Taoyuan County Photographic Studio Association

Case:

Key Words:

digital ID photo, charge criteria

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of September 21, 2010 ( the 985th Commission Meeting), Disposition Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 099098

Industry:

Photographic Studios (7601)

Relevant Laws:

Article 14 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. An informant complained that many photographic studios and film developers in the Taoyuan area were charging extra money for their printout service for digital ID photos that consumers had taken themselves and the conduct could be concerted action. The FTC's investigation showed that the Taoyuan Photographic Studio Association had 128 members. They were either photographic studios or film developers in Taoyuan County. At the same time, according to the Industry, Commerce and Service Census conducted by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of the Executive Yuan, the numbers of photographic studios and film developers in Taoyuan County from 2007 to 2009 were respectively 139, 136, and 135. In other words, the members of the said association accounted for over 90% of all the photographic studios and film developers in the area. Although the association never insisted that its members had to charge extra money when making prints of digital ID photos consumers had taken themselves, it did establish a set of "Charge Criteria" and distributed it to the members.
2. According to the explanation of the Taoyuan Photographic Studio Association, there had been members complaining that the association had not taken any measure for the benefit of the members and therefore refused to pay any more membership fees when Liao Zhongkang had been the chairman of the association. To appease the discontentment, a set of charge criteria was established in accordance with previous charge standards, while adjustments were made to some of the service items based on the general economic developments (such inflations) before the Second Member Assembly of the 12th Association was convened on September 30, 2008. The charge criteria were distributed to the members at the assembly for their reference. The said criteria included three major categories: ID photo taking (120 film and digital,) digital development of conventional film, and wedding photo taking. The first category covered photo taking (divided into picking up the same day and picking up the following day,) extra prints, print enlargement or reduction and fast prints, with the corresponding charges for various specifications clearly listed. Under the category of digital development of conventional film were 135 negative film development and prints, 120 negative film development and manually enlarged prints (digital portrait photos,) digital prints (daily life photos,) prints from positive film, photo scanning, and so on, with clearly listed corresponding charges for development, cataloging, scanning, compact disc production, and each unit of 2x3 to 40x60 prints. The last category included the charges for wedding photo taking, oil painting effect and mounting, canvas effect, color painting effect, engagement and wedding makeup service, ampoule makeup sealer, and each unit of 2x3 to 40x60 prints." Attached in the charge criteria was a sentence saying "the charge for 4x6 prints from ID photos taken and arranged by customers themselves will be NT$80 for each set of four prints." According to the Taoyuan Photographic Studio Association, the charge criteria did not carry the title of the association and was for reference only and there was not a "no bargaining" note. Plus, since the chairperson of the Taipei County Professional Photographer Association at the time was present at the assembly and cautioned the association to be aware of the regulations in the Fair Trade Law (FTL), the members were therefore requested to return the criteria. Unfortunately, this happened when the assembly meeting was coming to an end and only a small portion was retrieved. As a remedy, the association advised the members who had kept the criteria not to post the criteria at their business venues and the criteria were for private reference only. Despite the explanation from the association, the members interviewed all concurred that the association had indeed established and distributed the said charge criteria and some members had charge for their services accordingly.
3. Grounds for disposition: The Taoyuan Photographic Studio Association had clearly listed in the said charge criteria three major categories, namely ID photo taking (120 film and digital,) digital development of conventional film, and wedding photo taking. ID photo taking included photo taking (divided into picking up the same day and picking up the following day,) prints, print enlargement or reduction, and fast prints, with the corresponding charges for various specifications clearly listed. The category of digital development of conventional film covered 135 negative film development and prints, 120 negative film development and manually enlarged prints (digital portrait photos,) digital prints (daily life photos,) prints from positive film, photo scanning, and so on, with clearly listed corresponding charges for development, cataloging, scanning, compact disc production, and every unit of 2x3 to 40x60 prints. Wedding photo taking included the charges for wedding photo taking, oil painting effect and mounting, canvas effect, color painting effect, engagement and wedding makeup service, ampoule makeup sealer, and each unit of 2x3 to 40x60 prints. Attached in the charge criteria was a sentence that said "the charge for 4x6 prints from ID photos taken and arranged by customers themselves will be NT$80 for each set of four prints." The details of the charge criteria involved the most important and most sensitive information – prices. The objective was to regulate the charges for photo taking and development services and it restricted each member's liberty to decide the prices as well as the price competition between the members. Since the members of the Association took up over 90% of the market in concern and the sense of identification, sense of belonging and sense of trust of the members for the association were able to generate a collective regulatory power, the said charge criteria had certain substantial binding force on the members with regard to their price decision. It was concerted action able to affect the supply-demand function of the concerned market. The conduct met the horizontal concerted action description in Article 7 (4) of the FTL and was in violation of Article 14 (1) of the same law. The association was therefore imposed with an administrative fine of NT$200,000.

Summarized by: Hsu, Cho-Yuan; Supervised by: Liao, Hsien-Chou