easily rise to $10,000.
I don't know about you but I would be pretty pissed off to know that I had lost that much money.