The Weatherproof Garment Company couldn’t have found a better model for its coat. He’s tall, lean, handsome, and he’s the most powerful man in the nation.
The company agreed Jan. 11 to remove a billboard in Times Square featuring a photo of President Barack Obama. An Associated Press photographer took the photo during Obama’s November trip to the Great Wall of China. The president was wearing a Weatherproof coat with the logo clearly showing when the photo was taken.
Company officials said this week that they are legally justified in using the president’s image, which they purchased from the AP. They agreed to take down the ad as a sign of cooperation with White House officials who asked them to remove it, according to a story in The New York Times.
The billboard is the second time in as many weeks that the first family has been depicted in ads without their permission. White House officials spoke out last week for first lady Michelle Obama after the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals used her photo in an anti-fur ad.
A PETA spokeswoman admitted that the organization did not seek the first lady’s permission to use her photo, according to an Associated Press story. Instead, the group solicited and received confirmation from a White House spokesperson that the first lady does not wear fur.
Using the photos for advertising purposes seems legally sound. Both photos were taken in public places and the copyrights secured. Neither advertisement claims product endorsement, although Weatherproof could argue that the president wearing the coat was an endorsement.
The president and, by proxy, his family are the most public people in our nation. The level of privacy they enjoy is minimal, especially when they are in public. Perhaps the greater question here isn’t what is legal, but what is ethical.
What do you think? Should advertisers use photos of the first family to market products? What should be considered when making these decisions?
Amanda Alfanos says
I find it interesting that Weatherproof Garment Company agreed to remove the billboard of Obama. The President is a public figure and the single most news-worthy individual in our country. If he does not intend to endorse a certain brand of clothing, perhaps he should think twice about wearing clothing with such obvious labeling in public places.
Just as celebrities are photographed at both extravagant events and without their consent, the same applies for Obama and his family. How many times have we seen celebrities caught off guard who are photographed merely for the purpose of style commentary and product promotion? Certainly Angelina Jolie did not give consent to be photographed on Jan. 6 in this article titled ‘No Restrictions’: http://www.couturecandy.com/celebs/index.html.
I was aware that Michelle Obama was included in the PETA campaign without her consent, but I did not know that she is not allowed to ‘make such an endorsement.’ What I am curious to know is if Carrie Underwood, Oprah, and Tyra Banks gave their consent to partake in the PETA campaign. Certainly their lifestyles suggest their possible support of PETA, but we can’t assume this without concrete facts either.
thekrg says
I honestly didn’t think about the others. Is there a difference between the first lady and a major celebrity? This certainly seems to be the case. However, I think one could argue that Oprah still is a greater public figure at this point than Michelle Obama. Interesting comments, Amanda.
Bridget says
I think, though, that it is important to differentiate between a picture by an article in a newspaper, magazine, blog, etc. and an advertisement. The two are quite different. While one is reporting on what occured (who wore what) that other is putting the individual in the position of endorsement. I think it is feasible that an individual (whether it be a political figure, a celebrity, or a person of little public popularity) would take offense to having their photo plastered on an advertisement that sells something that they may not support.
The case of President Obama is somewhat less of an issue because, as Amanda stated, his wearing the article of clothing is a type of endoresement. However, there are many articles of clothing that I wear that I would never endorse, especially in a print or out of home advertisement.
The case of Michelle Obama is the real issue here because the advertisment deals with an ideology of sorts. Advertisers should not have the authority to deem an individual as a PETA supporter just because they don’t wear fur for this presents a fallacy of composition.
Ultimately, I believe that advertisers should obtain permission to include an individual’s photo in an advertisment to ensure that they are portraying an accurate representation of the level of endorsement from an individual.
Mandie Vann says
I find it funny that Weatherproof Garment Company tried to claim that this was not an ad showing President Obama’s endorsement with them in one New York Times story “Coat Company Agrees to Pull Obama Billboard” But in another New York Times story the writer Stephanie Clifford stated they had put the picture up on their website calling it “The Obama Jacket”. Which is it? They say they have legal rights to do what they did because they purchased it from the A.P. but they did not get the clearance they were supposed to before making it into an advertisement. I find this to be a very touchy situation because of his public figure status but personally from and ethical perspective I wouldn’t do it. I guess its all a matter of opinion here but the way I see it is if he wants to wear a type or brand of clothing he should be able to without companies assuming he is wanting to endorse them.
As for Michelle Obama and the PETA situation, to answer Amanda’s question none of these women approved being on the ad according to gather.com. According to peta.org the other women have supported PETA in the past while Michelle Obama has not, the only thing leading them to using her on their ad is the fact that a press secretary said “ Mrs. Obama does not wear fur.” I don’t see this as ethical either, I just see it as people making assumptions that because they are public figures it shouldn’t matter how they want to be perceived. As I said before its really all a matter of opinion and it is a very touchy situation but in researching more I kind of just feel like these companies are being selfish.
thekrg says
Bridget, I’m not sure I agree that wearing a brand with a clearly visible label isn’t an endorsement. If you purchase a product with a clearly visible logo, then wear it in public, you are endorsing them. I know people don’t think of this intention when they are, for example, buying and wearing a Gap sweatshirt, but the name/logo/image are all part of that brand’s identity. I’m sure it is noteworthy to Weatherproof that Obama was wearing their coat and not that of their competitor.
Mandie, you wrote that “they did not get the clearance they were supposed to.” My understanding of this issue is that White House officials would have liked them to ask, but they are not legally required to do so. The president is a public person, in a public place and seems to know his photo is being taken (not that it matters). I agree that there is an ethical concern. However, look at all of the free publicity they’re getting now! Is any publicity good publicity?
Kirsten Gannon says
This should definitely be considered an ethical issue over a legal one.
In regards to copy-write, the endorsement, even without consent, does not seem to violate any laws. I found this very interesting, and have considered that incidences like these may be how American Press gets such a bad reputation. This leads to more ethical issues, and raises many questions. One of which may be, What state have we come to as a nation in which American citizens, or in this case leaders, don’t have copy-write protection to their own body’s and lifestyles?
Courts seem to take instances like this in case-by-case circumstances, as shown in the “fair use” or “fair dealing” concept (http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#P74_7937).
This issue is still very subjective, but overall, I believe use of the first family photos was illicitly wrong, especially when used against figures that stand for America as a whole, not just PETA or Weatherproof Garment organizations. Legally, there are no rules banning these photos from use, especially after they were property purchased by the AP. But good conscience should have come into play at some point. This issue isn’t dealing with possession of property (the actual photo itself), but rather what it’s content may suggest.
Angel Alba says
In my opinion, because he is a public figure, it is permissible for people to take photos of President Obama. I don’t, however, think it’s okay for advertisers to use his image and likeness to promote products. Advertisers should ask permission before using a public figure in an ad, and they should offer compensation for the endorsement.
President Obama is well-known; enough that people may rush to buy a product just because he “endorses” it. In this case, Weatherproof could make money off this so-called endorsement and Obama wouldn’t see a dime. It’s not that he needs the money, it’s that he’s not being compensated for his endorsement.
In this case, the advertisement could be a legal issue. According to http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-weatherproof-ad/,
“section 50 of New York Civil Rights law… says that ‘A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.'”
Overall, I think it’s just good business practice to cover your bases. Get permission, especially in a situation like this one.
This article made me think more carefully about public figures and how they should be treated, especially as it applies to advertising and product endorsement.
Clancey Cleveland says
ClickZ, the self acclaimed “news and expert advice for the digital consumer,” posted a story June 8, 2009 entitled “Ads Spotted in Celebrity Gossip Site Photos.” http://www.clickz.com/3634011
This story tells about a startup web company called Pixazza. On Pixazza, a viewer can use his mouse to scroll over a photo of a celebrity and see pop ups of where the celebrity’s clothes can be purchased.
This website is doing the online version of what Weatherproof coats and PETA tried to do in the print world.
I had not heard of either of these stories before reading this post. At first my thought was, that is insane and just wrong! They should never have used those pictures. But as I thought more and more and did a little research, I changed my mind.
Why shouldn’t the companies use pictures of celebrities wearing or using their product in their advertisements? Obviously a company would never use a picture that showed the celebrity in a bad manner. If the picture is embarresing of the celebrity it with reflect bad on the company. Therefore companies would only use photos that showed the celebrites in a good light. Then it becomes a win-win situation. The company gets the publics attention by using a celebrity, and the celebrity gets free (good) publicity.
Of course the ethical element of privacy comes to mind as well. Is using the photo of the celebrity for product endorsement a violation of that celebrity’s privacy? Before you answer (before I can answer) let me ask another question. Is using the photo of the celebrity to sell magazines a violation of that celebrity’s privacy? No. It happens everyday. It’s cones with the territory of being a “celebrity.” If you dont want pictures of yourself popping up literally everywhere, don’t choose an occupation that puts you in the public eye.
CJ Vaughn says
I find this actually to be very interesting. It is hard to say what is actually appropriate use of a picture. I use to work for a college newspaper as the Photo Editor. When I was taking my photos for the newspaper it was all done in public areas. The only time that I took pictures in a non-public setting, I had to ask their permission. However, out of courtesy I went ahead and asked even in public if it was alright for me to take their picture. This was just out of respect for that individual. Yet, I did not have to do this. If there was four or more individuals in the picture I did not even bother to ask for their permission.
For the Obama’s pictures that the White House spokespeople are asking to be taken down. The Obama’s are public images. When they became an image for the United States stuff like this were bound to happen. This is like Brittany Spears asking not to post any pictures of her, even if it is at one of her concerts. This is never going to happen.
Yet, I know that I have pictures of myself that are put on social networks that I do not want up. However, I politely ask if those individuals that have posted the pictures will take them down. They did not have to, but, out of courtesy for me they did so. Out of courtesy for the President and the First Lady or the White house a request from them to have a picture to be taken down, I feel like it is the mature and polite thing to do.
For making a decision to use a public figure like President Obama and his wife in a picture that was taken in Public, it would be polite to ask them before doing so. Not just for a public image like the Obamas’ anybody in general it would be polite to ask them for their permission.
Sarah Jensen says
I, too, am in disbelief that Weatherproof Garment Company agreed to remove the billboard of President Obama.
While he is the President of the United States, he is also one of the most talked about public figures in numerous new stories concerning everything from entertainment to politics. What makes him any different than the hundreds of celebrities that are constantly photographed and strategically placed in magazines to promote the clothing designers they are wearing to award shows or trips to the grocery store? President Obama makes a conscious decision each day concerning his clothing. He, like many other people, probably did not realize until recently that we all are walking billboards for the companies making the clothing we choose to wear. Yet, I do believe that it would have been in the best interest of the company ethically and legally to have asked for permission to use the photograph in their advertisement. After looking at Celebrity Trademark Laws, I discovered that a celebrity has a right of publicity allowing him or her to prevent his or her image from being used in a manner that creates a profit without proper consent (http://www.ohiobar.org/Pages/LawYouCanUseDetail.aspx?itemID=268). I feel that this law could possibly raise the same question I have been thinking all along, would the image of President Obama wearing the jacket bring direct profit to the company?
The situation concerning Michelle Obama and PETA seems to bring to light more of an ethical issue. It is not ethical for PETA to place Michelle as a face of the organization after merely confirming with the White House staff that she did not wear fur. I believe that it is essential to never assume in situations such as this one when a public figure’s reputation could be seriously affected or damaged due to their support of the organization, even if permission was not granted.