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 
Matheison – you say much ado about nothing.
Welch – you say “folks deserve some truth in advertising”
Speaking of “truth” – who are you referring to when you say “the one calling the clerk’s office?”
Um, neither of those things are the equivalent of saying that one is right and the other is wrong. And, in the case of Welch, I didn’t say that about him – I said it in the broad sense.
Perhaps your reading comprehension skills are lacking.
And are you saying that the public deserves misleading advertising? Wow. I hope your clients all know that.
And – about that solution. Well, I’m still waiting.
See, you claim folks make things about YOU when in fact, it is YOU who makes things about you. If you had something constructive to say about how to solve the problem, I haven’t heard it.
Wow, Brian Kirwin claiming to be “speaking of truth.” The truth: Vivian’s whole statement in context was: “I’m not the one calling a clerk’s office to complain about the use of a city seal….” Brian, are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that some random stranger happened upon the Mathieson website and made the call, and that the shameless call wasn’t made by or orchestrated by someone connected to the ethically-challenged Welch campaign?
The truth: Mathieson displayed his own badge, which is not illegal, and which he has a right to do.
The truth: Delegate John Welch used someone’s photo in an advertisement without that person’s permission, after an endorsement request had been declined. No explanation, no apology, just more carping and whining and attempts to change the subject from Welch’s one or two supporters.
The truth: this is entirely in character for the ethically and intellectually challenged “Doctor” Welch.
Notice what we’re also not hearing or seeing here? Any support for Welch beyond these two individuals, Brian and Scott. Very, very telling.
I’m waiting for Vivian to say what she meant, not “spotter” to explain it. Who did you mean by “calling the clerk’s office,” Vivian.
Spot, I don’t know who made that call, or if there was only one? Do you?
Solution? I offered one. Don’t tell a politician “hey, come take pictures with me” and think they’re for the hallway.
Newspapers just make candidates sign a release, saying if anyone complains, it’s on the candidate.
I honestly think, Vivian, that your solution was worse than the problem. “exempt the opposition.” So, if Welch wanted to criticize Lanteigne, he could use the picture, but if he didn’t, he couldn’t? Every anti-Drake ad for the next year couldn’t use her picture, then. Whatever would you do?
I think my way of thinking is much better, and a lot less whiny. Don’t smile for the camera with someone you don’t want to be smiling with.
So your “solution” is to leave things the way they are now? And that helps exactly how?
Typical.
And your comment makes no sense.
See how that sounds, Brian? Geeze.
As for the call to the clerk’s office – all I said was I wasn’t the one who did it. What’s the matter, Brian? Feeling guilty?
Oh – and I’m still waiting for the Welch versus Webb thing. Into double standards much, Brian?
Spotter – I wouldn’t put Scott in the same category as Brian. Scott and I may disagree but can do so reasonably and even agree on certain things, especially the facts. Brian, on the other hand, has a little trouble with the facts.
Funny, Vivian!
“Spotter – I wouldn’t put Scott in the same category as Brian. Scott and I may disagree but can do so reasonably and even agree on certain things, especially the facts. Brian, on the other hand, has a little trouble with the facts.”
The subtle implication in that quote is that only those who agree with you use facts!
The photo was an official photo, which may be used. We paid for the camera, the photographer (presumably a deputy or staff person), and the sheriff — it is the public’s photo.
Political speech is not the same as commercial speech and is heavily protected, thank goodness. A campaign item is not commercial speech by any definition.
I will not respond to the use of the word “ethics” here; I am still chotling that the user of that word needs to apply it to their own life.
As for the badge? Easy. Keep using it without fuzzing the seal. He earned it honorably. Think of the horrible PR of trying to force a dedicated officer from using his own badge, a symbol of of his long, honorable service.
Um, Archie – seems as if you suffer from the same disease as Brian – the ability to read something other than what was written. There is no implication at all. Brian has trouble with the facts, pure and simple.
And where did you hear that the photo was an official photo? Everything that I’ve seen and heard is that it was a campaign photo, taken by the Welch campaign. Care to provide some proof that it was an official photo, paid for by the taxpayers?
For a first-time visitor, you seem to be throwing an awful lot of bombs around here.
Kirwin must have the evening off, and sent Archie to fill in.
“I will not respond to the use of the word “ethics” here; I am still chotling that the user of that word needs to apply it to their own life.”
As do we all, Archie. I try. John Welch doesn’t. He’s an elected official. I’m a private citizen commenting on a blog. I am one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who disagree with John Welch. Are you gonna investigate all of us, or are you gonna advise John Welch, an elected official, to clean up his act?
Chotle away.
Spotter, I looked at the sites you sent and didn’t see a Va Beach seal anywhere… I may have missed it. Or were you referring to the Commonwealth’s seal? I don’t know that the Commonwealth has the same “tight grip” that Virginia Beach is trying to employ.
Same rule, Scott. Check with the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
Here’s the protocol:
Click to access SealProtocol.pdf
See # 9. “The Seals shall not be used in any manner that might reasonably be considered as being for a political purpose.”
The difference is that Virginia Beach did authorize the use of the city seal, by placing it on the badge, and giving the badge to Bobby Mathieson. It’s his badge, not the city’s. Can they give him a trademarked item, and then demand that he not use or display it? I haven’t seen anything that would allow them to do that. There’s also the point that Archie made. Do you really want to demand that a retired police officer with decades of service refrain from displaying the badge that was awarded to him in appreciation for his years of service? I think the City Attorney’s Office has better things to worry about. Also, Mathieson corrected this supposed problem by fuzzing out the City Seal.
In contrast, these Republican political websites are using state and city seals in a free-standing manner. They’re not changing a thing. Like John Welch, they feel they have nothing to apologize for or explain. If their use of these seals was authorized, why wasn’t Officer Mathieson’s use of his own badge authorized? If they weren’t authorized, I’ll expect you and Brian Kirwin to be all over them, and the Virginian-Pilot to report on the results of your efforts.
Vivian, I don’t feel guilty anything. Then again, I don’t hold the title of “the Democrat who lost in Norfolk.”
So I take it that Brian won’t be investigating these Republicans.
And once again, Brian has no answer, only personal attacks.
And Jim wonders why no one visits BD any more.