I'm aghast. I'd love to know the story of how the Clinton campaign came to use that footage if it had been made for a totally different purpose, without getting clearance from the people who appeared in it.
Well, stock footage is available for purchase to anyone. People who appear in it are one-time paid actors, not bound by any means to the product or cause the footage is used to promote, and also not bound to endorse it, and the footage/stills aren't for any one specific user. This specific footage has probably has any number of commercial users in the 8 years it has been available. Generally, footage such as what you saw here is bought for product sales commercials. The Clinton campaign bought usage of it -- nothing illegal in that, just ironic (and funny). They would have done better by shooting their own original footage.
I never realized that. So I could appear as an extra in a TV commercial for a product I like, and years later, someone else could use the same footage to sell a totally different product?
If it's stock footage/photos you're apprearing in, then yes. Stock footage isn't generally shot for a specific client. It's shot for multiple clients to buy and use in their commercials and print ads. Here's a stock photo and footage site:
You or I could buy any footage or photo from that site and use it for whatever purpose we wished. Conversely, you or I could appear in that footage as actors or models, and per our contracts we would have no say in how it was used, nor any obligation to endorse the product or cause it was used to support.
Casey Knowles and her family had no idea what clients would buy the "sleeping girl" footage shot 8 years ago, but they were under no obligation to support or endorse those clients. And as we saw, Casey didn't. :-)
The news articles I've googled, such as this one, say the footage was originally shot for a railroad company commercial. I didn't realize such footage could be re-sold as stock. If I ever decide to be an extra, I should take a look at the agreement that I sign ;-)
This may seem sacrilegious, but I might consider voting for McCain instead of Hillary. And I think a lot of independents would. Let's hope the voters in the remaining primaries realize this and see that Obama is really the best option, not just for the Democratic party but for our country.
And we need the voices of you Americans living overseas. Did your voter registration get squared away? (I remember there was a mail delay problem for you a month ago or so.)
The reason I'd never vote for McCain is that he, well, "supports" may be too strong a word, but refuses to oppose waterboarding. I'm not a single-issue voter, but there are non-negotiable issues for me, and anyone who won't come out and say that "torture is what the bad guys do, and we're not bad guys, so we will neither torture, nor try to weasel around it by calling it 'enhanced interrogation' or whatever" won't get my vote.
I just get the feeling Hillary would support waterboarding if it would get her elected! Many that's overstating it a bit, but Hillary just strikes me as someone who wants to get elected for the sake of getting elected rather than to try to make the world a better place, and that just makes me uneasy about her.
I'd rather vote for someone who wants to get elected in order to get elected, over someone who wants to get elected in order to expand the war on, well, everything, and to use immoral tactics to do it.
I suppose it's crazy I talk if I were a Democrat. I'm not. I'm an independent.
While I don't like McCain, I like Hillary even less. I supported McCain (in the primaries, since I can choose which primary to vote in) 8 years ago; I have never supported either Clinton in a primary. I don't trust them, and I don't like their questionable sense of ethics.
I don't know that I would go as far as casting a vote for McCain in a general election, but I can't see myself casting one for Hillary either. If I feel a vote for McCain is a vote for more of the same, then clearly I won't vote for him. I no longer feel as I did 8 years ago, but 8 years ago I felt he was very different from Bush and his neocons and that he was willing to take a line that disagreed with his party's.
Hopefully it won't come to that. I still think Obama will pull it out. If it's Hillary versus John, maybe I'll cast a protest vote for Howard Dean.
Really? You'd vote for a guy who said he was "stumped" about whether condoms help stop the spread of HIV?
And to be clear, I don't believe that he's either stupid or uninformed enough to have truly been caught clueless on this issue (at least, I hope not!). I suspect that what he was doing was trying not to annoy the religious right. This is one of many, many things that tells me that whatever "independent" or "maverick" image McCain may have cultivated, he's accountable to the far right wing.
McCain's "maverick" image may apply to some issues, like campaign finance reform. But it clearly doesn't apply to others, including sexual politics. This is one example. Another is LGBT rights (which I described in the comment section of the NYTimes piece, so please don't thing that I'm plagiarizing). I remember, in the lead up to the 2000 election (probably in the Fall of 1999), when he was on NPR’s Talk of the Nation, and a man called in with an impassioned request to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the absurdly straightforward sexual orientation anti-discrimination act which still hasn’t passed. McCain said something that sounded nice and sincere about how he’d have to learn more about the issue.
A few minutes on the net, however, told me that he apparently already felt he knew enough to vote on it–in 1996, when it had failed in the Senate by one vote, McCain had stood up to be counted and cast his vote aginst ENDA. That is, he voted to make sure that employers could still fire employees simply for their sexual orientation. And years later, he wouldn’t own up to it.
That kid *totally* looks like my niece Juliana. I'ma send her this video. I love the part at the end-"I'm Casdey Knowles, and I approve this messge...and not the other one". Classic!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 01:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:34 pm (UTC)www.fotosearch.com
You or I could buy any footage or photo from that site and use it for whatever purpose we wished. Conversely, you or I could appear in that footage as actors or models, and per our contracts we would have no say in how it was used, nor any obligation to endorse the product or cause it was used to support.
Casey Knowles and her family had no idea what clients would buy the "sleeping girl" footage shot 8 years ago, but they were under no obligation to support or endorse those clients. And as we saw, Casey didn't. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 04:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:12 pm (UTC)This may seem sacrilegious, but I might consider voting for McCain instead of Hillary. And I think a lot of independents would. Let's hope the voters in the remaining primaries realize this and see that Obama is really the best option, not just for the Democratic party but for our country.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:20 pm (UTC)And we need the voices of you Americans living overseas. Did your voter registration get squared away? (I remember there was a mail delay problem for you a month ago or so.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 04:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 05:45 pm (UTC)It'll be a moot point. Obama will be getting my vote in November.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 05:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 02:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 05:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 05:45 pm (UTC)http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/03/why_ill_vote_for_hrc_against_mccain_if_it_comes_to_that.php
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 05:59 pm (UTC)While I don't like McCain, I like Hillary even less. I supported McCain (in the primaries, since I can choose which primary to vote in) 8 years ago; I have never supported either Clinton in a primary. I don't trust them, and I don't like their questionable sense of ethics.
I don't know that I would go as far as casting a vote for McCain in a general election, but I can't see myself casting one for Hillary either. If I feel a vote for McCain is a vote for more of the same, then clearly I won't vote for him. I no longer feel as I did 8 years ago, but 8 years ago I felt he was very different from Bush and his neocons and that he was willing to take a line that disagreed with his party's.
Hopefully it won't come to that. I still think Obama will pull it out. If it's Hillary versus John, maybe I'll cast a protest vote for Howard Dean.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-23 12:23 am (UTC)Personally, though, I don't think at this point that it's going to come to that. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 07:31 pm (UTC)And to be clear, I don't believe that he's either stupid or uninformed enough to have truly been caught clueless on this issue (at least, I hope not!). I suspect that what he was doing was trying not to annoy the religious right. This is one of many, many things that tells me that whatever "independent" or "maverick" image McCain may have cultivated, he's accountable to the far right wing.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-23 04:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-23 03:14 pm (UTC)McCain's "maverick" image may apply to some issues, like campaign finance reform. But it clearly doesn't apply to others, including sexual politics. This is one example. Another is LGBT rights (which I described in the comment section of the NYTimes piece, so please don't thing that I'm plagiarizing). I remember, in the lead up to the 2000 election (probably in the Fall of 1999), when he was on NPR’s Talk of the Nation, and a man called in with an impassioned request to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the absurdly straightforward sexual orientation anti-discrimination act which still hasn’t passed. McCain said something that sounded nice and sincere about how he’d have to learn more about the issue.
A few minutes on the net, however, told me that he apparently already felt he knew enough to vote on it–in 1996, when it had failed in the Senate by one vote, McCain had stood up to be counted and cast his vote aginst ENDA. That is, he voted to make sure that employers could still fire employees simply for their sexual orientation. And years later, he wouldn’t own up to it.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-22 03:56 pm (UTC)