Evite Hates Animals and Creativity

Wed, Sep 15, 2004

Or at least photos of animals…and of children, cartoons, comics, celebrities, nudity, artwork, or images that may be copyrighted. I just received this notice from eVite after using the above monkey picture as my my profile photo for some time now.

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for uploading a photo to your My Info page.

Unfortunately, we had to take down your photo because the one you
posted contains animals, children, cartoons, comics, celebrities,
nudity, artwork, or copyrighted images.

The photograph you upload should be of you and should be current.
Your face should be clearly visible in the photo. We will accept
photographs which show yourself plus another adult person (spouse,
family member, etc) and/or your children, and a graphic containing a
logo provided that you are the copyright owner.

Please go back to My Info to post another photo of yourself:

http://www.evite.com/pages/gt/people/view.jsp

*Be sure to copy and paste the entire URL into your browser window.

For more information, read the Photo Submission Guidelines in our
Terms of Service:

http://www.evite.com/html/popups/terms.html

Cheers,
The Evite Team

This was a pretty lame move…I mean, who cares that I use a monkey for a profile image? I know for a FACT that other people liked it and that it actually ads to any viral-ness that my profile had…because people send around things that are funny and a monkey for a profile photo is funny.

Miscellaneous

This post was written by:

andrew - who has written 681 posts on andrewteman.org.

Contact the author

2 Comments For This Post

Rolf Says:
September 16th, 2004 at 7:30 am

If you don’t want to follow the terms of service, don’t use the service. Such terms - applicable in nearly every “friend” type network on the web today - are there for many reasons: One is to protect the copyrights of photographer who might have photographed that celebrity or animal (or rather to make sure they themselves don’t get sued for having such photos on the network. They can now say “look, we told people not to.”). “The photo should be of you and should be current” should really be read as “the photo should be one that you are allowed to use, not stolen off of AP photos or AnimalWeb etc.”. People forget that copyrights apply on the web and as a result really simplistic terms of service are popping up everywhere to cover providers asses. my 2 cents anyway, as I don’t really care if the pic is of you or a monkey.

Andrew Says:
September 16th, 2004 at 12:23 pm

Rolf…I understand that there is a TOS, and that to be a member of any site, you need to abide by said TOS….I just thought that given the relative innocuousness of the picture, and of it’s use, in the whole scheme of things that it was a little silly. I am a designer and I know and appreciate the need for copyright and copyright protection, but I never took credit for the photo (or the monkey for that matter), and really…who is it harming? I have seen far worse on many other “friend” sites….

Rolf Says:
September 16th, 2004 at 7:30 am
If you don’t want to follow the terms of service, don’t use the service. Such terms - applicable in nearly every “friend” type network on the web today - are there for many reasons: One is to protect the copyrights of photographer who might have photographed that celebrity or animal (or rather to make sure they themselves don’t get sued for having such photos on the network. They can now say “look, we told people not to.”). “The photo should be of you and should be current” should really be read as “the photo should be one that you are allowed to use, not stolen off of AP photos or AnimalWeb etc.”. People forget that copyrights apply on the web and as a result really simplistic terms of service are popping up everywhere to cover providers asses. my 2 cents anyway, as I don’t really care if the pic is of you or a monkey.
Andrew Says:
September 16th, 2004 at 12:23 pm
Rolf…I understand that there is a TOS, and that to be a member of any site, you need to abide by said TOS….I just thought that given the relative innocuousness of the picture, and of it’s use, in the whole scheme of things that it was a little silly. I am a designer and I know and appreciate the need for copyright and copyright protection, but I never took credit for the photo (or the monkey for that matter), and really…who is it harming? I have seen far worse on many other “friend” sites….

andrewteman.org