Mother of girl featured in shocking anti-abortion billboard is outraged by ad: 'I want an apology'

NY Daily News ^ | 2/25/11 | Erin Einhorn AND Rich Schapiro

[thefactor]

A controversial billboard in SoHo equating abortion among black women with genocide was yanked Thursday night.

Bowing to heavy pressure, Lamar Advertising Co. agreed to pull the ad above Sixth Ave. and Watts St., which featured a picture of a young black girl below the message, "The most dangerous place for African Americans is in the womb."

The shocking billboard blind-sided New Jersey mom Tricia Fraser, who was furious that her 6-year-old daughter, Anissa, was featured in the anti-abortion group Life Always's ad.

"I want an apology," Fraser, 36, told the Daily News. "I'm happy that it's [being taken down], but at the same time I'm concerned that they can use that image again."

[thefactor]

I know the fact that this billboard is coming down has been posted, but this is new info. The mother of the girl used in the photo wants an apology (and probably money, IMHO).

Of course she shouldn't get an apology. This just further illustrates that people are focusing on the wrong issues here. Boggles the mind.

Some interesting comments under the story at the link.

[thefactor]

New info regarding the story you posted on yesterday. Get a load of this.

[rfreedom4u]

Do I dare ask:

What does the girl’s FATHER think about it?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The Inconvenient Truth.

[thefactor]

To paraphrase the Stooges:

"Oh, a wise guy, huh?"

[thefactor]

[Doc Savage]

Truth hurts don’t it babe!

[ArrogantBustard]

Did the folks who posted the billboard have the rights to the girl's picture, and her (or her mother's, since she's a minor) permission to use it?

If anybody plastered my kid's face on billboards all over town without my permission, there'd be Hell to pay.

[Roccus]

'I want an apology'

Hey Tricia, how's it feel to 'want'?

[joe fonebone]

"Of course she shouldn't get an apology."
If a picture of a minor was used without the legal guardians permission, she should not only get an apology, but a very large financial settlement...I do not care what the subject of the billboard was, they violated the law by using a picture of a minor without authorization.......

[thefactor]

Of course they had permission. The mom took her kids to a modeling agency a couple years ago. They took pics of the kids and put them in the 'stock' photo pile.

Then the billboard people look through the stock photos and buy the rights to use the photo for the billboard.

The mom was compensated when the photos were taken and may have gotten some more money when someone bought the rights to her daughter's image.

The mother signed away all rights to the photos the day they were taken. She sold her daughter's image.

[thefactor]

See my #11.

[ArrogantBustard]

Do you know that to be true, or is that merely speculation on what you think (might have|should have|probably) happened?

[ArrogantBustard]

OK ... It’s right there in the bloody article.

DUH!!!! (Smacks forehead)

I guess there are a few lessons in there ...

[kimmie7]

Once you sign over the rights, tough noogies. The image was probably from a stock photography site.

[MaxMax]

Truth is over rated, so tear it down.

[Roccus]

FTA

She knew the photos could be used as stock images, but never imagined her daughter might become the face of an anti-abortion campaign centered around African Americans. (emphasis mine)

[thefactor]

Please go to the link and read the article. It’s a legit paper, not a blog.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

I would be willing to bet that the image licensing agency has a signed model release form from the mother.

Go to istock.com or bigstock.com, any of the microstock agencies, and look for "children". My husband and I upload to istock, and any time we have a picture of a person that is in any way identifiable, even if shot from the back so that the person's face isn't shown at all, we have to upload a signed model release with the image. If the person is a minor, the parent has to sign the model release.

Bottom line, when you sign a model release, the photographer owns the rights to that image, and can sell it. It can show up anywhere.

The problem with these images is you don't know where they will show up. We've sold several hundred of one image, and only because of the fact that the purchaser wanted to credit the image in a magazine, did we learn it was going to be the cover. We've discovered others by accident, but most to the time we never know.

[ml/nj]

I thought the girl looked cute. Having her face up there longer might have expanded the chance that she would see additional opportunities down the road.

ML/NJ