posted
Bob and I had decided to have photo stamps made for our wedding invitations from Stamps.com. They are a licensed vendor of the US Post office, and you could put any photo you wanted (within decency standards) on a real postage stamp. We had a test sheet made with one of our engagement photos and they turned out really cool, so we decided to do it. Decision made on Sunday.
Yesterday (Monday) I read a news article that people had been abusing the photo-stamps – submitting photos of serial killers and Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress, among other things – so Stamps.com now only allows photos of kids, pets, and “nature.” No photos of adults or teens.
We went to the website, and they still had examples of wedding photo and graduation photo stamps. We ordered enough for our invitations immediately. (This was at 11:30 or so last night.) This morning, all the example stamps on the website are pictures of babies and puppies and there is a notice announcing the new policy. I don’t know if our order made it in before the new policy, or if I’m just waiting for the e-mail telling me our photo was rejected.
On the plus side, we did get one sheet, so we may be among the very few adults in the country to have legal stamps with our own photo on them. How exclusive. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, it’s a brand new thing – they were in their trial run. Bob heard about it on NPR and we both thought it would be a quirky fun thing to do.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems like they could just charge more for a higher degree of active control. Allow you to submit official documentation that you are who you say you are. And if you lie, you can't order anymore.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*thinks* If it doesn't come through, you could photoshop pictures of yourselves as babies into one picture and have those printed. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why the people who ordered those stamps are stupid idiots, nor do I see how they were 'abusing' the service. Can someone explain this to me?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Stupid idiots” is a technical term that means “I’m pouting because I don’t get what I want.” Sheesh.
However, they admit that they were trying to get the service cancelled by submitting controversial images and then publicizing it. They aren’t planning on using their “offensive” stamps, they only did it to make a point.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strange as it sounds, I was actually responding to Dagonee's post which, despite quoting you verbatim, seemed to mean it in a different sense. This is also known as 'me not thinking'.
What point were they trying to make?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be so fun to have stamps with you two featured in it! I hope it can still work out.
I find myself wondering, though, if Stamp.com couldn't just simply deny service to people submitting inappropriate photos. Seems like this should be a non-issue.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This was just an exercise to point out that the only people truly worthy of stamps are statesmen (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin), civil rights leaders (Martin Luther King Jr., Thurgood Marshall), and cartoon characters (Wile E. Coyote, Jiminy Cricket).
Edit: Bev, they already had that policy. But some folks decided to try to push the limits and see what they could get through. Some of their stamps were rejected, but the "screeners" missed some, so now the tighter policy.
Edit again: And you can't really blame the screeners. I wouldn't have recognized Ted Kazinski's high school yearbook photo either.
posted
Ummm... why does stamps.com care if people are submitting stamps with serial killers on them? It might be bad taste, but I don't see why it's a problem the company needs to rectify.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think the discussion question here is – does having something on a stamp automatically mean it’s being honored? Even if it’s known that the stamps are personalized, not officially chosen photos? Because any of those controversial photos could have been printed on a postcard and the post office would deliver them. The ones that got through the screening weren’t offensive images in thenselves, they were only offensive if you recognized the people and thought they weren’t “worthy” of being on a stamp.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but I think the general population as a whole still thinks of stamps as being "endorsed" by the USPS - and the government. I doubt most people even know this private company can now legally do this. So I can see the USPS being upset that their reputation of "honoring" people with stamps might be questioned by having unsavory characters on the stamps. It would be a reflection on them (for those who didn't know what was going on)
posted
I would think the rights issue would be covered under existing laws. If people are using images that don’t belong to them, they could be sued in the same way they would if they used them in any other unauthorized way.
Technically, anyone using professional baby portraits is probably violating this one, and those are still allowed by Stamps.com.
Technically, anyone using professional engagement portraits was probably over that line too. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, I might try my hand at it just for fun. And I won't be offended if you don't use it. I'm not the best artist, but I like an excuse to actually do art.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, I tried just now to pull up foobonic and it isn't working! I will try again later. Or, feel free to email me any pics you would like me to use as inspiration. I may use one or a combination of several.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was in Foobonic a little bit ago, Bev, looking at your Arwen drawing, so it would seem that it's back up.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the people protesting the service are people who in the past have competed for art competitions to be on stamps and didn't win. My grandma is passed on, so I know it wasn't her. And to be frank, I didn't think much of her entry. Though she did have a lot of other paintings that would make cool stamps.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:PhotoStamps fall under the postal regulations for metered mail, so they are exempt from regular-stamps rules such as no living people can be featured and those dead must be gone for 10 years (except for historic and presidential stamps).
posted
Bob and Dana, I haven't been able to get back to it since I last posted an update, but I could try to scan in what I have so far for opinion before I try to go to the "next step". That way, if it *does* get ruined, you still have something. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soooooo have you heard back from them yet? You would think, if they weren't going to process your order they'd tell you as much.
btw, Mother is planning a photoshopped baby picture entry, I think. She said something about having baby pics of both of you, and you know how she loves to manipulate pictures...
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
at stupid idiots who ruin it for the rest of us.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
