The White House maintains that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) had no right to use the image of Michelle Obama in their latest anti-fur ad. Although, the White House was quick to ad that the First Lady does not wear fur.
According to media reports, PeTA president Ingrid Newkirk says her group wouldn't have sought Obama's consent for the ant-fur ad because they know that she can't make such an endorsement.
No word, yet, from the camps of other women who appear in the ad: Oprah Winfrey, Carrie Underwood and Tyra Banks. Although none wear fur. Banks has proclaimed publicly she is anti fur, and has been many years. Oprah was PeTA's person of the year in 2008 for her stance against factory farming and to fight puppy mills. Still, it seems unlikely Winfrey, Underwood and Banks have given their permission to use their images for the ad campaign. Their responses will be revealing of how they feel about cozying up to PeTA. Apparently, the White House wants to maintain their distance. PeTA probably doesn't care what the celebs say, and I'm guilty for doing exactly what they want - giving them attention.
What do you think?
I really think they should change their name to "Publicity for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." That...and they may love animals...but sometimes I wonder what they think about women. The "I'd Rather Go Naked" advertising campaign is the reason why I stopped supporting them. But I guess the "I'd rather wear polarfleece" ad didn't provide the same eye-candy. O_o
It's fraud, pure and simple - which surprises no one familiar with PeTA.
Not sure what the legalities are of using an image without the person's permission, but it sounds like they could be sued for this. Maybe that would leave PeTA with less money to kill animals.
You will recognize it as the First Lady's official White House photograph, available for download on whitehouse.gov
"Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected."
Very interesting comments above. I agree with everyone thus far. This entry is in today's "Hot on ChicagoNow," Steve.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/hot-on-chicagonow/2010/01/hot-on-chicagonow-january-6-2010.html
My dislike of PETA aside, I don't find this ad offensive, nor newsworthy. It is clearly a compliment to these ladies. The only reason people have a problem with it is because of who the organization is and what they stand for-- what if it was a more "palatable" group, would anyone mind?
Michelle Obama's secretary volunteered the information she doesn't wear fur, and PETA is using this photo (accurately) of her as an example of fabulous women who don't wear fur. It would be perfectly ok for them to indicate her in print as a woman who doesn't wear fur-- so why is it a problem to use her photo?
IMO the poster doesn't imply an endorsement of PETA. Now, if the poster was titled "These celebs love PETA", that would be different. Imagine if the First Lady DID wear fur and PETA had the gall to put her on a poster in a negative way, hah. Look at the hell PETA gave J. Lo and Beyonce!
Exploitation comes with the territory of being famous. Someone profited off Britney Spears hair clippings on e-bay, remnants of half-eaten sandwich from a famous singer was saved by waitstaff. People will use anothers fame to profit or push an agenda. Tabloids do just that, and they publish photos and gossip, often extremely unflattering pics, without permission or giving a dime to the celeb. So PETA is not alone in that. Why do celebs get so much free swag? For the chance they throw it on one day and get photographed wearing it, and someone can say "Look, she wears our brand!"
Check out this photo of Tyra Banks with a gigantic bloody steak, PETA would looooove this: http://backseatcuddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/peta1.jpg
@Steve, "Not sure what the alternative is...Let them go wander on the streets??"
Their alternative, or 'diabolical plan', is to euthanize all the animals in shelters and use the money saved to fund spay/neuter programs. You see, they are against no-kill shelters. With mandatory S/N laws also in effect, breeders of any sort banned, dog shows banned, and all shelter dogs euthanized, companion animals will eventually die out. Then we can all live happily and buy humane trap-and-release bubble kits for house flies. And while we're at it, we should all stop bathing, because we are killing living bacterial organisms on our skin, don't they have a right to life?
You could say they have an abolitionist approach. And it's all put out there publicly by PETA, I'm not making it up.