Library ballot measure flyer is even worse than we thought
We complained yesterday that the mailer we received in support of Multnomah County Measure 26-114 was fraudulent, in that it claimed that the measure will be "getting the politicians out of the process" of creating a special taxing district for the library, when that's simply not true.
But the shenanigans with the flyer don't stop there. An outraged reader writes:
I was quite surprised when I looked on the kitchen table yesterday and saw a picture of my wife looking like she was a supporter of the new library district proposal. I asked about the flyer and she said that a couple years ago someone at the library was photographing patrons. They asked permission but didn't offer a release or anything like that. She is annoyed that it appears as if she endorses the ballot measure, which is not true. Using your photo to promote reading for families is different from using it for political purposes.I am a little more upset than she is, but we won't be filing any lawsuits. However, we also won't be voting for yet another "harmless" layer of government. I made that mistake in 1978 when as a young nitwit I voted to approve the creation of Metro.
The photo in question is right above a big legend that reads "Yes for our libraries -- Yes on 26-114." Instead it should say, "This woman does not endorse 26-114!!!"
There oughta be a law against this sort of thing -- and in a public library, no less. And who paid the photographer? Where did the money come from? If the photos were shot years ago, the photographer couldn't have been paid out of campaign funds. Quite fishy.
| Posted at 8:43 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (15)
Could well be illegal -- *Invasion of Privacy (False Light)*. It's also possibly a violation of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1996 (for failure to obtain model's written permission). It also could possibly be federal mail fraud, given that the lady as presented actually does not support the Measure. Opponents of the proposed Mult.Co. scheme could have a PR field day with that abuse.
Posted by Mojo | October 20, 2010 9:09 AM
I can make it even simpler: vote no on all the property tax measures.
Send them a message: JUST SAY NO!
Posted by Mister Tee | October 20, 2010 9:29 AM
According to an analysis done by the Oregon Survey Research Laboratory at the
University of Oregon in 1994, “most Oregonians with a low level of education
reported that they did not use the public library.” In a similar vein, “nearly half of adults below the poverty level did not use the public library.”
In contrast, the survey found that “higher income adults reported significantly
greater use than did low income adults,” and that “professional and technical occupations are the most frequent users of public libraries.”
Given this user profile, broad-based taxation is a regressive way to pay for services.
Posted by John | October 20, 2010 9:31 AM
I had a similar incident like this happen to me a couple of decades ago, created by the Oregonian.
I had designed and built a home for a client out on Parrott Mt. A photographer who shot the home for an architectural magazine a year later sold the photo to the Oregonian as the front, full page image for that years "Street of Dreams" supplement. First, the home was a clients personal home and no contact was ever made to them for the use of the image. Secondly, the home wasn't even a "Street of Dream" home; it was 25 miles from that years "Street of Dream" homes. I was never given any credit as the architect or builder, and was never contacted by the photographer and Oregonian, which is required by law. I certainly contacted them afterward.
Posted by lw | October 20, 2010 9:38 AM
How typical.
Vote no and begin to force the library system to privatize at half the cost.
http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org/privatizationupdate/2007/08/libraries-could-reopen-by-nove.htm
Posted by Ben | October 20, 2010 10:02 AM
It's also possibly a violation of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1996 (for failure to obtain model's written permission).
It was 1998, and I doubt it even applies. It only covers digital copyright violations.
Say, if someone used the photographer's copyrighted photo on a website, that would be a violation.
The only way there would be a privacy issue would be if the photo was taken without her knowledge. Since the patron here is looking at the camera and smiling, my guess is she knew her photo was being taken. Now, if they implied the photo was being taken for something else, then Im sure there is a law somewhere for that.
Posted by Jon | October 20, 2010 10:27 AM
"I can make it even simpler: vote no on all the property tax measures."
Nice political philosophy you've got there, Mr. Citizen.
Posted by Richard | October 20, 2010 10:34 AM
Would make a great item on KGW.
Posted by Steve | October 20, 2010 10:41 AM
Vote YES on Washington County public saftey levy renewal Measure 34-179
Posted by Ben | October 20, 2010 10:42 AM
"Nice political philosophy you've got there, Mr. Citizen."
Justify one of the current property tax measures then. Almost all of them are the result of a group spending money on everything but what the tax measure covers - then they come and ask for money instead of not wasting.
I dont see any other solution than cutting them off.
Posted by Steve | October 20, 2010 10:43 AM
I doubt this will assuage the gentleman's understandable ire but I view most people in flyers like this as "stock photo advert fodder". Which means that unless the ad has a caption under the photo with an endorsment on said candidate/issue, I don't take all the smiling people as actually supporting the subject of the ad/flyer. Only exception being a famous person/politician.
I'm rather surprised they would use pictures of actual citizens from the area in said election porn.
Posted by JS | October 20, 2010 11:19 AM
I'm voting against them because I'm sick and tired of our elected officials pulling 'sacred cow' public services out of the standard budgetary cycle to obtain 'stand on their own' fiscal support. This seemingly allows public funding spent on the 'sacred cow' to be redirected into a myriad of 'special contracts' (as in 'no-bid' for family and friends) for the likes of 'developers' who will 'create jobs'.
First, it was 'the children' and the associated 'the schools'. Then, 'the zoo' and all the poor animals who would most certainly suffer, and maybe die, if we didn't create special zoo funding to create more critter condos in the West Hills. Now they want to force the libraries out into the cold.
I think we as taxpayers should stop the hemorrhaging of public monies spent on dubious big ticket items and 'legacy' projects that enrich contractors, developers and a small cabal of very well paid construction workers: Walsh, Hoffman and Andersen...look for the connections.
Posted by godfry | October 20, 2010 11:31 AM
Well, if she is in a stock photo category without a signed release indicting for value received, using it for advertising purposes especially is a big no-no. And I consider this advertising. That's why I have no stock photos of people. Even stock photos of property has to have a release, unless it is taken from a point of view that is public. It's rather sticky, so I never proceed with even that without an ok from the property owner.
Posted by Lawrence | October 20, 2010 1:28 PM
Are there no "truth-in-advertising" laws for political ads?
Posted by Mister Tee | October 20, 2010 2:55 PM
"Vote no and begin to force the library system to privatize at half the cost."
Privatization? How funny! Until 1990, the library was privately operated by the Library Association of Portland but open to the public. Initially, it was a private, subscription library from 1864 to 1902. Then it became a private, publicly-supported library open to Multnomah Co. residents. http://www.multcolib.org/about/mcl-his.html
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Posted by MJH | October 25, 2010 12:50 PM