collision detection: Would you ban this stamp?

September 01, 2004

Would you ban this stamp?

A few weeks ago, I blogged about PhotoStamps -- and my plan to create a set of personalized stamps using their service, which lets you send in your own photos and artwork. For my stamps, I used the cartoon squid from a painting by El Rey del Art, aka Jamie Barnett, my artist friend. I've got one of 'em hanging on my wall, and I couldn't wait to use squid stamps to send in my monthly bills! I called El Rey to make sure it was okay to use the images, and he said he was delighted.

When I placed the order, I noticed PhotoStamps' squeamish and fuzzily-worded Terms and Conditions, which requires that users promise not to:

... upload, order for print, or otherwise transmit or communicate any material that is obscene, offensive, blasphemous, pornographic, unlawful, deceptive, threatening, menacing, abusive, harmful, an invasion of privacy or publicity rights, supportive of unlawful action, defamatory, libelous, vulgar, illegal or otherwise objectionable;

In the original painting, the squid is saying "goddammit" (the title of the painting is "Surly Squid"), so I carefully edited out this word before I sent in the image, which is pictured above. The resulting stamp was pretty inoffensive and light-hearted, right?

Not according to PhotoStamps. A few days later, they rejected my image, and refused to explain why. I asked them two times to clarify, and two times they refused -- other than to gesture vaguely towards that clause. I still can't figure out what the heck they're talking about, vis-a-vis this little squid picture.

So, I'm interested: Can anyone take a guess as to why they banned this stamp? Click one "more" below and you can read the entire transcript of my email exchange with PhotoStamps!

By the way, their refusal to create the squid stamp is all more hilarious since they recently created a sheet of stamps featuring Slobodan Milosevic for The Smoking Gun. Heh.

Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:52:23 UT
From: photo@stamps.com
To: clive@clivethompson.net
Subject: We cannot fulfill your PhotoStamps order! (Order #21769)

Hi Clive,

Thank you for your order! Unfortunately, after careful review, we have determined that your order does not meet the strict standards of content to which PhotoStamps adhere. Therefore, we will not be able to fulfill the order you have placed with us at this time and apologize for the inconvenience.

We ask that you review the Terms and Conditions of the PhotoStamps service at the following link:
http://photo.stamps.com/conditions/

Please feel welcome to make full use of our service again in order to create and customize postage that truly meets your personal and
business needs. Again, we apologize for the inconvenience.

Regards,

The PhotoStamps Team

----------------------

[submitted via online web form]

Hello PhotoStamps staff --

Yesterday I placed an order for a set of 20 PhotoStamps (order number 21769). The image I supplied was a cartoon graphic from James Barnett, a San Francisco artist who is a friend of mine, and who gave me permission to use the image on a stamp. In fact, he was extremely excited that I was using some of his art on your service!

The cartoon graphic was of an orange squid. You can view it if you look inside my PhotoStamps account.

Today, however, I received a note from you saying that "after careful review, we have determined that your order does not meet the strict standards of content to which PhotoStamps adhere," and that you would be unable to process my order. You suggested I examine PhotoStamps' Terms and Conditions.

I carefully read over your Terms and Conditions, and I'm confused as to what particular proviso my order violated. The squid cartoon that I provided you with does not violate any copyright -- in fact, I expressly received permission from the artist himself! The image also does not appear to emulate any valid indica or payment for postage. It does not harm minors in any way. The image certainly is not likely to cause harm to PhotoStamps' computer systems, or anyone else's. And I don't think a cartoon of a squid is "obscene, offensive, blasphemous, pornographic, unlawful, deceptive, threatening, menacing, abusive, harmful, an invasion of privacy or publicity rights, supportive of unlawful action, defamatory, libelous, vulgar, illegal or otherwise objectionable".

I would really like to get a set of stamps made using your innovative service, showcasing my friend's excellent artwork. (I have a copy of his painting hanging on my wall, actually.) Could you please clarify which of your Terms and Conditions my stamp did not satisfy?

You can reach me at my email above, or any of my numbers listed below. Thanks very much for your time, and for creating a really innovative service,

Clive Thompson
clive@clivethompson.net

----------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:07:01 -0700
From: PhotoPostage2 <Photo@Stamps.com>
To: Clive Thompson <clive@clivethompson.net>
Subject: Re: [web form 2345678] Clive Thompson KMM3238788V80149L0KM)

Hello Clive,

Thank you for contacting Stamps.com.

Thank you for your order. Unfortunately, as we stated in our previous e-mail, we were unable to accept the image you have submitted.

Once again, we apologize for this situation. Obviously, for you to have taken the time to create PhotoStamps, you must feel passionately about the subject of the photo you wished to feature.

Unfortunately, because PhotoStamps are real postage, they are held to a very high set of standards that includes rules regarding images of political, sexual, religious nature, as well as similar subject matter (as well as copyrighted material) deemed to be inappropriate per our content guidelines. These were the guidelines we asked you to agree to before placing your order.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you and hope you will come back to PhotoStamps soon and place another order. Please rest assured that your credit card will not be charged for this order.

We are always interested in your questions and what you have to say. Always feel free to write us with any other suggestions or comments. You may visit our Terms & Conditions at http://photo.stamps.com/conditions/

Respectfully,

Kristen
Customer Care Specialist
The PhotoStamps Team

----------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:09:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Clive Thompson <clive@clivethompson.net>
To: PhotoPostage2 <Photo@Stamps.com>
Subject: Re: [web form 2345678] Clive Thompson KMM3238788V80149L0KM)

Hi Kristen --

Thank you very much for your prompt reply! I certainly understand that it's your prerogative to vet -- and reject -- any images submitted to PhotoStamps. As you quite rightly point out, is is indeed real postage, so I understand that the images are held to high standards.

I merely wanted to understand the precise reason why the image I submitted -- a cartoon image of an orange squid -- did not adhere to your Terms and Conditions. I'd like to be sure I understand your reasons, partly because I want to make sure that any future images I submit are more suitable! But your email didn't clarify precisely what aspect of the squid image was unsuitable.

Would you be able to be a bit more specific? If you need to review my image, feel free to check inside my account.

Thanks again for your help and for taking the time to reply!

Sincerely,

Clive Thompson
clive@clivethompson.net

----------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:43:32 -0700
From: PhotoPostage2 <Photo@Stamps.com>
To: Clive Thompson <clive@clivethompson.net>
Subject: Re: [web form 2345678] Clive Thompson (KMM3240196V50913L0KM)

Unfortunately, we cannot offer any additional feedback on your specific images submitted as orders for PhotoStamps. As mentioned in our previous email, since these images will be used as real postage, we have very strict limitations on what we can allow. There is a broad definition for what is unacceptable content, and this includes images that contain political, religious, sexual, controversial, or any other subject matter deemed inappropriate during our approvals process.

Please note that Section 3 of our Terms and Conditions explains further that images must follow under these guidelines in order to be accepted. You may revisit the Terms at the following link:

http://photo.stamps.com/conditions/

We again would like to apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you and hope you will come back to PhotoStamps soon and place another order.

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact us again.

Respectfully,

Mark
Customer Care Specialist
PhotoStamps Postage Services

(Thanks to Maura for the Smoking Gun link!)

Posted by Clive Thompson at September 01, 2004 10:55 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Maybe my mind is just twisted, but as soon as I read that you were rejected, I thought 'KKK hood'. Still, that's pretty bogus, and you've got every right to know why they're rejecting you.

I think you should modify it in some subtle way, and re-submit it.

Posted by: Darren on September 1, 2004 11:35 PM

Well isn't it obvious? Your squid is too angry looking......stamps must always be happy things. I like Darren's idea....but make him happy looking and un-sharpen his weapon like tentacles. Better yet...submit a photograph of a real squid...orange if possible...and see if they accept it.

Posted by: Uncle Rob on September 2, 2004 12:07 AM

Ahahaha! "KKK hood" -- I hadn't thought about that. And yes, Rob, you're right; stamps generally are kind of celebratory/happy things, right?

I also wonder if they thought the squid looked satanic.

Posted by: Clive on September 2, 2004 12:09 AM

nah, it's obviously an angry dirty bomb missle, little flames dangling below. probably directed at the photostamp office.

Posted by: fe on September 2, 2004 09:06 AM

Here's the plan Clive,
For a little bit of fun and to further El Rey del Art's popularity, why not start a small, grass-roots campaign to have as many people possible submit the same image to photostamps.com? Post the captionless image online, get your blog community and El Rey del Art's fans to begin firing in requests. Bonus points if you can find a way to affiliate it with a RNC protest.

Posted by: brian on September 2, 2004 09:07 AM

Hey, I hate to break it to ya, but that drawing looks like a very pissed-off dick head that's been ripped off with great force. Not a squid. When I saw that drawing on the J-Walk Blog, that was the first thing I thought of. But hey, I'm a very twisted kinda girl.

Posted by: Righteously Indignant on September 2, 2004 09:43 AM

Is there an art theory for menace? I mean, do you think that the censors are working on a highly conscious/rational/"textual" level with their judgements? Do you think that they can actually give words to why they rejected your submission other than "it looks...slightly...menacing".

They don't want to get into a fully conscious discussion with you about how it looks--they don't have the energy or the time to defend their analysis except to say "we don't like it".

But, it seems agreed that this image is, on the surface, an angry or menacing image. When we look deeper, we can say that the curved lines on the "body" of the "squid" are merely a part of the natural anatomy of the creature and imply nothing. "Menace" is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by: Alfred O. Cloutier on September 2, 2004 09:58 AM

Clive:

I have a couple artist friends, Michael Hernandez de Luna and Michael Thompson, who've made quite a name for themselves by creating and mailing fake postage stamps. They've had a number of run-ins with the USPS and the Feds over the years, including search and seizure and many cease and desist letters. What really drove the feds over the edge was when de Luna released an Anthrax stamp shortly after the postal anthrax scare a few years back...

Most of their stamps have managed to make it through the sorter and into the mail, actually being canceled and delivered, despite the fact that they have probably never created any designs that would have passed PhotoStamps "strict limitations." Where PhotoStamps steers away from "sex, politics and religion" the Michaels pretty much specialize in those topics. My suggestion is that you contact de Luna and see if he would like to make you a sheet of squid stamps. If you really want to push PhotoStamps, I can pretty much guarantee de Luna would be more than happy to do some highly public "head to head" competition with them. He's never been one to shy from public controversy. I don't think he's ever done stamps to order before and can't say for sure what his pricing would be, but you should give it a shot, just to extend this experiment to the full logical conclusion.

Posted by: John T. Unger on September 2, 2004 10:20 AM

Excellent feedback all around, folks. Fe, I hadn't thought of that particular image, but hey -- the argument could be made!

Brian, heh, that's a pretty funny idea. I wonder what PhotoStamps would think if they suddenly got 100 submissions of squid stamps? I actually feel quite sympathetic for their poor customer-service people. They're probably getting all manner of insane emails from users: "I fail to see why you rejected my submission for a sheet of 20 Jenna Jameson stamps."

Alfred, that's an amazing point about what, precisely, menace looks like. I think the squid just looks ... surly, as the artwork's title explains.

John, thanks for that excellent reference! I'll google Michael and Michael's work right now ...

Posted by: Clive on September 2, 2004 11:39 AM

If I really wanted to, I could see a lot of different body parts in that squid. I guess they are worried others might think creatively about the picture.

Posted by: Anonymous on September 2, 2004 03:59 PM

It wouldn't surprise me if they were steadfastly avoiding anything that could be considered remotely phallic.

Posted by: Maya on September 2, 2004 06:44 PM

maybe it's because you are a lousy canuck

Posted by: jim on September 2, 2004 09:47 PM

Playing off of Brian's idea above, how about you have people distort the image in color and gesture just a tiny bit and reapply to make your stamp. You could do this over and over again to see how far you would have to go before your squid is accepted.

Personally, I think this is an outrage and is obvious squid prejudice.

Posted by: Pork Chop on September 3, 2004 10:09 AM

I, too, had wondered if this was a fundamental question of Squid Justice.

Posted by: Clive on September 3, 2004 11:57 AM

Well i'm thinking it looks like a cartoonish rendition H.P Lovecrafts cthulhu, which i suppose could be interpreted as being fairly satanic

http://images.google.com.au/images?q=cthulhu&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

Posted by: Kim on September 3, 2004 04:19 PM

Oooh, I hadn't thought about that. Good comparison!

Posted by: Clive on September 3, 2004 04:24 PM

I thought it was one of the ghosts from pacman...although it's been a while since I've seen the one that looked so similar to that. Perhaps that is what the photoshop people saw too.

Good luck

Posted by: Jessica on September 10, 2004 04:32 PM

I ought to point out that I'm not an employee of PhotoStamp so all of the below is conjecture.

Even if we assume PhotoStamp's definition of acceptable material for stamp making to be precise, determining what material falls under that definition is not. Bad PR and the lawsuits that result from failing to censure acceptable stamps cost money. If material is obscure it poses the risk of being unacceptable so the danger of lawsuits and bad PR have to be weighed against the loss of profit from not accepting the order. The amount of money that PhotoStamp ought to spend on determining whether material is acceptable depends on the amount of profit PhotoStamp expects receive from the order. All this is rather rough. The actual process probably involves some fancy equations which are only accurate if applied to a large number of sales and takes into account factors such as the relation of customer satisfaction to return buisness. Considering that your received form letters with no option to 'appeal,' I'm guessing that the process PhotoStamp uses to determine profitability show that your material is sufficiently obscure and has sufficiently enough "danger signs" that from the point of view of PhotoStamp, it is unprofitable to look further into their viability. You might try changing the squid's color to some other color than red, altering the eyes so they don't look like back to back sixes, making the squid look less like a hood, and making the squid more recognizable. Then again, the squid just wouldn't be the same...

The truth is that most of the employees of a company care as much about the customer as the customer cares about the employees. Albeit, marketing departments make it hard for people to view buisness transactions as 'buisness' by propigating the view that the companies act from motives of benevolence or that the companies well-being depends purely upon customer satisfaction. Furthermore, many companies promise services that they cannot or keep. While there is no excuse for propogating such nonsense or making such claims, it should also be remembered by customers that most employees and companies do not subsist on giant profit margins and monopolies like Bill Gates or Microsoft. Service costs money, and it is unreasonable to demand service beyond what you are willing to pay for. In fact it is precisely this attitude that makes it hard for companies who promise only what they can and will do to compete with companies that make more outrageous claims.

I ought to also point out that I'm not actually Dan Rather and/or DanRather1CBS, though we all
reside in the same body and should be collectively called 'Elvis.'

Posted by: Dan Rather on September 16, 2004 07:36 PM

**2**

Posted by: on September 18, 2004 06:30 PM