Ohio Anti-Union Forces Violates Great Grandmother

[Conservative]

If the group who put out the 2nd ad is not making a financial gain from it, I'm not sure she has a case against them.

EDIT:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another

Since this commercial use is not for profit, there may not be anything she can do about it.

 

[DaGoose]

Depends if it is legal or not.
As for doing it? It is risky to say the least, could easily backfire.

I can't say whether it's legal or not. I'm sure they have some sort of legal team that probably gave it a green light.

What I AM saying though (to quote Soggy in Nola) it is really sleazy. And I agree with you that it could backfire.

 

[McDowell's]

Depends if it is legal or not.
As for doing it? It is risky to say the least, could easily backfire.

I can't say whether it's legal or not. I'm sure they have some sort of legal team that probably gave it a green light.

What I AM saying though (to quote Soggy in Nola) it is really sleazy. And I agree with you that it could backfire.

I feel sorry for the lady, but this is politics. If you don't want to get dirty, don't play in the trash.

 

[WillowTree]

A link to the article would be good, because right now, this seems very illegal of them.

Based on what ?

Based on that it should be illegal to use your image without your permission. How would you like it if NAMBLA used your image to promote their agenda?

It's not though. You think all those street shitters hittting the presses gave their permission????

 

[Amelia]

Based on what ?

Based on that it should be illegal to use your image without your permission. How would you like it if NAMBLA used your image to promote their agenda?

Exactly.

This woman is a private citizen who did an ad for a specific group. It is illegal to use her image for something else without her consent.

No. It's not.

I found that out when the Washington Post used a picture of me without my permission.

 

[yidnar]

How crooked is this? No matter what side of the issue you're on there is no way anyone should condone this.

Great-grandmother says she feels ‘violated’ after image used in anti-union ad

A great-grandmother and Cincinnati resident says she feels "violated" after a group that supports ending collective bargaining rights for unions stole her appearance in a pro-union ad to make it seem as if she supported their side of the issue.

"It's insulting to the brave firefighters that saved the lives of my grandson and my great-granddaughter Zoey," Quinn said in a statement. "I'm outraged. They did not ask my permission. I feel violated."

The group that appropriated Quinn's image and story, Building a Better Ohio, is not apologizing.

Great-grandmother says she feels

 

[yidnar]

Depends if it is legal or not.
As for doing it? It is risky to say the least, could easily backfire.

I can't say whether it's legal or not. I'm sure they have some sort of legal team that probably gave it a green light.

What I AM saying though (to quote Soggy in Nola) it is really sleazy. And I agree with you that it could backfire.

........people are shitting in the streets !!! who gives a damn about an old ladies picture ??

 

[Trajan]

How crooked is this? No matter what side of the issue you're on there is no way anyone should condone this.

Great-grandmother says she feels ‘violated’ after image used in anti-union ad

A great-grandmother and Cincinnati resident says she feels "violated" after a group that supports ending collective bargaining rights for unions stole her appearance in a pro-union ad to make it seem as if she supported their side of the issue.

"It's insulting to the brave firefighters that saved the lives of my grandson and my great-granddaughter Zoey," Quinn said in a statement. "I'm outraged. They did not ask my permission. I feel violated."

The group that appropriated Quinn's image and story, Building a Better Ohio, is not apologizing.

Great-grandmother says she feels

they raped a gramma?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Based on that it should be illegal to use your image without your permission. How would you like it if NAMBLA used your image to promote their agenda?

Exactly.

This woman is a private citizen who did an ad for a specific group. It is illegal to use her image for something else without her consent.

No. It's not.

I found that out when the Washington Post used a picture of me without my permission.

Totally different. That's new coverage. That and documentaries have different guidelines.

From the website "Conservative" provided:

Using the Name or Likeness of Another | Citizen Media Law Project

1. Use of a Protected Attribute: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used an aspect of his or her identity that is protected by the law. This ordinarily means a plaintiff's name or likeness, but the law protects certain other personal attributes as well.

2. For an Exploitative Purpose: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used his name, likeness, or other personal attributes for commercial or other exploitative purposes. Use of someone's name or likeness for news reporting and other expressive purposes is not exploitative, so long as there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the plaintiff's identity and a matter of legitimate public interest.

3. No Consent: The plaintiff must establish that he or she did not give permission for the offending use.

They clearly violated #1 and #3. A Court would have to decide on "Exploitative Purpose", but, again from the website in regards to "Exploitative Purpose":

You also may be held liable for some non-commercial uses of someone's name or likeness if you exploit the plaintiff's identity for your own benefit.

For example, one court has held that an anti-abortion activist who registered domain names incorporating the names and nicknames of his ideological rivals had misappropriated their names for his own benefit.

So like I said, what they did was illegal. She should sue them.

 

[DaGoose]

Depends if it is legal or not.
As for doing it? It is risky to say the least, could easily backfire.

I can't say whether it's legal or not. I'm sure they have some sort of legal team that probably gave it a green light.

What I AM saying though (to quote Soggy in Nola) it is really sleazy. And I agree with you that it could backfire.

........people are shitting in the streets !!! who gives a damn about an old ladies picture ??

I guess you failed to open the link (why doesn't that surprise me?). They didn't just use her fucking picture. They used videotape of her and twisted her words around to show her taking the opposite point of view she was making. That's a helluva thing to do to a great grandma.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I guess you failed to open the link (why doesn't that surprise me?). They didn't just use her fucking picture. They used videotape of her and twisted her words around to show her taking the opposite point of view she was making. That's a helluva thing to do to a great grandma.

Exactly. They used her publicly broadcasted image in a counter broadcast.

Perfectly legal.

 

[DaGoose]

I guess you failed to open the link (why doesn't that surprise me?). They didn't just use her fucking picture. They used videotape of her and twisted her words around to show her taking the opposite point of view she was making. That's a helluva thing to do to a great grandma.

Exactly. They used her publicly broadcasted image in a counter broadcast.

Perfectly legal.

As I said over and over I don't know if it's legal or not. The point I was making that it is complete bullshit to do that to her. Legalities aside wouldn't you agree?

 

[OODA_Loop]

As I said over and over I don't know if it's legal or not. The point I was making that it is complete bullshit to do that to her. Legalities aside wouldn't you agree?

No I wouldn't if you're going to be a pawn an opposing knight is liable to cut your head off.

Stature as great grandmother is no protection from ones own stupidity.

 

[McDowell's]

Exactly.

This woman is a private citizen who did an ad for a specific group. It is illegal to use her image for something else without her consent.

No. It's not.

I found that out when the Washington Post used a picture of me without my permission.

Totally different. That's new coverage. That and documentaries have different guidelines.

From the website "Conservative" provided:

Using the Name or Likeness of Another | Citizen Media Law Project

1. Use of a Protected Attribute: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used an aspect of his or her identity that is protected by the law. This ordinarily means a plaintiff's name or likeness, but the law protects certain other personal attributes as well.

2. For an Exploitative Purpose: The plaintiff must show that the defendant used his name, likeness, or other personal attributes for commercial or other exploitative purposes. Use of someone's name or likeness for news reporting and other expressive purposes is not exploitative, so long as there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the plaintiff's identity and a matter of legitimate public interest.

3. No Consent: The plaintiff must establish that he or she did not give permission for the offending use.

They clearly violated #1 and #3. A Court would have to decide on "Exploitative Purpose", but, again from the website in regards to "Exploitative Purpose":

You also may be held liable for some non-commercial uses of someone's name or likeness if you exploit the plaintiff's identity for your own benefit.

For example, one court has held that an anti-abortion activist who registered domain names incorporating the names and nicknames of his ideological rivals had misappropriated their names for his own benefit.

So like I said, what they did was illegal. She should sue them.

You didn't read far enough.

 

[DaGoose]

As I said over and over I don't know if it's legal or not. The point I was making that it is complete bullshit to do that to her. Legalities aside wouldn't you agree?

No I wouldn't if you're going to be a pawn an opposing knight is liable to cut your head off.

Stature as great grandmother is no protection from ones own stupidity.

Well even if you don't it sounds like many of the TV stations have at least some morals.

They chose to stop running the phony ads. They realized that what the anti-union forces did was bullshit. I hope this backfires on them at the polls.

Ohio TV stations pull pro-Issue 2 ad

 

[editec]

If they used the woman's image for a commercial without her permission, she has every right to bitch.

She also has the right to sue.

I hope she does and I hope she wins BIG, too.

 

[Conservative]

If they used the woman's image for a commercial without her permission, she has every right to bitch.

She also has the right to sue.

I hope she does and I hope she wins BIG, too.

as the link I provided showed, in order for her to sue, the people who used her likeness would have to have used it for profit. There was not profit here, so I'm not sure she really would have a case.