So, did she cash the check that I am sure she received for the use of the image?
Posted on 04/27/2011 5:07:27 AM PDT by Puppage
A New Jersey mother is suing an anti-abortion organization that used her 6-year-old daughter's image on a massive billboard in New York City that some people denounced as racist and offensive.
Tricia Fraser filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Texas-based Life Always over the billboard that went up briefly in Manhattan earlier this year. After it was first reported by NBC New York, it came down.
Life Always did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The billboard pictured Fraser's daughter, who is black, along with the words, "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb."
The lawsuit claims the use of her daughter's image was "defamatory, unauthorized and offensive." It called the billboard "racist."
Though the photograph was obtained legally, the lawsuit claims its license prohibited the use of the image in "defamatory" ways.
So, did she cash the check that I am sure she received for the use of the image?
She probably wouldn’t have minded so much if it was put up in Nevada instead of across the river.
I bet she’s getting flack from friends who have seen it and don’t like the message, then identified her to the Usual Suspects who pressured her to sue.
Truth is now considered “defamatory”?
Crazy world.
I do, however, predict that because the knee-jerk-guarantee trigger word “racist” has been used, she’ll win her suit...and not have to refund the money paid to her for the photo.
The woman could care less about her child. She has dollar signs in her eyes. It’s how these people (litigation whores) operate. I’ve seen it first hand.
Maybe the girl began to get targeted with catty comments by bullies for her role in this. At which point the mother said whoa and $$, in what order is not clear.
Modern digital snapshot cameras are so good that a volunteer could be easily picked to replace the controversial likeness, with everything done by the pro-life group. In fact it might be able to show multiple girls in different characteristic vulnerable racial colors (it isn’t just those of Negro background, is it?) And for emphasis, a mug of that witch Margaret Sanger looking down balefully from an upper corner (she’s a public figure so worries about defamation would not apply as long as the depiction were even plausible).
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The so called mother is certainly getting flack from someone.
The contract reads that the photo cannot be used for any defamatory message.
Not killing your baby in your womb is somehow defamatory.
sick sick sick sick
In the US, truth is an absolute defense to libel. The message as given isn’t untrue. Now if it were written about white persons it might be untrue. I believe the right to life folks would so well to find a daughter of black parents sympathetic to their cause (where’s this girl’s daddy, by the way?), because this is a distracting cat fight which nobody wants to go on and on for years.
Let me see if I've got this straight, more blacks die in abortuaries EVERY DAY than have died in all of the race-related crimes since the end of the Civil War COMBINED and the founder of Planned Parenthood regularly emphasized her desire to "exterminate" the black population, but talking about this is now considered "racist"?
Do defamatory messages include inconvenient truths? (With apologies to Al Gore)
No doubt the little girl’s picture will now be used by only far left crazies for advertising.
Altho sue-itis might prevent anyone from bothering to use the photo.
How could this presumably innocent little girl, much too young to bear children herself, be defamed by being shown apparently musing about this disturbing piece of news? It’s more like “gee folks, why do we let such horrors go on” than like “hummm, that’s a useful thing to know for my future plans.”
If her daughter’s image were used to promote homosexuality or pornography she would sue.
If it were used for an even more sacred cause than ending abortion she would sue.
If it showed up in a collection of pictures available for reproduction she would sue.
This is not news and she cannot possibly win.
The issue, however, is will she settle to avoid a court battle. Yes and yes, for about $25,000 plus the attorney’s fee. That is what this is about.
At which point she should also be ejected from whatever stock photo organization furnished the photo. I wouldn’t care if she was black, white, or a green Martian — that is unacceptable behavior.
Where did that organization get the picture from?
I imagine the suit is file in anticipation of a quick settlement. That’s what Jackson did with so many corporations. Threaten the suit and wait for them to settle. I’m not so sure the right to life group has the same deep pockets as, say, Chrysler did.
On strictly legal grounds, this case should be dismissed on motion.
I’ve used stock photo organizations before to get graphics for commercial use. They generally have boilerplate in their agreements that the images will not be used for defamatory, libelous, or similar purposes. But they also have clearcut licensing terms — you pay $X and you get permission to make Y copies for purpose Z. The previews are generally watermarked in a very visible fashion so they cannot be mistaken for licensed images. Whatever this is, I greatly doubt that the photo organization’s policies have not been followed to a T. It seems the mom (again where’s the dad?) has a weed up her je ne sais quoi, and forgetting to allow for this hassle factor was probably the only mistake the pro-life people made. Next time, they get a custom photo themselves of the daughter of a staunch pro-life couple of the appropriate hue.
Yep. Jesus said it would be thus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.