Posted on 08/06/2014 5:25:10 AM PDT by Squawk 8888
A Newfoundland woman says she is baffled by the actions of a local Walmart after it confiscated a pair of “inappropriate” photos of her eight-month-old daughter clutching an empty beer bottle.
“When I saw the images I kind of chuckled to myself because they seemed so innocent that I was in disbelief that they were being flagged as inappropriate,” said Robin Walsh, a Gander mother of two.
Store staff also seized a bare-bottomed photo of her daughter and five-year-old son as they prepared for a bath.
“I thought it was such a cute photo,” she said, noting that the image only featured “bums” and “no frontal nudity at all.”
The two beer bottle photos, meanwhile, were captured while her daughter was teething. One features the child holding the bottle while the other features her gnawing at the end.
“We took a photo, and then we took the bottle away,” she said.
The baby-with-beer-bottle photo actually seems to be common for new parents. A cursory Google search revealed at least half a dozen images of teething babies being posed with beer bottles for comic effect.
Ms. Walsh’s images began as digital photographs, but she had submitted them — along with about 100 others — to the Walmart Photo Centre to be printed for a scrapbook project.
When she showed up to pick up the batch, however, a clerk called down a manager, spread the three offending images on the photo counter, and informed Ms. Walsh that she would be unable to leave the store with the flagged images.
“The manager came down and reiterated that I could not have the photos because they were against Walmart policy,” she said.
“When I questioned what the policy was, they couldn’t tell me.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
I shoot digital and rarely print. When I do, I have a good printer I use at home. On really rare occasions I may get a professional print done. (like once a year, maybe)
Think I'll have some prints made though: "you s**k" and "what are you looking for in here perv" and "mind your own business big brother" and "I could follow you home" etc.
If pictures of bare-bottomed babies are ‘illegal’, then it only stands to reason that it will soon be illegal to even LET your child be naked.
Good luck with that.
We used to, but the cost of ink and paper just weren't worth it when printing multiple copies for family, or dozens of different prints for scrap-booking.
Walmart and Walgreens have printed most of ours. That being said, we'd never send anything like the above to anyone else to print. They'd be printed at home.
Just stole your tagline for Twitter :p
Actually, it’s essential for quality control. Every photolab employs someone to look at every print before they go out.
They pilfer copies too.
Just as NHS has been caught doing.
Hmm, I didn’t think of that. That might be a valid reason. The local Walgreens here has an automated machine for printing from digital. I don’t think anyone sees them or checks them.
Digital printing is a lot easier to set up than film so there's less need for operator intervention; even the best-calibrated colour analyzers at the labs got it wrong 5-10% of the time, IOW in a typical 24-exposure roll odds are that at least one shot will need to be reprinted manually.
Yikes, I managed a one hour lab from 1983-1985 and I still haven't managed to expunge the traumatic memories. Now I'm gonna wake up screaming in the middle of the night due to Kodak Disc Film flashbacks.
I don’t think the article is telling the truth.
Her photos weren’t confiscated. She still has them, as they are digital.
Walmart simply decline to print photos that violated their company policy. That policy is arguably stupid.
In Germany this photo would have been lauded as typical.Freedom is not respected in Canada. People feel free to trample all over ones freedom at the drop of a hat and any excuse. This is the accepted culture of Newefoundland in some quarters.They have a love / hate relationship with booze and grog.
Please don't let Michele Obama see this article. I hear she is seeking a new crusade.
The point is that the photos created from the digital files were confiscated. A digital file is not a photo even though it contains all the elements required to create a physical photo.
She did not own the printed photos until Walmart handed them over to her. She placed an order for printing and Walmart refused to comply.
This is well within Walmart’s rights, though if the article is otherwise accurate it sounds like the policy was implemented stupidly.
IOW, this is a similar situation to the one where the Christian baker refused to bake a cake for the gay marriage celebration.
Whoa, this smacks of a “Hobby Lobby-type” lawsuit developing here. She needs to sue the “pants” off Walmart, and force Walmart to process the pictures!!
Now THAT’S what I’m talking about !!! ROTFL.
Years ago my daughter-in-law posted an adorable picture on her blog of two young (under 3) grandchildren in the big tub taking a bubble bath. Unfortunately one of the kid’s lower area was a bit exposed - I told her to take that picture down fast, or some sick person would report it and her for child porn or something equally awful.
I may be have been overreacting, but in this day and age, I don’t think so.
Clueless moron is a complete idiot prattling about something he/she is completely clueless about.
The problem is not that images of that type are “dirty” to any normal person. It’s that there are abnormal people out there who find them arousing.
I think it’s also reasonable to point out that there’s a whole range of “naked baby” pictures, from obviously innocent to the intentionally salacious. (Though how anybody could find any such picture stimulating is beyond me. Disgusting,yes.)
Walmart may have very reasonably decided to avoid the whole judgment call about which naked baby pictures are “okay” by simply deciding to have a “no naked baby pictures” policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.