[Blue]

In a way I think the biggest culprit here is the AP. They knowingly sold commercial-use rights to an image that they themselves had not received permission to use/distribute commercially.

I agree with that. What would happen if the same company bought the rights to a photo from AP that had Peyton Manning in it?

[Ratmagiclady]

In a way I think the biggest culprit here is the AP. They knowingly sold commercial-use rights to an image that they themselves had not received permission to use/distribute commercially.

Ah, OK. Apart from matters of tradition and propriety, that's it: they're monkeying the not-needing-a-release-cause of 'news' thing for advertising use.

Not cool. It's past some point of propriety that I don't think we've really had to deal with yet, at least not in such an obvious fashion.

Watch the Obama-haters claiming he actually *is* selling out the Presidency to endorse products, though. We'll see it, I bet, it'll be like the 'invented the Internet' thing: so what if the truth is someone pulled it out of context, the lie is just so much more *easy and *interesting.* *

Does look like a nice enough jacket, though. Not sure I approve of the company's policies, though.

In a way I think the biggest culprit here is the AP. They knowingly sold commercial-use rights to an image that they themselves had not received permission to use/distribute commercially.

Buyer beware. The company buying it knew they would be using it for commercial use but obviously didn't check whether there was an existing model release nor did they attempt to get one.

Look at the free publicity they have gotten out of this. I think this was a calculated act on their part. After all, the WH won't sue, the President won't sue, the image and the story and the brand name is out there now. The billboard is no longer needed.

[Wheatfield]

The question is.... Since it was an existing "newsworthy" photo (from when he was in China), a commercial-use license was purchased, the ad simply shows him wearing the jacket and there is no explicit "endorsement" attributed to "the prez" on it... Is it OK?

Mike

My understanding of commercial usage is that a model release is required prior to an image being used for profit (an advertising poster would qualify, I would think).
If Weatherproof cannot acquire a model release from the person in the picture, then their usage is illegal.
Were I Obama, I'd sue them, president or not.
They've broken the law.

[MRRiley]

Buyer beware. The company buying it knew they would be using it for commercial use but obviously didn't check whether there was an existing model release nor did they attempt to get one.

Look at the free publicity they have gotten out of this. I think this was a calculated act on their part. After all, the WH won't sue, the President won't sue, the image and the story and the brand name is out there now. The billboard is no longer needed.

there are shades of gray on both sides of this transaction and it would take a lawsuit to sort it out and even then no one would be sure in the end. I agree it's highly unlikely the WH will sue Weatherproof though as this would just make the image even more newsworthy and insure that it stayed before the public for an even longer time. I think you are right that Weatherproof did this on purpose and will pull down the ad very quickly (if its not down already). The image has gone viral and as "news" now will live forever free from model release requirements.

Mike