They really, really should've gotten a model release

http://latimesblogs.la​times.com …f-ad-featuring-obama.html

i was surprised to read about that yesterday, and the coat maker saying that they didn't need any sort of permission.

huh.

Behold the Streisand Effect!

If you catch a very public figure wearing your coat, is advertising the fact legally the same as paying a model to wear it in an advertisement?

In short, does the fact that the 'model' is actually a public figure mean that a release is not needed for 'editorial reasons'?

JeffreyG wrote in post #9354701
If you catch a very public figure wearing your coat, is advertising the fact legally the same as paying a model to wear it in an advertisement?

In short, does the fact that the 'model' is actually a public figure mean that a release is not needed for 'editorial reasons'?

<--not a lawyer, but it isn't 'editorial' use to put someone's image on an advertisement. The usage of said image is what determines whether you need a release or not. Payment or not isn't the determining factor.

Sounds like someone didn't cross their i's properly.

Snydremark wrote in post #9354756
<--not a lawyer, but it isn't 'editorial' use to put someone's image on an advertisement. The usage of said image is what determines whether you need a release or not. Payment or not isn't the determining factor.

Sounds like someone didn't cross their i's properly.

I'm no expert either, which is why I ask. Normally if you use someone in an advertisement you need a release, it is a matter of course.

I was just wondering if the rules were at all different for a public figure. It seemed strange to me that the administration people cited precedent more than law in their objection.

Not really. They achieved what they wanted to achieve. They received exposure of millions upon millions via the national and international media attention to the story whereas they would have received far less numbers of local eyes viewing the billboard.

Plus, I am willing to bet they discussed the fact that it was worth the gamble because they surmised, and probably correctly, they will not get sued as they would with a George Clooney. Obama can't afford to sue and will be advised not to because it would be a public relations mistake. They will surely "please take it down" it, but it will quickly drop off the radar.

Plus, there's the obvious and well-thought-out double entendre single word tagline that will perpetuate even more discussion on political blogs everywhere. I guarantee it.

It was very calculated and very successful. Millions and millions of dollars worth of world-wide advertising exposure for the price of a billboard.

CannedHeat wrote in post #9357213
Not really. They achieved what they wanted to achieve. They received exposure of millions upon millions via the national and international media attention to the story whereas they would have received far less numbers of local eyes viewing the billboard.

Plus, I am willing to bet they discussed the fact that it was worth the gamble because they surmised, and probably correctly, they will not get sued as they would with a George Clooney. Obama can't afford to sue and will be advised not to because it would be a public relations mistake. They will surely "please take it down" it, but it will quickly drop off the radar.

Plus, there's the obvious and well-thought-out double entendre single word tagline that will perpetuate even more discussion on political blogs everywhere. I guarantee it.

It was very calculated and very successful. Millions and millions of dollars worth of world-wide advertising exposure for the price of a billboard.

Bingo. The attempt to censor the board gave it tons more publicity than it would have had otherwise. It really was a brilliant plan. That's what I posted about the Streisand effect. Remember when she (Barbara Streisand) tried to censor that aerial photo of her house and it ended up all over the place instead?

Exactly! Brilliant marketing.

Though you do have to wonder how many times it could be repeated and imitated before the White House did start taking action.

Were I Obama, I would, in this order, get rid of the coat; get some reporter to ask me about it at my next, very public press conference (easy to do); and, when asked, say, "I got rid of the coat because, even though it's advertised as Weatherproof, I got soaked!" (a true statement, if one takes a valid colloquial definition of the word "soaked"). I would then refuse to say anything else about it. Ever.

Let them chew on that advertising!

Of course, Obama is a much nicer and more tolerant person than I am. Thank God.

It probably worked as advertising, though. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I once bought something at J. Crew only because Michelle Obama shops there.

Thalagyrt wrote in post #9358390
Bingo. Remember when .Barbara Streisand....tried to censor that aerial photo of her house and it ended up all over the place instead?

..

The difference is that now one gives a sh$$ about her one way or the other

440roadrunner wrote in post #9360036
..

The difference is that now one gives a sh$$ about her one way or the other

The phenomenon of ABC trying to censor XYZ and it XYZ ending up all over the internet is literally named after her, hence the reference.