Judge bans group's use of gay pair photo

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Thursday prohibited a conservative group supporting President Bush's Social Security plan from using a photo of a gay couple in its online ads attacking AARP.

USA Next had posted the ad for a week in mid-February on the Web site of The American Spectator. The ad portrayed AARP, the seniors lobby leading the opposition to Bush's plan, as opposed to U.S. soldiers and supportive of gay marriage.

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton issued a temporary restraining order forbidding use of the photograph by USA Next.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/10/judge_bans_groups_use_of_gay_pair_photo/

[merwin]

1. And what about compensation?

[Rose Siding]

2. They haven't gotten to that part yet

This is what's been done so far -but it's going in the right direction.

[paineinthearse]

3. These guys appealed to DU for help

Haven't seen them back in quite some time.

Hope they remember their buds when they strike it rich!

:party:

[jojo54]

4. This is good, so far

But I agree that there needs to be compensation. This slimeball organization needs to pay dearly for slip-up. This will prove that these sleezy wing nuts can't get away with whatever they want.

[VegasWolf]

5. Wait till the Republicans post the donkey pictures! n/t

[Skittles]

6. what that group did is sleazy and disgusting

I hope they get slammed good just to make an example out of them. To use a beautiful momento of someone's MARRIAGE to promote lies and propaganda is just plain despicable.

[Cooley Hurd]

11. They have no problem impugning the reputation of a dead man:

...so it doesn't surprise me to what lengths they'll go.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. Does anyone wonder why they didn't hire models and shoot their own photo?

It's never made any sense to me. Why steal a photo when for very little money you could create your own? I think they were a beautiful couple, but I doubt that was the reason they chose the photo.

[kbm8170]

9. I suspect they are going to fall back onto the

"It was just a 'test' ad argument, not meant to be taken as a serious link or advertisement." I would be very surprised if this works, given that the 'test" ad was posted on a major right wingnut publication web site, linked directly to USA NEXT, and obviously wasn't a "dummy" ad. I don't think they have much to stand on at all -and I don't believe it was a "mistake" either.

[Demit]

10. Because why use your own $ when you can cheat & steal something for free?

Remember, fairness and honesty aren't important moral values--only things pertaining to sex are. On a minor note, a photo shoot isn't exactly cheap. The day rate for a professional photog would be at least $800. I'm not sure what the fee for two models would be. I know ad agencies look at stock photography over photo shoots if they can find one that suits their purpose. Of course, reputable ones still pay the appropriate stock house fee.

I do think this is an instinctual way of life for a certain strain of Repubs: getting over on other people, scoffing at rules that other people follow. Doing what results in their own advantage is a good thing, and other people are only suckers for following the rules.

[dsc]

12. In fairness to USA Next they did try to pay for the photo

but the Oregon paper wouldn't sell (due to a policy of requiring approval of people before they sell photos of them). But, they did try to do an anomymous end round of that policy and then stole the photo outright so they were pretty sleezy.

[meganmonkey]

8. Good news!

:)

[LynneSin]

13. These USANext are so full of shit: They said the pulled the ad beforehand.

"We took the banner ad down before we even learned that these gentlemen claimed that their picture had been misused. We have not used their picture since then. We do not intend to do so," USA Next Chairman Charlie Jarvis said after the judge's ruling.

You know asshole, you did exactly what you wanted to do which was to create the ad in the first place and got it out there. Hell you probably think this is a good publicity stunt too, which is why you choose that picture instead of hiring 2 actors to do the stunt.

Believe me, I have a feeling they wanted a judge to "strike down" this picture - "Activist Judges supporting dem der homosexuals" will be used to their advantage too