Author Topic: Political (in-)Actions (Read 11390 times)

lisafx · « **on:** January 10, 2012, 18:26 »

I just got an e-mail from someone in France saying that a photo of my hubby as a homeless man is being used by an extremist right wing party. He's being depicted as a French homeless person.

Both hubby and I know this sort of thing happens all the time. We've had images used before for political ads here and in other countries. Some are for people we support, some for people we oppose, and some for people we've never heard of.

Just curious if anyone here has seen the ad. The person who wrote me enclosed a pdf, but I can't get the link to work. I would like to see the campaign if possible. Can anyone help?

Artemis · « **Reply #1 on:** January 10, 2012, 18:32 »

I assume its Front National if its extreme right in France...
Is it this one Lisa?
http://www.marinelepen2012.fr/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/depliant_cmlp_chomage.pdf

Or if the pdf doesnt work, the one on top here?
http://www.francesoir.fr/actualite/politique/le-faux-sdf-de-marine-le-pen-172350.html

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** January 10, 2012, 20:27 »

Yep. That's Lisa's image!

lisafx · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2012, 20:33 »

Thanks Artemis! You are a wonderful sleuth!

Very interesting article too. Looks like she has been found out as using stock images. In the days of google image searches and tin-eye it's probably a bad idea to use stock photos for political ads without stating that they are stock photos...

Glad they found it so convincing though

Artemis · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2012, 21:39 »

Very welcome Lisa! (:

Hahaha, i didnt notice what the article was about until now, just saw the pic and posted it.
(ethical vs unethical discussion aside, i always thought it was against the ToS to use stock pictures in political campaigns?)

rubyroo · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2012, 04:17 »

Wow, Lisa! Your husband's fame just grows and grows! At least they don't portray him as a supporter of the far-right. I suppose that's some consolation.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2012, 04:24 »

Apparently your husband is a "mannequin", Lisa

"ne serait même pas clochard mais mannequin"

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2012, 05:49 »

Sorry your photo was misused in this way, Lisa.

But isn't it great that it turned out to be a great way of discrediting the party.
Wow!

MikLav · « **Reply #8 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:49 »

Quote from: Artemis on January 10, 2012, 21:39

i always thought it was against the ToS to use stock pictures in political campaigns?

I believe so too - and I recall an incident in Belgium that was reported a few years ago about Getty image of a Walloon model used by an ad of a Flemish nationalistic party (i.e. anti-Walloon one) and the model won the court case against that party.

Remark: Flanders and Wallonia are 2 regions in Belgium : Dutch-speaking and French-speaking respectively

Karimala · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:04 »

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC has regular segments exposing stock images (and recently, to her surprise, video) being used on political websites.

And then there's New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He had a political video ad that featured stock footage from Pond5. How do I know it came from Pond5? The Pond5 watermark makes several appearances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-jgRUHNEMc&feature=player_embedded

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:46 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 11, 2012, 05:49

Sorry your photo was misused in this way, Lisa.
But isn't it great that it turned out to be a great way of discrediting the party.
Wow!

Misused in what way?

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2012, 08:05 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 11, 2012, 07:46

Quote from: ShadySue on January 11, 2012, 05:49
Sorry your photo was misused in this way, Lisa.
But isn't it great that it turned out to be a great way of discrediting the party.
Wow!

Misused in what way?

Under EU legislation:

"Misleading and Comparative Advertising
What is misleading advertising?
Any advertising which, in any way, either in its wording or presentation:
deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches."

The photo purported to be a French homeless man, at least by implication; so that's 'likely to decieve a person whom it reaches'.

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/mis_adv/index_en.htm

Artemis · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2012, 08:18 »

As much as i'm opposed to extreme right ideologies; i still i dont think its perceived as misuse by the majority...
Many of the comments below the article state it would be worse to use a real homeless man for a political campaign, or that its used to convey a message and it doesnt matter whether its a real homeless man or not...which i tend to agree with.

Miklav, i remember that incident! (im a belgian too

)

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2012, 08:30 »

Quote from: Artemis on January 11, 2012, 08:18

As much as i'm opposed to extreme right ideologies; i still i dont think its perceived as misuse by the majority...
Many of the comments below the article state it would be worse to use a real homeless man for a political campaign, or that its used to convey a message and it doesnt matter whether its a real homeless man or not...which i tend to agree with.

Miklav, i remember that incident! (im a belgian too )

The trouble is with these things is that they're all subjective. The above is a moral opinion, which would have little legal traction.
However, there was a huge fuss recently about Sir David Attenborough's latest blockbuster, The Frozen Planet, when here were some complaints, blown out of all proportion, about a section of footage of a baby polar bear being born being shot in a Dutch wildlife park, not in the wild, even though details of the shooting were already on the FP website:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/tv/2011/12/13/frozen-planet-scandal-sir-david-attenborough-defends-fake-polar-bear-footage-115875-23631238
Obviously, it would have been totally unthinkable to disturb a birth in the wild, perhaps risking the mother or cub. The welfare of the animal MUST come first. Still, I'm sure it wouldn't be beyond the skills of a scriptwriter to have the voiceover saying 'like this footage' or something better, rather than imply it was taken wild.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2012, 08:40 »

It's against the ToS to attribute opinions to a model. In this case the image appears to be being used as an illustration of what Le Pen considers to be a problem that Sarkozy is not addressing. A line drawing could do the same job. I don't think that can be considered a violation of the ToS.

If I were Le Pen I would say that those who are sneering at her for using a stock image rather than talking about the issue she has raised are spitting in the face of the homeless.

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** January 11, 2012, 08:58 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 11, 2012, 08:40

It's against the ToS to attribute opinions to a model. In this case the image appears to be being used as an illustration of what Le Pen considers to be a problem that Sarkozy is not addressing. A line drawing could do the same job. I don't think that can be considered a violation of the ToS.

As indeed could an unreleased editorial photo. Or a photo of an actual homeless person (moral opinion above noted).
'Posed by model' would have been the normal way to deal with this.

lisafx · « **Reply #16 on:** January 11, 2012, 11:20 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 11, 2012, 04:24

Apparently your husband is a "mannequin", Lisa

"ne serait même pas clochard mais mannequin"

Actually, he got a huge kick out of where they referred to him as a "comedien American" in this blog: http://followedfr.tumblr.com/. The blog is hilarious. Scroll down to where they show him as "en cuisinier", "en travesti", and "en fan de foot US". So now he is very proud of his comedian status

BTW, while I oppose right-wing nationalist ideology, I think this type of political usage is within the terms of whatever site they bought it from. As BT pointed out, no opinions or endorsements are being attributed to him. It's just used for illustrative purposes. Fortunately hubby understands that we can't always control where our images are used, and is taking it with a sense of humor.

RT · « **Reply #17 on:** January 11, 2012, 11:27 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 10, 2012, 18:26

He's being depicted as a French homeless person.

Kick him out and then you'll only have to worry about his nationality being wrong

lisafx · « **Reply #18 on:** January 11, 2012, 11:30 »

Quote from: RT on January 11, 2012, 11:27

Quote from: lisafx on January 10, 2012, 18:26
He's being depicted as a French homeless person.

Kick him out and then you'll only have to worry about his nationality being wrong

LOL!

Are you kidding? He's my best selling model! If I throw him out, one of you other photogs will snap him up, and then where will I be?

gostwyck · « **Reply #19 on:** January 11, 2012, 11:35 »

Quote from: Artemis on January 11, 2012, 08:18

As much as i'm opposed to extreme right ideologies; i still i dont think its perceived as misuse by the majority...
Many of the comments below the article state it would be worse to use a real homeless man for a political campaign, or that its used to convey a message and it doesnt matter whether its a real homeless man or not...which i tend to agree with.

I think it is deceptive and therefore misuse.The image is being used as 'evidence' of the homeless issue. If it is such a big issue then they should have had no problem in gathering actual evidence.

Why would it be wrong to use a real homeless man? Provided he consented to be portrayed as such and was properly renumerated (just like any other model) what's the problem? A real homeless man might have been very grateful for the job and the food, clothes or whatever he chose to buy with the money. Not only that but he would be assisting the highlighting of an issue that affects him personally.

RT · « **Reply #20 on:** January 11, 2012, 11:42 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 11, 2012, 11:30

Are you kidding? He's my best selling model! If I throw him out, one of you other photogs will snap him up, and then where will I be?

Strangely enough I'm my best selling model, I take great pleasure in winding my regular models up with this info. I know a few other male stock photographers for whom it's the same, and without namimg names and insulting them I doubt any of us would ever grace the front cover of Esquire.

heywoody · « **Reply #21 on:** January 11, 2012, 12:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 11, 2012, 08:30

Quote from: Artemis on January 11, 2012, 08:18
As much as i'm opposed to extreme right ideologies; i still i dont think its perceived as misuse by the majority...
Many of the comments below the article state it would be worse to use a real homeless man for a political campaign, or that its used to convey a message and it doesnt matter whether its a real homeless man or not...which i tend to agree with.

Miklav, i remember that incident! (im a belgian too )

The trouble is with these things is that they're all subjective. The above is a moral opinion, which would have little legal traction.
However, there was a huge fuss recently about Sir David Attenborough's latest blockbuster, The Frozen Planet, when here were some complaints, blown out of all proportion, about a section of footage of a baby polar bear being born being shot in a Dutch wildlife park, not in the wild, even though details of the shooting were already on the FP website:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/tv/2011/12/13/frozen-planet-scandal-sir-david-attenborough-defends-fake-polar-bear-footage-115875-23631238
Obviously, it would have been totally unthinkable to disturb a birth in the wild, perhaps risking the mother or cub. The welfare of the animal MUST come first. Still, I'm sure it wouldn't be beyond the skills of a scriptwriter to have the voiceover saying 'like this footage' or something better, rather than imply it was taken wild.

Probablt wouldn't be great either if the camera man was ripped apart and eaten

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** January 11, 2012, 12:05 »

Quote from: heywoody on January 11, 2012, 12:03

Obviously, it would have been totally unthinkable to disturb a birth in the wild, perhaps risking the mother or cub. The welfare of the animal MUST come first. Still, I'm sure it wouldn't be beyond the skills of a scriptwriter to have the voiceover saying 'like this footage' or something better, rather than imply it was taken wild.

Probablt wouldn't be great either if the camera man was ripped apart and eaten

[/quote]
True, too.

Artemis · « **Reply #23 on:** January 11, 2012, 13:15 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 11, 2012, 11:35

Quote from: Artemis on January 11, 2012, 08:18
As much as i'm opposed to extreme right ideologies; i still i dont think its perceived as misuse by the majority...
Many of the comments below the article state it would be worse to use a real homeless man for a political campaign, or that its used to convey a message and it doesnt matter whether its a real homeless man or not...which i tend to agree with.

I think it is deceptive and therefore misuse.The image is being used as 'evidence' of the homeless issue. If it is such a big issue then they should have had no problem in gathering actual evidence.

Why would it be wrong to use a real homeless man? Provided he consented to be portrayed as such and was properly renumerated (just like any other model) what's the problem? A real homeless man might have been very grateful for the job and the food, clothes or whatever he chose to buy with the money. Not only that but he would be assisting the highlighting of an issue that affects him personally.

I should have put "a tend to agree with the latter"; i dont have a problem with using a real homeless person either, as long as s/he was well informed and consented.
I don't think its misuse though; you can just as well say its being used to illustrate the homeless issue, rather than being 'evidence'; plus, being the devil's advocate here: a picture of one real homeless person doesnt necesarily mean its a widespread issue in France, its doesnt add or substract from the truth, imho.

lisafx · « **Reply #24 on:** January 11, 2012, 13:19 »

Quote from: Artemis on January 11, 2012, 13:15

Quote from: gostwyck on January 11, 2012, 11:35
Quote from: Artemis on January 11, 2012, 08:18
As much as i'm opposed to extreme right ideologies; i still i dont think its perceived as misuse by the majority...
Many of the comments below the article state it would be worse to use a real homeless man for a political campaign, or that its used to convey a message and it doesnt matter whether its a real homeless man or not...which i tend to agree with.

I think it is deceptive and therefore misuse.The image is being used as 'evidence' of the homeless issue. If it is such a big issue then they should have had no problem in gathering actual evidence.

Why would it be wrong to use a real homeless man? Provided he consented to be portrayed as such and was properly renumerated (just like any other model) what's the problem? A real homeless man might have been very grateful for the job and the food, clothes or whatever he chose to buy with the money. Not only that but he would be assisting the highlighting of an issue that affects him personally.
I should have put "a tend to agree with the latter"; i dont have a problem with using a real homeless person either, as long as s/he was well informed and consented.
I don't think its misuse though; you can just as well say its being used to illustrate the homeless issue, rather than being 'evidence'; plus, being the devil's advocate here: a picture of one real homeless person doesnt necesarily mean its a widespread issue in France, its doesnt add or substract from the truth, imho.

I think there is a difference between something that is misleading, as this usage probably is, vs. actionable misuse though. I tend to think of "misuse" in terms of violating the license under which the image was sold. I don't think this type of usage in any way violates the TOS. OTOH, it is perfectly fair game for a reporter to point out that it is being used deceptively by the candidate.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Political (in-)Actions (Read 11390 times)

lisafx

Artemis

gostwyck

lisafx

Artemis

rubyroo

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

MikLav

Karimala

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

Artemis

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

lisafx

RT

lisafx

gostwyck

RT

heywoody

ShadySue

Artemis

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors