Jump to content

article on AOL regarding school photography


lisa h

Recommended Posts

I was surprised to read this article (below) on AOL tonight. As far as I know,

no one is requiring the parents to buy the photos... and I think it is an

relatively inexpensive and convenient way for them to get pictures of their

child... to top

it all off, the article recommends that the parent scans the photo to save money

on reprints!

I don't do school photography, but felt the need to share this. What are your

thoughts (on this article)?

-Lisa

 

 

Excerpt from the article (titled 'The top 5 Most Annoying School Costs'):

 

2. Picture Day

 

Parents' Gripe: Spending nearly $50 for a full package of individual, class and

sport team photos -- multiple times per year!

 

Ever wonder why the school takes so many darned pictures? Turns out those

adorable snap shots are often yet another fundraiser. Only this one pulls at the

heart strings. We found one photo studio based in California that advertises on

its web site that it's willing to pay schools a 10% commission on all orders.

 

Money-Saving Tips: Just buy the class picture. And don't even consider placing

an order during the spring session, when many schools host a secondary picture

day. If you just can't resist, purchase the smallest package possible. At the

Clark School in Swampscott, Mass., parents can spend as little as $24 for a few

wallet-size photos and one of the class. The bill rises to more than $50 if

parents splurge for a package that includes a couple of 5-by-7s. Worried you

won't have a spare to send to Grandma? Consider scanning your copy or email a

cute digital shot you took yourself.

 

http://money.aol.com/top5/general/most-obnoxious-school-costs-2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent this email to them:

 

<Scanning photos is a violation of copyright law. You might like to think that photographers make a lot of money, but most of them don't. We work hard to make a living and selling extra prints is what allows most of us to stay in business. It is short sighted advice like this encouragement of an illegal activity that makes it hard for any of us to stay in business, let alone make a reasonable profit. Making statements like "Consider scanning your copy" lends credence to an already widespread, but illegal practice.

 

Of course, you would have no problem at all with an editor copying your work and publishing it without paying you, right?>

 

Sincerely,

 

Marv Stasak

 

Marv Stasak Photography, LLC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the comment still there.. I sent to a message to MoneyComments@aol.com basically asking if they are next week going to feature ideas on saving on entertainment costs like starting a neighborhood dvd and cd burning coop or maybe a tivo archive to share with friends and nieghbors or how about buying one internet connection and linking the internet connections all down the street via wireless routers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess AOL doesn't understand that what they are advocating is not only illegal, but also hurts the photographer, the school, which relies on a percentage of the sale as a fund raiser and Society, in general. What they are advocating is a "let's all steal what we can" attitude in people. I guess they should know! Their company has gone down to the lowest levels. People are running away from AOL and it's Time Warner partner. Maybe they should advocate that people should copy and their material.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still see the scanning/copy part in the story. I e-mailed my complaint and suggest everyone that reads this do the same. In fact, this should be forwarded to every copyright lawyer and photography organization. I have done school photos and it can be one of the toughest gigs in photography. I have even had parents tell me, "I hope you are charging alot for this!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only do I still see the original comment, but I no longer see the e-mail address that used to be at the bottom of the page (unless I am overlooking something)? Did they remove the e-mail address (instead of the comment)?!

 

anyway, the address wwas 'MoneyComments@aol.com', so you can still write them.

 

-Lisa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not...looks like AOL removed it but I think they may have just been reprinting this original article:

http://www.smartmoney.com/top5/index.cfm?story=20061108

I have already been in contact w/ the ASMP & PPA who were having their legal departments look into this. Lets all make Stacey Bradford know how much we appreciate her article w/ a little e-mail love!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...