DISQUS

MRL · 1 year ago

Rhetorical question?

No " . . . reasonable person [would] think that [four black] person[s] personally endorsed [the McCain/RNC] . . . cause . . ."

Unreasonable, therefore, no violation.

Bill · 1 year ago

Regardless of the law, politicians should never use stock photos. Too much chance of the other side finding the subject of the photo and getting them to endorse the opponent.

Which is what Hillary saw when one of the kids in the 3am ad endorsed Obama.

Every campaign has at least one photogenic supporter it can use.

Mike Brown · 1 year ago

Disclaimer: I have a number of photos on the Istockphoto site, and have earned royalties from their sale (about $200 over three years - I'm not planning to give up my day job).

I think the advice has to be given in the context of the service - Istockphoto, like any stock agency, is in the business of supplying stock images to customers for use in advertising or publications. A "stock" image, by definition, is one which does not specifically identify a person, but rather is an anonymous image usable for many purposes to evoke whatever feeling with which the purchaser wishes to associate his product.

Subsection (i) is interesting, but if it's taken to an extreme, most uses of stock photography involving human images would be prohibited. Nearly any use of a stock image in an advertisement of any sort associates the image with a product or service - where do you draw the line? I'd say that line falls just where section (i) puts it - where a reasonable person would think that the MODEL as an individual PERSONALLY endorses the service. That says that the use has to personalize the "endorsement" to the point that the viewer would think that "this isn't just a stock shot, it's a picture of a user or endorser of the service".

I think crossing this line requires more than just the inclusion of an anonymous stock image, since that's what anonymous stock images are used for, and the reasonable person realizes that. Rather, the use must go to the point of saying, "these two African-American women are voting for McCain - you should too!" or "John McCain's supporters include environmentally conscious bicyclists like this couple" or "Ms. and Ms. Martha Johnson of San Francisco think McCain's the best bet", or something like that.

I don't see (ii) as much of a problem. The photos are not being used in a way which reflects the subjects in an offensive or unflattering way, as such. They're being used to represent "choice" and "prosperity", neither of which is a controversial subject. If they were associated with a statement like, "America needs to combat AIDS", or "people are so poor that they're forced to ride bicycles", maybe.

That's not saying anything about whether or not it's a good idea for a politician to use stock photography. As Bill noted, it's just too risky - not just if the opposing campaign gets them to object, but also if the subjects turn out to be active in some cause the politician rejects (suppose, for example, that the two people on bicycles are arrested as illegal immigrants or a photo surfaces of them chaining their bikes to an Army tank in an anti-war protest) . As a loyal Istockphoto contributor, I won't mention what it says about a campaign that they went for the $10 image instead of higher-priced stock houses (come to think of it, as a taxpayer, maybe I should be happy they're fiscally responsible...)

Just my four cents (inflation).

Francine Ward · 1 year ago

Aren't there enough photos of people who are dying to show their loyalty to the Republicans--why use stock photos that could possibly land them in the middle of a lawsuit for Right of Publicity. While it might be a fight they ultimately win, is it really worth it? I think not!?