Capital One Rejects Hunting Photo for Image Card

[RetiredGySgt]

Chic,

All companies have small print disclaimers giving them the right to make the final decision. Otherwise, you'd have a bunch of idiots whining cuz some asshole has a pic of Hitler or a lynching on their card. The card company has it's reputation to protect and that is what they are doing.

"...giving them the right to make the final decision..."

Which, or course is consistent with my post:
"As a conservative, I would never attempt to force a private business...
So glad that you are coming around to the conservative view, i.e. "change companies and let the marketplace decide."


My post was not aimed at business practices, but to spotlight hypocrisy, and the political basis for same.

Have a wonderful Easter!

I'm not getting your point. The company very clearly states during the process of ordering a personalized card, that they retain the right to reject an image they deem inappropriate.

Explain to me what it is that I am supposed to care about, please. Exactly where is the hypocrisy and what the hell does it have to do with politics?

And... Happy Easter to you and yours.

A hunting photo is not a picture of violence, nor animal cruelty so exactly which stipulation did it violate?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

"...giving them the right to make the final decision..."

Which, or course is consistent with my post:
"As a conservative, I would never attempt to force a private business...
So glad that you are coming around to the conservative view, i.e. "change companies and let the marketplace decide."


My post was not aimed at business practices, but to spotlight hypocrisy, and the political basis for same.

Have a wonderful Easter!

I'm not getting your point. The company very clearly states during the process of ordering a personalized card, that they retain the right to reject an image they deem inappropriate.

Explain to me what it is that I am supposed to care about, please. Exactly where is the hypocrisy and what the hell does it have to do with politics?

And... Happy Easter to you and yours.

I believe that Missourian touched on it, and there is something syncretic about 'your choice' but guns, hunting, while perfectly legal, is inappropriate.
I would be interested in seeing the company's explanation.

There are plenty of legal things that a company doesn't want to have attached to it, due to PR reasons-NOT PC reasons.

If you were running a company, would you want to alienate potential/current customers because one person wanted an image on their debit card? It doesn't make sense-just like they probably wouldn't allow any political statements on them (from either the left or right). It alienates your customers-and every business is in business for one thing: to make money.

And for the record, hunting is only legal is done properly-you can't just go out and hunt whatever you want, whenever you want, and use whatever weapon you want to. So technically there's no real way for them to tell whether the person in the picture hunted in a legal way or not.

And for the record I've been hunting before. In all fairness I only went once with a friend of mine who goes often, but I'd go again.

 

[Ringel05]

I'm not getting your point. The company very clearly states during the process of ordering a personalized card, that they retain the right to reject an image they deem inappropriate.

Explain to me what it is that I am supposed to care about, please. Exactly where is the hypocrisy and what the hell does it have to do with politics?

And... Happy Easter to you and yours.

I believe that Missourian touched on it, and there is something syncretic about 'your choice' but guns, hunting, while perfectly legal, is inappropriate.
I would be interested in seeing the company's explanation.

There are plenty of legal things that a company doesn't want to have attached to it, due to PR reasons-NOT PC reasons.

If you were running a company, would you want to alienate potential/current customers because one person wanted an image on their debit card? It doesn't make sense-just like they probably wouldn't allow any political statements on them (from either the left or right). It alienates your customers-and every business is in business for one thing: to make money.

And for the record, hunting is only legal is done properly-you can't just go out and hunt whatever you want, whenever you want, and use whatever weapon you want to. So technically there's no real way for them to tell whether the person in the picture hunted in a legal way or not.

And for the record I've been hunting before. In all fairness I only went once with a friend of mine who goes often, but I'd go again.

The total population of registered hunters in America today is ranging from 23 million to 43.7 million individuals. This estimate came from the 2001 National Survey Of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Related Recreation, which was based on the annual data provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

Number of Hunters in America | Number Of | How Many

While I can't locate any estimated numbers of anti-hunting advocates I would hazard a guess their numbers are but a minute fraction of the hunters listed above.

Tell me again who Capitol One is playing to. Tell me again about alienating customers because they care more about profit and PR than being PC.

Sorry, I understand what you're trying to say but your argument doesn't wash.

 

[Mad Scientist]

All my cards are paid off but when I was using them, I only cared about the annual percentage rate, not the picture on it.

 

[Snokone86]

New member here... I just wanted to say that I am currently having issues with Capital One and their image card. I actually wanted to use a screenshot from a music video (for multiple reasons both aesthetic and personal). I had actually contacted the band and their manager to obtain permission because I knew there would be a copyright issue, being from a music video. They thought it was an amazing idea and told me to go ahead and use it and if Capital One had any issue with it, they would put it in writing or do whatever was necessary for me to use the image.

Capital One accepted the image, only to send me an email 3 days later informing me that it had been rejected. I called and talked to 3 separate people and a supervisor, all of which told me that, even with permission from the copyright holder, I would not be allowed to use ANY image which I do not own the copyright to.

I'm all for having rules and restrictions concerning what images can and can't be used. The image in question in the original post seems to be a non-issue to me aside from the fact that it can be viewed as animal cruelty by some. I can't for the life of me figure out why an image which in no way violates any of their image restrictions except copyright (which has been remedied by obtaining proper permission from the copyright holder) would be rejected...