Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Renew Deal

(81,861 posts)
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:03 PM Feb 2016

Sanders using photos of veterans and children without consent.

Another day, another misleading mailer from Sanders. In the past it was just misuse of logos. Now he's using photos of real people and their children without their consent.

With just days before the New Hampshire primary, the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., is taking heat from Upper Valley residents who say his campaign used their images on mailers without their permission.

When American Legion state officer Tom Wiley, of Canaan, was called by the Legion’s top officer in New Hampshire, Wiley didn’t know what it was about, but he said the tone of state Cmdr. John Graham made it clear something was wrong.

“He called me, quite straightforwardly, and asked me, had I endorsed any candidate,” Wiley said Saturday. “He asked specifically about Bernie.”

It was a sensitive subject, Wiley knew, both because the American Legion fiercely protects its image as a nonpartisan organization, and because Wiley is in the early stages of a campaign himself, for the post of New Hampshire’s Department Commander. If he were found to be guilty of flouting the group’s bylaws, it could sink his chances. “I said, ‘No, I’ve never even shook his hand,” said Wiley.
<snip>

Lebanon City Councilor Karen Liot Hill, who has worked on more than a dozen Democratic campaigns over the last 10 years, agreed this shouldn’t have happened.

“The norm is that campaigns are very careful about this and that they generally gain consent,” she said.
<snip>

My comment: But wait. It gets worse!

There is a question as to whether the incident involving the Legion members is part of a larger pattern.

The Rev. Stephen R. Silver, pastor of the First Congregational Church of Lebanon, had an experience similar to Wiley’s.

Silver and his 9-year-old son, a Boy Scout, participated in the Veterans Day parade, and posed for a picture with Sanders during the event.

Silver said he was not asked to sign a release form, and had no idea that a picture featuring the three — Silver, his son and Sanders — would be prominently featured in a campaign mailer that he said has been mailed all throughout the state. Silver said the appearance that he endorses Sanders, or any political candidate, compromises his ability to minister to church members.


http://www.vnews.com/news/20920395-95/sanders-scored-over-use-of-photos#.VrdtBDgIpnQ.twitter

Add it to the list of dirty tricks.

Data theft
Misleading flyers using stolen logos
Misleading TV ads
Impersonating union members
Using photos of children without parental consent.

95 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders using photos of veterans and children without consent. (Original Post) Renew Deal Feb 2016 OP
POUTRAGE ALERT!!! PICTUREGATE SCANDAL NOW COMMENCING! beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #1
YOU SHOULD PUT YOUR PICTURE UP HERE R B Garr Feb 2016 #8
Is that the best you got? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #9
YOU ARE THE ONE UPSET THAT SOMEONE DIDN''T R B Garr Feb 2016 #11
Nope, try harder. If you're an it-getter it'll come to you. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #13
Why mock people who don't want their picture used R B Garr Feb 2016 #16
I wasn't mocking them. Keep trying. I have faith in you. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #18
YOU are MOCKING people who don't want their picture R B Garr Feb 2016 #23
D'OH! Nope, still not getting it. One more time, come on, you can DO IT! beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #24
It's obvious what you are doing. R B Garr Feb 2016 #27
You want a picture of me now? Why are you obsessed with me? It's flattering but sort of creepy too. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #29
Why is it still confusing? Your post count shows the R B Garr Feb 2016 #35
Why are you asking for my picture? Do you think that's acceptable? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #36
So you didn't read the article? R B Garr Feb 2016 #45
Why are you asking for my picture? What does that have to do with the article? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #48
Did you read the article? Explain why you think R B Garr Feb 2016 #50
Answer my question, what does asking for MY picture have to do with it? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #53
So you admit you can't defend your first post R B Garr Feb 2016 #54
My first post had nothing to do with the pictures, it was about the person who posted the op. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #56
HA, now you admit the obvious, so does that mean R B Garr Feb 2016 #59
You're obsession with my posts is creepy. Why do you keep referring to my personal info? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #63
Do you have any comments about the article? R B Garr Feb 2016 #64
It could be a courtesy but, it's not the law nor is it illegal juxtaposed Feb 2016 #58
Wrong. R B Garr Feb 2016 #60
I don't think i am.. Read up on it! juxtaposed Feb 2016 #66
You could also read! R B Garr Feb 2016 #68
no you! juxtaposed Feb 2016 #69
That's what I thought. R B Garr Feb 2016 #72
If you were on a street, park, or any other public space or common space and I started taking juxtaposed Feb 2016 #86
Good Lord, we are talking about a national Presidential R B Garr Feb 2016 #87
no ones sure what you're talking about then juxtaposed Feb 2016 #89
Your video was of a man taking pictures of buildings. R B Garr Feb 2016 #91
Okay. Here you go. It's absolutely illegal mythology Feb 2016 #94
Not what she's saying. Goblinmonger Feb 2016 #32
Its obvious what she's doing. R B Garr Feb 2016 #37
I would agree that it is obvious. Goblinmonger Feb 2016 #39
What's "perfectly understandable" is that posts R B Garr Feb 2016 #43
You made a whole bunch of personal posts here about BMUS Goblinmonger Feb 2016 #49
So obvious. R B Garr Feb 2016 #51
I see you edited. Everyone sees that you edit. R B Garr Feb 2016 #12
Edited. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #14
Couture. Edit. R B Garr Feb 2016 #15
Nothing wrong with couture: beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #17
Yes, the 1% really NEEDS Couture. R B Garr Feb 2016 #20
Well Michelle does look stunning in it but I wouldn't say she NEEDS it: beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #22
Smithsonian has a First Ladies history section R B Garr Feb 2016 #25
They do? Wow, that's FASCINATING. It's funny what kind of people obsess about such things. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #26
So you think it's okay to poach pictures of 9-year-olds R B Garr Feb 2016 #28
Why are you asking for a picture of me? I'm starting to feel threatened by you. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #30
Explain why you think it's okay to poach pictures R B Garr Feb 2016 #41
I never said that and I'm not discussing this with someone who wants my personal information. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #46
But you made an uproar about "picturegate", as if R B Garr Feb 2016 #67
I am done with you, your obsession with me is bizarre. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #71
So you admit that a picture is personal information, R B Garr Feb 2016 #74
+ 1000000000000 !!!!!!!!!!! orpupilofnature57 Feb 2016 #34
Hey you! beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #40
If reported accurately, this is serious. SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #70
What does my personal information have to do with the story? beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #73
Nothing. If I said/implied that, I didn't mean to. nt SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #76
No you didn't but the other poster did and it's not the first time beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #77
Oh, I saw that exchange. Creepy. nt SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #79
Thanks, Susan, I appreciate that. beam me up scottie Feb 2016 #81
LOL, the numbered posts don't show what you claim R B Garr Feb 2016 #83
Lol, desperate much? Nt Logical Feb 2016 #2
details enid602 Feb 2016 #3
They also claimed her total donations over 15+ years were evidence of Goldman Sachs payments Lucinda Feb 2016 #4
To quote Michael Douglas in The American President... Punkingal Feb 2016 #5
You call that misleading? Lol kinda pathetic jkbRN Feb 2016 #6
Isn't it public domain when your picture is taken at a public event? 2pooped2pop Feb 2016 #7
Is it? Serious question. SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #75
DU rec... SidDithers Feb 2016 #10
The Sanders Campaign Of Deception Alfresco Feb 2016 #19
Desrerate Dissmisal is failing so pull all stops, watch it something New pops up everyday, for Years orpupilofnature57 Feb 2016 #33
So you approve of this deceptive behavior? Alfresco Feb 2016 #38
No, I believe people want to serve their Candidates to the point they open them to these kind of orpupilofnature57 Feb 2016 #42
Do you dispute the facts of the article? Alfresco Feb 2016 #44
No orpupilofnature57 Feb 2016 #92
I used to be a publisher. Not casting aspersions on anybody... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #21
Does thaat mean if any campaign photographs different shots at a ralley and they find a few napi21 Feb 2016 #55
That I don't know. It's been a while. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #57
With children it depends on what they will be used for. With adults in public spaces or gatherings juxtaposed Feb 2016 #65
Thank you for the information. nt SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #78
I was a publisher a while back and a small publisher at that. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #80
Exactly. SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #82
Yes, I thinks it's clear cut if used for their "benefit", which R B Garr Feb 2016 #84
Large publishers have "errors and omissions" insurance. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #85
Yes, being proactive is a large part of a potential R B Garr Feb 2016 #88
I was a reporter and we never had to get permission except for when they were in school. Fawke Em Feb 2016 #93
This message was self-deleted by its author DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #95
Anything but the issues, Is the Clinton Campaign capable of using the MIC for this shit ? orpupilofnature57 Feb 2016 #31
There is a pattern emerging. Bobbie Jo Feb 2016 #47
The others you list maybe not so much, but SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author wyldwolf Feb 2016 #61
I'm admittedly a Sanders supported TeddyR Feb 2016 #62
It's in the text of the OP - Not only did they use the images without permission Lucinda Feb 2016 #90

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
8. YOU SHOULD PUT YOUR PICTURE UP HERE
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 05:26 PM
Feb 2016

and deal with what you get. No choices for you.

Wait, lucky you. You can alert on posts here to get them hidden, so it wouldn't be the same.

Jury, that was not a serious suggestion about BMus's picture. Everyone should be mindful of their privacy online.

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
11. YOU ARE THE ONE UPSET THAT SOMEONE DIDN''T
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 05:33 PM
Feb 2016

want their picture used. Remember? It's the first post in this thread.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
13. Nope, try harder. If you're an it-getter it'll come to you.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 05:34 PM
Feb 2016

I won't hold it against you if you don't though, I'm sure you have other redeeming qualities.


R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
16. Why mock people who don't want their picture used
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 05:40 PM
Feb 2016

unless you can stand up to the same potential consequences. How hypocritical.

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
23. YOU are MOCKING people who don't want their picture
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 05:56 PM
Feb 2016

used without their consent, your attack motives for the poster notwithstanding.

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
27. It's obvious what you are doing.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:03 PM
Feb 2016

Its always obvious.

I thought you might want to post your picture, though. Since it's irrelevant and all.

Jury: no, I don't think people should post pictures, anymore than they should mock people who don't want their picture used without consent.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
29. You want a picture of me now? Why are you obsessed with me? It's flattering but sort of creepy too.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:06 PM
Feb 2016

I'm starting to feel like you're stalking me. Is that your intention?

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
50. Did you read the article? Explain why you think
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:29 PM
Feb 2016

it's okay to poach pictures of a 9-year-old without parental permission.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
53. Answer my question, what does asking for MY picture have to do with it?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:35 PM
Feb 2016

I posted about having a couture gown last week and you followed me here just to bring it up.

If this was an isolated incident I could brush it off but you have a history of this kind of behaviour.

I've seen this kind of thing done to other members and it's really disgusting.

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
54. So you admit you can't defend your first post
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:40 PM
Feb 2016

in this thread about "picture gate". Thats what I figured, because there is no reason to mock people for not wanting their pictures used without their permission

That's not only common sense, common courtesy, it's the law. ESPECIALLY with underage children!

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
56. My first post had nothing to do with the pictures, it was about the person who posted the op.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:43 PM
Feb 2016

Why are you following me around again?

Didn't you get your posts hidden the last two times you did this?

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
59. HA, now you admit the obvious, so does that mean
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:51 PM
Feb 2016

you are "following" other people around. Explain how it's different for you.

And I've already noted, your post count shows how I keep seeing your posts. Lol

Now back to the article posted. Explain how the article posted is "picturegate". You think it's unimportant that a 9-year-olds picture was used without parental consent?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
63. You're obsession with my posts is creepy. Why do you keep referring to my personal info?
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:52 PM
Feb 2016

What does that have to do with anything?

 

juxtaposed

(2,778 posts)
86. If you were on a street, park, or any other public space or common space and I started taking
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:38 PM
Feb 2016

pictures of you and asked me to stop b/c i didn't have your permission, your request is bogus.

?list=PLC89A6A67C479ABDA

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
87. Good Lord, we are talking about a national Presidential
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:47 PM
Feb 2016

campaign, not some street fight. And buildings are not people. People can show harm or damage; buildings can't.

Going through everything on YouTube is a waste of time.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
94. Okay. Here you go. It's absolutely illegal
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:51 PM
Feb 2016
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-unauthorized-use-of-photo-28285.html

http://www.pcblawfirm.com/articles/legal-issues-photographing-people/

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2014/07/can-you-sue-if-your-photo-is-used-without-your-permission.html

So yeah, you're wrong. This is obvious basic shit. It's why you have to sign a waiver to have your image used.

I'm sorry that the Sanders campaign is either so inept that they can't stop doing stupid shit like this or just don't have the ethics to care, but please stop defending it. The Sanders campaign has absolutely no legal leg to stand on here, and neither do the people defending it.
 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
39. I would agree that it is obvious.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:20 PM
Feb 2016

I think it is also obvious that you don't understand it.

Again, need help? I'll give you a hint: her first post was NOT about the people who had their picture taken but was about the OP. Think you can fill in the rest of the blanks?

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
43. What's "perfectly understandable" is that posts
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:24 PM
Feb 2016

get hidden faster when you make things personal. Lol so, so obvious.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
49. You made a whole bunch of personal posts here about BMUS
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:28 PM
Feb 2016

and I don't see any of them hidden. QED? I guess?

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
12. I see you edited. Everyone sees that you edit.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 05:33 PM
Feb 2016


Its not too late to delete your first post mocking the fact that some people don't want their picture used.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
22. Well Michelle does look stunning in it but I wouldn't say she NEEDS it:
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 05:54 PM
Feb 2016
?1358875173

Some women look beautiful in anything.

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
28. So you think it's okay to poach pictures of 9-year-olds
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:06 PM
Feb 2016

without parental consent? Anything for Bernie, eh?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
30. Why are you asking for a picture of me? I'm starting to feel threatened by you.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:08 PM
Feb 2016

What kind of person follows another around asking for personal information?

It's disturbing and it's not the first time you've done this.

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
41. Explain why you think it's okay to poach pictures
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:22 PM
Feb 2016

of 9-year-olds without parental permission. That's only one element of the article.



beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
46. I never said that and I'm not discussing this with someone who wants my personal information.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:26 PM
Feb 2016

What is wrong with you?

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
67. But you made an uproar about "picturegate", as if
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:04 PM
Feb 2016

an article about unauthorized use of pictures was a petty concern.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
71. I am done with you, your obsession with me is bizarre.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:09 PM
Feb 2016

When and if you can ask questions without bringing my personal information into it let me know.

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
74. So you admit that a picture is personal information,
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:14 PM
Feb 2016

yet you mock another poster here for posting an article about people objecting to their pictures being used without their permission. A 9-year-old, even! Without parental permission.

At least you have admitted the true motive for your comments. Thank you!

SusanCalvin

(6,592 posts)
70. If reported accurately, this is serious.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:09 PM
Feb 2016

I wouldn't want my picture published without my consent, indicated by my signed release.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
81. Thanks, Susan, I appreciate that.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:22 PM
Feb 2016

And to answer your question this is just part of campaigning, imo. Just like the other manufactured scandals (Buttongate, Pingate, Jetgate) it's only a "big deal" for the msm who need click bait and Bernie's opponents.

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
83. LOL, the numbered posts don't show what you claim
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:28 PM
Feb 2016

But I see this happens a lot.

Notes added to the jury were clear that we should all be careful about pictures. The point was hypocrisy. If we want privacy, it's not "picture gate" to allow someone to protect themselves from unwanted exposure. Thank you.

Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
4. They also claimed her total donations over 15+ years were evidence of Goldman Sachs payments
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:11 PM
Feb 2016

and posted a snide little remark about her saying she didn't accept speaking fees from GS under a graphic of her career donations.
The two things had nothing to do with each other. Just more dishonest twisting of information.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
5. To quote Michael Douglas in The American President...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:14 PM
Feb 2016

"Let's take him out back and beat the shit out of him.

SusanCalvin

(6,592 posts)
75. Is it? Serious question.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:15 PM
Feb 2016

Even if so, I'd think a release for campaign mailers would be good policy, except maybe for crowd scenes. I don't know what the law is, would like to.

Alfresco

(1,698 posts)
19. The Sanders Campaign Of Deception
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 05:48 PM
Feb 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/07/hillary-clintons-campaign-seeks-to-portray-bernie-sanders-as-a-deceptive-candidate/

In a news release sent to reporters as Mr. Sanders made his way to a rally here, the Clinton campaign’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, said, “It seems the Sanders campaign has shifted from insulting and dismissing people who don’t support him to falsely claiming their support. Despite being called on deceptive campaign tactics and misleading ads for weeks now, Sanders has now chosen to mislead voters on a veteran and veterans’ group’s support. Enough is enough — voters deserve better.”

The Clinton campaign pointed to fliers from the Sanders campaign that it said inappropriately used the images of veterans, ministers and senior groups to insinuate that Mr. Sanders had their endorsement, when he in fact did not. It also pointed to television ads in which it said Mr. Sanders misled New Hampshire voters by suggesting he had the endorsements of newspaper editorial boards that had not endorsed him. Outside the event, Clinton supporters handed out fliers that said “Paid for by Hillary for America” and cited Politifact New Hampshire’s rating of Mr. Sanders’ ads as “False.”
 

orpupilofnature57

(15,472 posts)
33. Desrerate Dissmisal is failing so pull all stops, watch it something New pops up everyday, for Years
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:16 PM
Feb 2016

in Hillary's world .

 

orpupilofnature57

(15,472 posts)
42. No, I believe people want to serve their Candidates to the point they open them to these kind of
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:22 PM
Feb 2016

Accusations, Are You saying Bernie put this piece together ?

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
21. I used to be a publisher. Not casting aspersions on anybody...
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 05:52 PM
Feb 2016

But one needs to be careful of using photos of children without releases and adults too.

napi21

(45,806 posts)
55. Does thaat mean if any campaign photographs different shots at a ralley and they find a few
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:41 PM
Feb 2016

they really like, they have to go back to that town and try to find those people to get a release before they can use those shots for any publicity promo? I find that really hard to believe.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
57. That I don't know. It's been a while.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:47 PM
Feb 2016

I do know with children you have to be extra-cautious. Crowd photos I believe are okay but individual photos aren't.


 

juxtaposed

(2,778 posts)
65. With children it depends on what they will be used for. With adults in public spaces or gatherings
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:58 PM
Feb 2016

open season.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
80. I was a publisher a while back and a small publisher at that.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:21 PM
Feb 2016

I used to publish directories and guides. In fact a former board member did some of my graphic work. Because we were so small we were always concerned about being sued. Therefore we erred on the side of caution, especially when it came to using photos of children.

SusanCalvin

(6,592 posts)
82. Exactly.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:26 PM
Feb 2016

Even if this turns out to be a tempest in a teapot, I think the Bernie campaign (and all campaigns) should follow your example.

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
84. Yes, I thinks it's clear cut if used for their "benefit", which
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:35 PM
Feb 2016

campaign literature would be. Exposure doesn't get much larger than a national Presidential campaign, so they definitely did not error on the side of caution.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
85. Large publishers have "errors and omissions" insurance.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:38 PM
Feb 2016

My buddy and I sold the ads and contracted everything else out.

R B Garr

(16,954 posts)
88. Yes, being proactive is a large part of a potential
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:52 PM
Feb 2016

defense. I used to study a lot about this, but it's been awhile now. And each case is different, although some basic concepts are part of the industry.

Fawke Em

(11,366 posts)
93. I was a reporter and we never had to get permission except for when they were in school.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:33 PM
Feb 2016

If they were on a public street, their images are fair game because anyone standing there at the time would have seen the same thing.

Period.

Response to Fawke Em (Reply #93)

Response to Renew Deal (Original post)

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
62. I'm admittedly a Sanders supported
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:52 PM
Feb 2016

But first and foremost a Dem. So what exactly did the Dem do wrong here?

Lucinda

(31,170 posts)
90. It's in the text of the OP - Not only did they use the images without permission
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 07:55 PM
Feb 2016

but they compromised the position of the vet who would be breaking the non-partisan bylaws of his organization (he is running for office) if he had approved the use of the photo and was supporting Bernie publicly.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Sanders using photos of v...