Ok, I submitted a birthday card long time ago. It came back with the suggestion that because it's too dark I need to lighten it. I did that and resubmitted. After about a week I got an email saying the card was put ON HOLD. I was also told top pester them with question and just wait.
That was over a month ago and nothing is happening. Still on hold and I'm still waiting.
Does anybody know how long I'm suppose to wait?
I need help with this one.
Teresa

Cara,
 
I'm sure that's a typo - they specifically ask in the email notifying you a card is on hold not to pester the reviewer.  That's what Teresa meant to type in there.
 
However, a month is too long.  I would just send a reply to the email and let the reviewer know that it's been a month and noone has responded.
 
I have one on hold now for a week and a newer submission which was also put on hold already has had a response while the older one is still waiting.  If it goes a couple more weeks, I will reply.  I wouldn't consider that pestering, just a simple friendly reminder.
 
Best always, Randy

Teresa,
 
I wouldn't wait if it's been a month.  That is way too long!  Cards do get lost in the shuffle.  Go ahead and respond to the email you recieved, kindly reminding the review team your card has been on hold for a month now.  You could also address a comment here on the forum to the staff as well if you again don't hear back from the review team in a day or two.  
Be sure to include the number of the card in question in your querries as it's much easier for the staff to respond if they know what they are responding to.
Hope it all gets figured out!
 
Best always, Randy

Thank you Betty for your comment and I totally agree. They do try to find errors everywhere, in our photos, in text, in colours, a photo of a christmas tree is not enough to be considered a christmas card etc... Yet the quality of cards is not that great. The only thing really great is the price and that's how GCU makes money.
Well I will wait another week and after that try to remind them. Will see.
 
Quote from Bettie__142065 on Nov 17^th, 2011, 8:17pm:

Quote from Norma_133903 on Nov 17^th, 2011, 10:20pm:

 
Well, I'm glad someone can tell one nutcracker from another.  Guess I don't know anything about nutcrackers.  Thought they had been around for a couple hundred years at least.  Does someone have to pay a royalty to the nutcraker guild?  Is that paid in dollars or nuts?
 
I'm trying to be funny in a sarcastic way if you didn't notice.  

Hi,
First let me clarify: I didn't mean that copyrigh infringement was not a serious matter. I am well aware of copyright laws and infringement... I have been doing stock photography for  a few years and have learned to be very careful about that, but my point was the seemingly "find something wrong no matter what  syndrome" has taken over the review process.  This same photo was submitted to one of the more prominent stock companies and was accepted.  I can accept if they say it isn't suitable.  
 
This morning a card wanted by a customer was put on hold. (The milk hauling truck card. }It is that of a truck I modified into a milk truck and put Christmas trees around the edges and wrote merry Christmas on top.Product Id: 881631
Take a look and see what they are looking for?
 
Anyway, Thank you both Norma and Randy for your comments...Randy, I love your sarcasm!
 
Bettie

Doreen & Norma,
 
I was only making a joke. I understand that as an artist, we don't want someone taking our work and using it professionally taking our meal ticket with them or taking credit for it as their own.
 
However some of this, from my point, is ludicrous.  I'm not saying with Bettie's as I haven't seen the photo, but when something is used inadverently as, say an ornament on a tree, where that oranment wasn't the prime focal point or concept of the image, does that open one up to copyright infringement?  So for example you have a Lenox crystal oranment hanging on this tree along with fifty other ornaments.  Some Lenox employee or artist is shopping christmas cards and notices the ornaments on the tree, gets out their nifty-sixty power magnifyer and says - oh that oranment is one of our copyrighted designs, I'll sue that unsuspecting greeting card artist and company for everything I can get.  
 
I'm exaggerating here a bit, but think we've gone way overboard with all this copyright stuff.  If I was that ornament manufacturer or artist, I'd be thrilled it was part of a scene and would hope for people to notice with the possibility of thir wanting to purchase one or several.  It's the context that an item is used in and I agree with Bettie that we have become too nit-picky.
 
Now if that ornament was the sole subject and the scene or concept conveyed was using that to sell the card, I can understand and realize that would be the same as someone taking one of my images and using it to sell a product.  However, for example, a hotel chain which features some of my work in their lobby has a brochure at all the travel kiosks around town and on the front is a shot of the lobby with my photos hanging on the walls.  I could get anal and say that is copyright infringement?  Maybe, but why?  They're using the image to lure people into their business and making a tidy profit once they do, but they're in the hotel business, serving food, renting rooms and hosting banquets.  For one I wouldn't have a leg to stand on and for another, those photos there are my free advertising as well and why would I take a gift horse and shoot it?
 
I was being sarcastic in the previous post for that reason, some people and entities, not pointing fingers, take the trademark & copyright infingement thing too literal and beyond it's designed scope of protecting the designer or artist.  We have to be careful and as fellow artists, put the shoe on our foot and see how we would take to the use of something if it was ours.  However,  in regard to the ornament hanging on a tree with fifty others, shouldn't even be an issue.  Now, if you feature that ornament and that is what sells the card, then you should have the designer or artist permission and if they were smart, would give that to you freely as exposure is the best advertising.
 
Doreen & Norma, I need to take you two out on the town and loosen you up!  
 
Maybe the other way around, you guys need to take me out and loosen me up.  I get uptight when I see people inside a box and who aren't even willing to peek over the sides to see what's just beyond.  Guess I'm just a rebel, but I do have a cause!  
 
Best always, Randy  

Randy - your reference to shooting the gift horse really cracked me up!  
 
I'm sure there's an idea for an illustration there!
 
Sorry to deviate from the serious business of this thread!
 
I don't do much photography but of the one I had returned for edits and of another one that was declined, the most frequent remark I've heard is 'Ridiculous!' - from potential customers!  
 
The way I see it is, if GCU want to get the reputation for 'ridiculous' decisions, it's no skin off my nose . . .