# Capital One Rejects Hunting Photo for Image Card



## PoliticalChic

Express Yourself. Personalize your card with an image of your choice.

That is the claim made by Capital One for anyone who wants to have a personal photo put on a Capital One credit card. You can even design it yourself online with a photo you upload.

But you cant use a hunting photo. Capital One considers them unacceptable.

Thats what Lou Hinger of Hamburg, N.J., found out when she tried to design a credit card using a photo of her husband Frank, dressed in hunting gear, posing with a deer he had taken last hunting season.

Hinger received an e-mail from Capital One that said, in part:

Sorry, we were unable to approve the image you submitted. We will not approve any images that contain the following: Violence, hatred, or cruelty to humans or animals, profanity obscenities or any type of death imagery.

We are livid, says Hinger, as we are God-serving Americans who hunt to feed our family. In these economic times our family is fed by hunting, and its horrible to be associated with words like hatred or violence.

I tried to call for an explanation twice; no one will get on the phone. Also, their terms are vague. However, someone took the time to specifically write that response pertaining to our image.

NRA-ILA :: OUTRAGE Of The Week: Capital One Rejects Hunting Photo for Image Card

Translation:  "You can put whatever you want, as long as it agrees with me."


----------



## jillian

is that where you get your faux rage from this week?

it's their card. you have no constitutional right to it.

change companies and let the marketplace decide.


right?


----------



## California Girl

Given the kind of shit that happens in this country every day, I find I am tapped out on the outrage front. Their business, their rules.


----------



## California Girl

jillian said:


> is that where you get your faux rage from this week?
> 
> it's their card. you have no constitutional right to it.
> 
> change companies and let the marketplace decide.
> 
> 
> right?



Has anyone checked the weather in Hell? I suspect it's snowing.   Me and Jillian agree.... never a good sign.


----------



## PoliticalChic

jillian said:


> is that where you get your faux rage from this week?
> 
> it's their card. you have no constitutional right to it.
> 
> change companies and let the marketplace decide.
> 
> 
> right?



I never have rage...only insight....or disappointment, as in this case.

Their offer was "Express Yourself. Personalize your card with *an image of your choice*.

My 'lib-radar' went up as it is ever so characteristic of the liberal thought, which is why you find it so agreeable, as the lib-translation of Voltaire is

" "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say whatever I want you to say".


And, of course, you verify that.
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."
Bravo!



Don't you feel that people of good will should stand for truth, no matter how trivial the particular circumstance?



But, I would like to wish you a wonderful Easter....I understand that you do not celebrate same, but please accept that in the spirit in which I send it.


----------



## California Girl

PoliticalChic said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> is that where you get your faux rage from this week?
> 
> it's their card. you have no constitutional right to it.
> 
> change companies and let the marketplace decide.
> 
> 
> right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never have rage...only insight....or disappointment, as in this case.
> 
> Their offer was "Express Yourself. Personalize your card with *an image of your choice*.
> 
> My 'lib-radar' went up as it is ever so characteristic of the liberal thought, which is why you find it so agreeable, as the lib-translation of Voltaire is
> 
> " "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say whatever I want you to say".
> 
> 
> And, of course, you verify that.
> 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."
> Bravo!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you feel that people of good will should stand for truth, no matter how trivial the particular circumstance?
> 
> 
> 
> But, I would like to wish you a wonderful Easter....I understand that you do not celebrate same, but please accept that in the spirit in which I send it.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## California Girl

FYI: I've just checked their site. I was right, they have a disclaimer about rejecting images and they give a list of what they deem inappropriate.

Nope, no outrage.


----------



## PoliticalChic

California Girl said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> is that where you get your faux rage from this week?
> 
> it's their card. you have no constitutional right to it.
> 
> change companies and let the marketplace decide.
> 
> 
> right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never have rage...only insight....or disappointment, as in this case.
> 
> Their offer was "&#8220;Express Yourself. Personalize your card with *an image of your choice*.&#8221;
> 
> My 'lib-radar' went up as it is ever so characteristic of the liberal thought, which is why you find it so agreeable, as the lib-translation of Voltaire is
> 
> " "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say whatever I want you to say".
> 
> 
> And, of course, you verify that.
> 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."
> Bravo!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you feel that people of good will should stand for truth, no matter how trivial the particular circumstance?
> 
> 
> 
> But, I would like to wish you a wonderful Easter....I understand that you do not celebrate same, but please accept that in the spirit in which I send it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


"...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!


----------



## Ringel05

It's their card and their public image they want to "protect".  If they wish to play the PC game then take your business elsewhere, it's the American way.


----------



## JBeukema

Institute for legislative action?

You want a law to force a bank to let you put a picture on your card they find offensive or inappropriate?

I always knew you loved authoritarian big government


----------



## JBeukema

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wFnPnteApc]YouTube - The Truth About Conservatives & Big Government![/ame]


----------



## JBeukema

PoliticalChic said:


> Their offer was "Express Yourself. Personalize your card with *an image of your choice*.



So if Tank wanted a picture of a hanged negroe and they refused?


> As a conservative, I would never attempt to force a private business...



Then why is this a matter for the Institute for Legislative Action?





> But, I would like to wish you a wonderful Easter



This is a Christian nation. Get your pagan bullshit out of here.


----------



## California Girl

PoliticalChic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never have rage...only insight....or disappointment, as in this case.
> 
> Their offer was "&#8220;Express Yourself. Personalize your card with *an image of your choice*.&#8221;
> 
> My 'lib-radar' went up as it is ever so characteristic of the liberal thought, which is why you find it so agreeable, as the lib-translation of Voltaire is
> 
> " "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say whatever I want you to say".
> 
> 
> And, of course, you verify that.
> 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."
> Bravo!
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you feel that people of good will should stand for truth, no matter how trivial the particular circumstance?
> 
> 
> 
> But, I would like to wish you a wonderful Easter....I understand that you do not celebrate same, but please accept that in the spirit in which I send it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...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!
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Grace

Hope you are enjoying your Easter Sunday too, political chic.


----------



## Blagger

If you want to 'express' yourself, surely you'd do it via a vehicle that others would encounter regularly enough for your message to be conveyed to the extent that they'd remember it. A personalised card stays hidden (for good reason) in your wallet or purse. Unless, of course, you're one of those annoying, attention-seeking wankers that feels compelled to shove the object of your expression under every poor soul's nose. Personalising trivial, day-to-day tools is the mark of a pretentious no-mark.

On the handful of occasions that our paths have crossed, I've often agreed with you, PoliticalChic. But on this occasion, I think you've intentionally posted this thread in this forum because you've expected to attract sympathy, due to the fact that you - rightly - assumed hunters would reply, hopefully indignantly. 

Sorry, but as much as I'm a conservative, the political agenda I support has more pressing priorities than arguing what personal image some consumer can or can't have on their credit/debit card.


----------



## Blagger

If you want to 'express' yourself, surely you'd do it via a vehicle that others would encounter regularly enough for your message to be conveyed to the extent that they'd remember it. A personalised card stays hidden (for good reason) in your wallet or purse. Unless, of course, you're one of those annoying, attention-seeking wankers that feels compelled to shove the object of your expression under every poor soul's nose. Personalising trivial, day-to-day tools is the mark of a pretentious no-mark.

On the handful of occasions that our paths have crossed, I've often agreed with you, PoliticalChic. But on this occasion, I think you've intentionally posted this thread in this forum because you've expected to attract sympathy, due to the fact that you - rightly - assumed hunters would reply, hopefully indignantly. 

Sorry, but as much as I'm a conservative, the political agenda I support has more pressing priorities than arguing what personal image some consumer can or can't have on their credit/debit card.


----------



## Missourian

California Girl said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



How is hunting inappropriate?


----------



## PoliticalChic

California Girl said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## keee keee

Time to close the account!!!! screw this business PS capitol One Hunters spend billions of dollars yearly on this sport and you might be missing out on some of this money.


----------



## keee keee

I have an account from Cabelas they like hunters!!!!!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

California Girl said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## JamesInFlorida

PoliticalChic said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

JamesInFlorida said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




> 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...


----------

