HELP, our marriage & photo was used without our permission in an anti-AARP

[Catherine Vincent]

The following is from newcomer Ricky Monet:

---------------------------------
We need your help, our marriage and photo was used without our permission in an anti-AARP ad being produced by the same people who made the Swiftboat Vet ads against John Kerry.

The Great People over in the DailyKOS broke this story and emailed me to let me know about this injustice; thanks guys.

This is the ad targeting the AARP because of their opposition to the President's social security plan. How this relates to the images of our nuptials and an American soldier is beyond me. But the ad ran Monday February 21, 2005 on the conservative magsite http://www.spectator.org Paid for by www.USAnext.org

It's being used on right wing websites to somehow use anti-gay bigotry and blind patriotism to rally people against the AARP and, by extension, against preserving Social Security.

We were unaware of this action and these sites until someone in the DailyKOS broke this story and wrote to tell us about it Monday. We are at a loss as to what to do about this matter; we do not want our image used in this way.
We’ve I found out from The Portland Tribune that the image was stolen from their website and they do not have a model release from us; they broke the law didn’t they?
Now that we have been defamed, demoralized, humiliated and belittled around the world on every major news show as just "those gays" in that ad is a personal attack on our marriage, love and commitment to each other.
We are human people and this hurts!
Thank you
Rick Raymen~Monet
Steven Hansen~Monet
Portland, OR
www.rickymonet.com

When you have clarity & fervent desire for truth, when you ask for assistance, you create an opening for the Light to come, & the Light will complete all the actions we cannot.

We are trying to set up a legal fund (PayPal address [email protected] ) to fight the illegal use of our image in the anti-AARP ad. Or to the DNC link http://www.democrats.org/epatriots/give.html?sourcecode ...

[paineinthearse]

1. I replied to their email address

Recommended they contact ACLU for temp council and told them DU has their back.

These Swifties are pathetic.

And to add insult to injury, Corsi has a new book - see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x7720

[Liberty Belle]

2. kick!

I'm not a lawyer, but to use a photo of people in an advertisement generally requires a model release. Since you didn't sign one, the law was broken, I'm fairly sure.

[kwassa]

21. Yes, unless you signed a release, they are in trouble.

It is standard practice in the commercial media, and without you granting express permission, they have no right to use your photo.

There was a famous case ten or fifteen years ago where a man who picture was featured on the front of the New York Times magazine as a "young, black professional" sued the magazine and won. No one had asked his permission to either take his picture or use the picture on the cover of the magazine.

[Spiffarino]

3. Kick!

Give 'em hell, boys.

[EFerrari]

4. Every time I think they've sunk as low as possible

they make me a liar.

Okay, so now they're using these two kids to smear old people? So many kinds of wrong.

I'll send it to the L.A. Greens, post it at MoveOn and see what I can do here in SF.

First, I have to lose my dinner.

[starroute]

5. Do Atrios, Americablog, and so forth know about this?

If not, get it to them pronto. The blogosphere really needs to spread this around.

On edit: DailyKos too -- they did an item on the ad.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/21/164929/948

[DesEtoiles]

6. Contact them in writing immediately and demand they stop

Make sure you send it by means that you have confirmation of receipt - such as FedEx. Send multiple ways to be on the safe side. Also call.

Say simply - 1) stop, 2) you are now on legal notice, and 3) we are considering all of our legal options. You don't need to state any precise cause of action now.


Then call the Portland Bar Association or the Oregon State Bar and ask for referrals of attorneys who practice in civil litigation. Also could check their web sites. If $$$ is an issue then ask them for referrals to legal aid clinics, groups and hotlines. Some groups take on all cases, or certain types of cases, for free or for greatly reduced fees as part of their civic missions. You may also come across an attorney who wants the publicity he or she will get by representing you in what could be a high-profile matter. If you personally know a lawyer in Portland he or she could let you know who these "hired guns" might be. Would have to know the legal community fairly well to know this.

Try to get your story into the Oregonian if possible. Also try to get it into the Wilamette Weekly.

[DesEtoiles]

8. Contact info here

http://www.usanext.org/contact_us.cfm


Looks like they might be based in Virginia.

If so, you may want to consider hiring an attorney in Virginia. More familiar with the local court systems, personalities, state law and the general legal landscape.

[DesEtoiles]

17. Someone who might be able to help with a referral

John O'Quinn of O'Quinn and Laminack in Houston, Texas.

Famous plaintiff's attorney. Very Blue law firm in a red state. They may be able to give you a referal for an attorney in the pacific northwest.

Also could contact Sussman & Godfrey in Houston to ask for a referral. Again, very Blue.

[Fescue4u]

7. Unless it was taken in a public place they cant do that

If you were in a public place then I think you are out of luck.

[DesEtoiles]

9. Don't let that stop you from making noise

[DesEtoiles]

16. Anybody can sue anybody for anything

the ultimate question is, can you win

and

is winning your real goal

[Bouncy Ball]

10. Doesn't matter

they can still issue a cease and desist order (the courts).

They never gave their permission to use this photo. Even when you are making a film and using pictures taken in public, you still have to get a release.

[Fescue4u]

12. Do the news organization get a pass or something

It seems that all the news outlets would be hardpressed to get a release from everyone they cover, photograph and publicize.

I don't know Im just asking.

[Old Mouse]

14. News outlets get "fair use" of otherwise protected work and images

But this is not fair use. They can easily get them to stop using the ad. A person's image or likeness cannot be used in an advertisement without express permission, even if the picture is part of a newsworthy event.

It's unlikely they can sue for damages, I think they would have to show income LOST by the use of their likeness.

[Rush1184]

18. not if she is the subject of the picture...

then a model release is needed

[BrendaStarr]

11. A Guy in CA got millions for unauthorized use of his image.

The Taster's Choice nose guy just won a case against the company (Nestle?). He went to a photo shoot in the 80s and was paid $300 and told if they used his image he would receive more.

They never paid or contacted him and used his image all this time.

[readmoreoften]

13. Whoa. That's all I have to say.

Oh, and I am SO SORRY.



PS: you guys are as handsome together as a pair of lovebirds!

[PowerToThePeople]

15. Sue em..

get so much $$$ from them that they will not be able to afford to keep their server running...

[dsc]

19. This may be a tough case for you to win outright

but one that may be easy to win defacto. I am assuming the picture came from a news outlet and thus you have some status as a public figure. Use of public figures in a political ad usually doesn't require a release. But, you might find a judge who doesn't deem you enough of a public figure for them to use. In that case the restraining order may be good enough (since time is of the essence for them).

[xchrom]

20. perhaps, but they can become standard bearers

for an attack on the swift boat liars.

if they are willing to so that.

there is a campaign here -- or potentially.
it seems to me someone in their position will have to make a huge sacrifice.
perhaps not them -- but the right uses ''the personal'' to make it's points.
and fighting fire with fire may be the solution. or one of them.

[okasha]

22. I don't do people photography,

but as I understand the law, the newsies can use the photo without a release because the marriage was part of a news story.

Anyone else who uses the image without a release, though, is doing so unlawfully and can be legally required to a. stop and b. provide monetary compensation. In this case, there should be punitive as well as actual damages.

The newspaper is also being ripped off because they hold the copyright to the photo.

Two things:

See if the newspaper will join a suit.

Contact Lambda Legal Defense.

[dsc]

32. I think political ads have a similar fair use exemption

otherwise both Bush and Kerry could have sued over the ads run against them that used their images (from public sources).

[Old Mouse]

23. Big brain on dsc!

Copyright lawyer? Or DMCA expert?

I think they have a right of publicity and/or moral rights case. But it seems to me that a restraining order on expensive materials that are only of value for a limited time is a pretty satisfying black eye to these folks.

[peacebird]

24. how horrible.. Have they NO SHAME?

To use an image of one of the happiest moments in anyones life in such a heinous and hateful fashion. I am so sorry, guys - and it's such a beautiful image too! Don't let the bastards sully the memories of your marriage ceremony with their bigotry.

And I hope you sue them for everything they are worth and then have an absolutely FANTASTIC celebration of your victory paid for by THEM.

[Brian_Expat]

25. Nail 'em baby! n/t

[RickyMonet]

26. Thank you for the support!

We want to thank everyone for there love and support.

We have been swept away by all of this and have had very, very little sleep because of this. I have been trying to get someone at the ACLU to return my calls but I'm still waiting. We have no means what so ever to fight this all the help you can give is appreciated. This isn't about money for us, you can call your representatives in Washington, the White House anything we need your grassroots support. This is so much bigger than we are and we are overwhelmed by this.

we have been defamed, demoralized, humiliated and belittled around the world on every major news show as just "those gays" in that ad is a personal attack on our marriage, love and commitment to each other.
We are human people and this hurts!

This is now how we have to spend our wedding anniversary. I have had to close down our online store we just started we are afraid they will attack us any way they can an do.

Here is the Tribunes response to me (see below) PLEASE HELP!

Hi Rick,

I handle all the photo sales for the Portland Tribune. Dwight Jaynes told me about your call, and the ad you saw on the Spectator web site for the USA Next company that featured our photo of you.

I've been doing a bit of research today, and will absolutely be looking into this, both on your behalf, and ours. I did not sell any image rights or prints to USA Next, so they are using the image illegally.

I have gone through every sale record in my archive, and no "personal" sales (as opposed to commercial sales) were made of that image to anyone. The Portland Tribune would never sell a photo of a person to be used in an ad without a model release. Since we are not in the business of getting routine model releases (like advertising photographers are), the only photos I ever sell for an advertising purposes would have to be a scene without people in it at all.

The logical conclusion is that someone at USA Next stole the image from our web site and placed it in their ad without notifying anyone, or contacting me about legally purchasing the picture for such usage. Our normal charge for that is $200-$1000, and our photo sales policies are posted on the web site on the same page as the image.

I have contacted Katherine Ruddy, who handles advertising for the Spectator, in an effort to find out more about which USA Next employee arranged the ad. As soon as I get more information from her, I will contact that person at USA Next and demand they stop using that ad, pay for the usages they have already made, and speak of legal actions we may take.

I work at the Tribune part-time, Sunday to Wednesday. Since I won't be able to follow up with the Spectator until next week, I wanted to fill you in on my plans and make sure you know that we won't let this go unnoticed.

Please feel free to email me any additional information you have on the ad, or people you may have already spoken with at the Spectator or USA Next. If you see the ad placed on any other web site, please do let me know.

Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention!

Kind regards,


virginia meyers


_______________
virginia meyers
[email protected]
503.546.5148
____________
portland tribune
620 SW 5th ave, 4th floor
portland, or 97204

[peacebird]

29. The Portland Trib obviously knows a potential lawsuit when it hits them

Hence her excellent letter to you. It sounds like the Portland Trib is planning to take USA Next to task over this - stealing an image from their site and using it in an ad.

Excellent!

So sorry to hear this has put a cloud over your anniversary, but please go celebrate your love anyway!!! Don't give them the power to spoil your anniversary - it is YOUR DAY.

[RickyMonet]

30. We have spoken to a lawyer

and at this time we we are no longer asking for donation to our legal fund, anniversary gifts? (March 3rd) lol

Thank you for your help and support!

We will be updating everyone in a few days.

We made CNN Again today! And again we are just the homosexuals in the ad with no regards to our feelings.

peace
Rick & Steven

[davidinalameda]

27. hate to burst the bubble here

but the Portland paper has legal rights to the picture if it was published there first

did Ricky and his husband submit the picture to the paper or did the paper photographer take the picture

if Ricky submitted it, then he and his husband can sue but if the paper photographer took the picture, it's up to the paper

if I'm reading this correctly, the picture was taken at a public event and becomes the property of the paper, not of the people in the picture

I can take pretty much anyone's picture on the street as long as I'm not using it for commercial purposes

do you think that TV stations get a release from everyone who could possibly appear on a news broadcast

[peacebird]

28. Looks like the paper didn't sell the rights to the photo

so I think the guys still have solid legal ground here. And it sounds like the paper also has grounds, based on the image being taken and used without permission from their site.

[davidinalameda]

31. only the paper has standing

the guys would be hard pressed to prove that they had any rights to the images

its all basic intellectual property law

[noamnety]

33. Keep us informed on who put the ad together

If you find it out, I'd like to know who specifically put together the ad - if it was a person or firm that created it under contract for the PR firm.

That's the sort of thing that people in the design business like to keep track of - we aren't too fond of doing business with graphics people that steal other artists' work (in this case stealing work from the photographer). :)

[RickyMonet]

35. This is the agency who did the ad.

This is the agency who did the ad.

STEVENS REED CURCIO & POTHOLM
305 Cameron St. | Alexandria, VA 22314 | 703-683-8326 | Fax: [phone]

--
provided by
News Editor
Just Out Newspaper
123 NE Third Ave. Suite 465
Portland, OR 97232
[phone]
http://www.justout.com

[dsc]

36. Gee Virginia why am I not shocked

[Ian David]

38. STEVENS REED CURCIO & POTHOLM

http://www.srcpmedia.com/



Stevens Reed Curcio & Company - People & Organizations: New Jobs - renamed Stevens Reed Curcio and Potholm - Brief Article

Republican media consulting firm Stevens Reed Curcio & Company changed its name to Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm (SRCP). Erik Potholm, who joined name partners Rick Reed and Paul Curcio, has produced award-winning advertising for candidates, business coalitions, trade associations and Fortune 500 companies.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_2_24/ai_98248553


http://www.theaapc.com/content/pollieawards/pastwinners/pastwinners2004.asp





Greg Stevens, Founder and President
Rick Reed, Partner
Paul Curcio, Partner
Erik Potholm, Partner
Ben Burger, Senior Vice-President
Betsy Vonderheid, Director of Advertising
Eric Crabtree, Media Associate
Jay Payne, Director of Production

More:
http://srcpmedia.com/team.html


Clients:

Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth

Arizona: John McCain
Ohio: George Voinovich
Virginia: George Allen
Ohio: Mike DeWine
New Mexico: Pete Domenici
Tennessee: Bill Frist
South Carolina: Lindsey Graham

Alaska: Lisa Murkowski
Florida: Mel Martinez
Louisiana: David Vitter
North Carolina: Richard Burr
South Carolina: Jim DeMint
Colorado: Wayne Allard
Kentucky: Jim Bunning
Georgia: Saxby Chambliss
Maine: Susan Collins
Wyoming: Mike Enzi
North Carolina: Jesse Helms
Missouri: Jim Talent
Alabama: Jeff Sessions


U.S. House of Representatives

Florida: Ander Crenshaw
Indiana: Chris Chocola
Kentucky: Ed Whitfield
Kentucky: Ron Lewis
Minnesota: John Kline
Ohio: Mike Oxley
Texas: Tom DeLay
Virginia: Tom Davis
Washington: Cathy McMorris
Virginia: Tom Davis
Ohio: Rob Portman

Kentucky: Geoff Davis
Louisiana: Charles Boustany
Pennsylvania: Jim Gerlach
Texas: Ted Poe
Texas: Joe Barton
New Hampshire: Jeb Bradley
West Virginia: Shelley Moore Capito
Michigan: Thad McCotter
Kentucky: Anne Northup

Governors

Missouri: Matt Blunt
Virginia: George Allen
Rhode Island: Lincoln Almond
Ohio: Bob Taft
Ohio: George Voinovich


Commercials:
http://srcpmedia.com/work.html












http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/003054.html

Pandagon: Two Different Stories
... These are their addresses: [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]. 305 Cameron St. ...
www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/003054.html

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

More:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=%22%40srcpmedia.com%22


http://www.betterwhois.com/bwhois.cgi?domain=srcpmedia.com&x=11&y=17

Registrant:
Stevens Reed Curcio and Potholm
ATTN: SRCPMEDIA.COM
c/o Network Solutions
P.O. Box 447
Herndon, VA. 20172-0447

Domain Name: SRCPMEDIA.COM

[troubleinwinter]

34. It would more likely be copyright violation than

a model release.

If the newspaper took the photo, they own the copyright (fortunately, the newspaper seems concerned about your situation).

If you had your own photographer, s/he owns the copyright unless the rights were given over to you.

If the paper owns the rights, there is some 'fair use' allowed as a news item, but that would not permit usage in advertising. Political advertising.... now it gets sticky.

To get a judgment of copyright infringement, you would have to show monetary damages, which you cannot show. If the newspaper owns it and generally sells their photos, they could show monetary damages.

All of that aside, though your beautiful photo was used for bad purpose, I appreciated the apparent joy of your moment. It was beautiful, and so many people were able to 'share' the moment because it was sent around the liberal sites.

I hope that one day, you and Steven will be able to look back and know that you were a part of what brought down the right-wing bigots and helped to bring about the right to marry for all loving couples.

I hope you make a BIG NOISE about this! Show the thieves for what they are! You probably can't get any satisfaction except hopefully being a part of history, "in the bad old days when we had to FIGHT for the right to marry."

It is a beautiful wonderful picture!

[noamnety]

37. An award wouldn't be limited to monetary damages

Copyright damages could include:

The loss of fees for licensing the image (the fee they didn't pay the newspaper)

Potential loss of profit by the newspaper in licensing the image to other sources. In other words, now that your image has been linked to an anti-AARP campaign, other sources are less likely to want to use that image in a positive way - and thus less likely to want to buy the image from the newspaper. There is a potential loss of revenue.

Any profits the ad agency made as a result of using the image. This ad agency I think was paid several hundred thousand dollars for their swift boat work. If they were paid for this campaign, they can be sued for the entire amount they earned.

Legal fees.

Statutory damages.


For extra fun, you can sue the client instead of the agency for some of that, meaning that they would have to turn around and sue the ad agency to recoup their own losses. (drives up their expenses, if you want to play that game.)

There's some good info here: http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/notice.cgi?NoticeID=702