2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders 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 Legions top officer in New Hampshire, Wiley didnt 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 Hampshires Department Commander. If he were found to be guilty of flouting the groups bylaws, it could sink his chances. I said, No, Ive 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 shouldnt 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 Wileys.
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.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)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.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)want their picture used. Remember? It's the first post in this thread.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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)unless you can stand up to the same potential consequences. How hypocritical.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)used without their consent, your attack motives for the poster notwithstanding.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)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)I'm starting to feel like you're stalking me. Is that your intention?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)reality how people see your posts. Lol
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)it's okay to poach pictures of a 9-year-old without parental permission.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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)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)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)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)What does that have to do with anything?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)pictures of you and asked me to stop b/c i didn't have your permission, your request is bogus.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)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.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Did you post that by mistake?
mythology
(9,527 posts)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)Do you want some help with what she's saying? I'm feeling generous today.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Its always obvious.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)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)get hidden faster when you make things personal. Lol so, so obvious.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and I don't see any of them hidden. QED? I guess?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)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)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Some women look beautiful in anything.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)with their gowns on display. First Ladies.
NEED Couture.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)without parental consent? Anything for Bernie, eh?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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)of 9-year-olds without parental permission. That's only one element of the article.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What is wrong with you?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)an article about unauthorized use of pictures was a petty concern.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)When and if you can ask questions without bringing my personal information into it let me know.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)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!
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I wouldn't want my picture published without my consent, indicated by my signed release.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)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)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.
Logical
(22,457 posts)enid602
(8,620 posts)Bernie's not much of a detail guy.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)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)"Let's take him out back and beat the shit out of him.
jkbRN
(850 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)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.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)That's pretty shady.
Sid
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)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 Hampshires rating of Mr. Sanders ads as False.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)in Hillary's world .
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Accusations, Are You saying Bernie put this piece together ?
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)But one needs to be careful of using photos of children without releases and adults too.
napi21
(45,806 posts)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)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)open season.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)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)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)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)My buddy and I sold the ads and contracted everything else out.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)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)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)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Yes.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Who is calling the shots here?
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)This kind of stuff is serious.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
wyldwolf This message was self-deleted by its author.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But first and foremost a Dem. So what exactly did the Dem do wrong here?
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)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.