The Virginian-Pilot today reports that Del. John Welch is using a picture taken of himself with Virginia Beach Sheriff Paul Lanteigne in his mail. Problem is, Lanteigne didn’t authorize its use and he is not endorsing Welch in his battle against Democratic challenger Bobby Mathieson.
“If he’d asked me to use those photos, I’d have said no,” Lanteigne said.
You know, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. I have no doubt that many folks who receive this ad will assume that Lanteigne supports Welch and will never see the story in the Pilot saying differently. I saw the effects of the use of photos in my own campaign. On my all of my campaign mail, I listed the names of those electeds who supported me. But it wasn’t until the mail piece included the pictures that a number of people said that they were aware of their support. And, of course, there was this incident. I wonder how many people saw the article? I know that an ad was run in a local paper after the article appeared with the offending photo included.
There is a really simple answer to this: require that written permission from people be obtained prior to the photo being used in an ad. Before a mail firm uses a photo which contains a clearly identifiable individual, they should be provided a copy of the permission slip. Before the newspaper runs an ad, they should be provided a copy of the permission slip. And, to avoid situations like this one with Welch and Lanteigne, the permission slip should be dated within a certain time frame, say one year or six months.
The voters deserve to have some semblance of truth in advertising.
Technorati Tags: John Welch
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Oh… and while the codified version you quoted above is accurate, you may want to research the case law which further defines that code section. It deals with implied consent, public places and events and whether it is for artistic representation or example. Its a wee bit more complicated than the code defines.
Hey Vivian… see that stupid little question mark up there? You may want to delete it out as it creates havoc with RSS feeds. Sorry about that. I was trying a new offline editor…
Is there a dumber, more childish d***head than Brian Kirwin? He asks if someone can post something without calling names, and then IMMEDIATELY starts calling names, i.e., “Frank Drew wannabe”
It never fails — you start to read some interesting and thoughtful discussion on this blog, then along comes Brian whining and pissing and moaning and calling people names while whining if someone dares to call him or that jackass he carries the coat for – John Welch – a name. I swear it is like letting some 11 year-old kid walk into a room and watching him embarass himself in front of the grown-ups.
He sticks his tongue out at people smarter than him (everyone else) and kicks and screams like a baby with a wet diaper, then wonders why no one takes him seriously. Too bad there isn’t an age or IQ requirement on the blogs — then we could all discuss without his whiny little temper tantrums.
Then again, maybe he does it, hoping that if he kicks up enough noise no one will pay attention that he is a flack and spear carrier for that major embarassment, “DOCTOR” -I’m-Screwing-the-Creditors-Out-of-$100,000″ Welch.
I wonder which is a bigger embarassment for Welcher — his bungling career as a delegate and “businessman” or having Brian represent him?
Sheesh . . .those are the kinds of thoughts that make you wake up screaming in the middle of the night.
Hey Brian,
If you want to embarass yourself on the blogs, then have at it — everyone has come to expect that from you. But if you want to start tossing my name around, you better get your facts straight and your s**t together.
Saying I “quit (Mathieson’s) campaign awful fast” shows a complete ignorance of the facts and proof that you haven’t a clue as to what is going on in this case — or this world, for that matter.
Candy-ass name calling and twisting the facts might be the standard with “Doctor (tee-hee)” Welch’s campaign or some other lame blog, but you better pack a lot more than you’re packing if you want to go down this road.
Considering the embarassing week Welch has had, I would think you campaign hacks would have more immediate concerns than sticking your tongue out at everyone else.
Watch yourself.
This is nothing more than a semi-educated guess, but I suspect that the cited code doesn’t apply to political campaign materials (which, as political speech, is subject to a very minimal amount of regulation). Anyone else here bothered nailing that down?
~
I understand the benefits of calling for a permission-slip type regime, but I think it’s a not something we want, for a couple of reasons. First, it restricts speech – which, for me, is a bad thing. The government ought not be in the business of that. If the Sheriff feels that Welch has damaged his rep by using the picture, or falsely implied an endorsement, he’s got a private cause of action (and in any event, Welch has already suffered for this – no matter how the news covers it, he looks like a loser desperate to imply the endorsement of someone who hasn’t endorsed him). The second reason I don’t like it is that not only would it be onerous, but it would potentially put a veto in the hands of your political opponent. If I’m running against someone, and I’ve got pictures of him kicking puppies, I’m throwing that picture up on every flyer I’ve got (fairly, I think). With a permission-slip type approach, he can prevent that photo from appearing in any of my campaign materials. I think we can agree that that’s a bad result, no? (For a more realistic example – I’d think that it would be fair for a Democratic congressional candidate to publish a picture of Drake and Bush enjoying each other’s company next to a list of their many fine cooperative accomplishments. That candidate would never secure permission from either of them.)
Grumpy – I took it out.
MB – good point on the use by the opposition. Perhaps they would be exempt. I still think that anytime an endorsement can be implied, timely permission makes sense, especially since endorsements can be significant in a campaign.
Vivian, that would mean positive campaigning would have restrictions that negative campaigning wouldn’t have. That’s not exactly the way to improve campaigns.
OK, so what is the alternative? Do we rely on the ethics of the candidates to just do the right thing? We’ve seen how well that works.
And I don’t think it puts a restriction on positive campaigning. What is positive about misleading the public, whether it be intentional or unintentional?
Vivian, I agree with you that Mathieson shouldn’t have misled the public by using the city seal.
But your proposal, in practice, means that if a candidate wanted to run a total attack piece on an elected official, they could use his photo, but a piece that’s a positive one needs signed authorization.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for politicians who get their picture taken with other politicians and then get all surprised when it shows up in a mailpiece. What did they think they were taking pictures for? Security?
I think if a politician doesn’t want his photo being used by another politician, he shouldn’t do photo ops with other politicians. Don’t pose for them, and you won’t have a problem.
But don’t run around posing for them when it benefits you and then cry that someone remembers it later.
Um, Brian, don’t put words in my mouth. I did NOT say that Mathieson misled the public. In fact, I was quite clear that Mathieson’s use of the seal couldn’t possibly infer any kind of endorsement. There is nothing misleading about using the seal and were it not copyrighted, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Use of a likeness INFERS endorsement. And there has to be some way to control that. Politicians take pictures with people all the time, some of which are NOT other politicians. Are you saying it is quite OK for me, as a private individual, to have my picture taken with George Bush and then 15 years from now, use that photo as proof that he’s endorsing my candidacy for dogcatcher? That simply makes no sense. And if I recall correctly, you were one of the ones up in arms last year when Jim Webb invoked Ronald Reagan in his ads.
You can’t have it both ways, Brian.
Actually, it’s imply, not infer. š
And I guess Mathieson endorsed Welch about 5 times in the last month, judging by how many pictures of Welch that are in Mathieson’s mailpieces.
If anyone is having it both ways, you are. Mathieson was sent a letter from the City Clerk telling him to stop using the city seal. Lottery Lanteigne told Welch to stop using his photo. You think Mathieson is right and Welch is wrong, and other than partisan reasons, it makes no sense.
And let’s not be silly talking about you running for dogcatcher in 15 years.
That would take at least 20.
Um, point out where I said Welch was wrong and Mathieson was right. Oh, you can’t? Would that be because I didn’t say either one of those things?
You are the one who only sees things through the lens of partisanship, Brian. Don’t project your behavior on me. I’m not the one calling a clerk’s office to complain about the use of a city seal by a candidate when members of his own party continue to do the same thing.
And I notice you conveniently didn’t say anything about your boy Welch doing the same thing as you complained about Webb doing last year.
And, by the way, perhaps instead of attacking the candidates – and me – you can come up with a solution to the problem.
Oh that’s right. You don’t HAVE a solution.
So I guess we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for Welch to apologize for his stupid move.