« PREVIOUS ENTRY
No blood for coffee

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!)


blog comments powered by Disqus

Search This Site


Bio:

I'm Clive Thompson, a writer on science, technology, and culture. This blog collects bits of offbeat research I'm running into, and musings thereon.

Currently, I'm a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a columnist for Wired magazine. I also write for Fast Company and Wired magazine's web site, among other places. Email or AOL IM me (pomeranian99) to say hi or send in something strange!

More of Me

Twitter
Tumblr
Flickr


Recent Entries

New technique renders objects at sea “invisible” to waves of water

Poll: Young people who use landlines are more conservative than those who use mobile phones

At Amherst college, 1% of first-year students have landlines, 99% have Facebook accounts

North Dakota the most outgoing state, according to study of “the geography of personality”

Why the next wave of high-tech CEOs will be as old as your parents: My latest column in Wired magazine

» visit the Collision Detection archives

Clive Thompson's Tumblr
a bunch of stuff

September 26, 2008 » 01:57 PM

From an interview with ethnobotanist and anthropologist Wade Davis:

One of the cultures you celebrate in Light at the Edge of the World is the Inuit. What do you most admire about them?

Davis: The Inuit didn’t fear the cold; they took advantage of it. During the 1950s the Canadian government forced the Inuit into settlements. A family from Arctic Bay told me this fantastic story of their grandfather who refused to go. The family, fearful for his life, took away all of his tools and all of his implements, thinking that would force him into the settlement. But instead, he just slipped out of an igloo on a cold Arctic night, pulled down his caribou and sealskin trousers, and defecated into his hand. As the feces began to freeze, he shaped it into the form of an implement. And when the blade started to take shape, he put a spray of saliva along the leading edge to sharpen it. That’s when what they call the “shit knife” took form. He used it to butcher a dog. Skinned the dog with it. Improvised a sled with the dog’s rib cage, and then, using the skin, he harnessed up an adjacent living dog. He put the shit knife in his belt and disappeared into the night.

September 25, 2008 » 11:21 AM
“Video from a camp north of Toronto in December 2005 shows a car spinning around in a nearby, snow-covered parking lot. Prosecutors characterized that as special driver training but the defense, and many outsiders, said it was nothing more than “cutting doughnuts,” a favorite winter pastime of young Canadian motorists.” - A key piece of evidence submitted in the trial of a gang of alleged young Canadian terrorists.

September 24, 2008 » 11:21 PM
“Life imitates art imitating life: just thought a gnat crawling across my monitor was part of a Flash-based ad. I clicked it.” - A Tweet from Bill Braine.

September 24, 2008 » 02:37 PM
“Funniest FB friend request ever: “Twitter friend hoping to get to second base (Facebook!) ;-).”” - A recent Tweet by Pistachio

September 24, 2008 » 12:28 PM
Chinese powdered-milk crisis creates a new market: The return of the wet nurse

» visit my Tumblr

Recent Comments

Photos

» see all of my photos on Flickr

Collision Detection: A Blog by Clive Thompson