DENVER — A New Jersey gay couple sued a conservative group for copyright violation on Wednesday claiming the organization used their images in negative political campaign advertisements without their permission.
Brian Edwards and Thomas Privitere , represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, filed suit against the Virginia-based Public Advocate of the United States, which paid for fliers used to target two Republican candidates in Colorado this year.
The couple’s engagement photo , which featured the pair kissing with the Brooklyn Bridge and the New York skyline in the background, was altered and used in campaign mailers.
“This case is about the defilement of a beautiful moment,” the Southern Poverty Law Center argued in the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Kristina Hill, the wedding photographer who took the 2010 picture, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Hill said Public Advocate violated her copyright claim to the photo by using it without her permission.
Edwards, Privitere and Hill are seeking unspecified monetary damages.
A representative for Public Advocate could not be reached for comment.
Christine Sun of the Southern Poverty Law Center said she did not know how Public Advocate obtained the photo, but said it could have been pulled from Edwards’ blog.
“The important thing here is the use of Tom and Brian’s likeness and the photograph itself were wholly gratuitous,” Sun said. “Public Advocate could have just purchased a stock photo of a gay couple and that would have had the same effect.”
In the campaign mailers, the photo was altered to remove the New York background, according to the lawsuit. One targeted State Sen. Jean White, a Republican who supported a civil unions bill that was rejected by the Colorado Legislature.
The mailer showed the couple kissing, snow-covered trees in the background and the words “State Senator Jean White’s Idea of ‘Family Values’?” White lost the primary.
In a flier targeting Jeffrey Hare, a Republican candidate for the Colorado House of Representatives, the same image of the couple was superimposed on a different rural landscape. Hare also lost the primary.
How would you feel if someone defaced your engagement photos and then used them for their own purposes?
Since there is no copyright mentioned, we can assume. from what we know that it was probably a skanky New York thing to do. Regardless, I suspect thy wanted a quiet and unobtrusive life. We don’t know, but I’m going to assune it was a careless(?) way of outing someone. Sooo New York.
If you read the article, there is a copyright mentioned. The photographer is part of the suit. The photo was negatively altered and used in a campaign ad seen by many — all without permission.
As usual I messed up and replied to myself instead of yuo. Please read above if you’re so inclined..
Just as an aside, I don’t need a grammar school explanation of what transpired. While there was obviously some kind of a copyright thing going on between the photographer and the end result, the article gave us crap about the rest of any other agreement.
It’s amazing how you got my reply before I hit the ‘post as’ button!
Anywho, the photographer seems to have had a copyright, but nothing about the couple’s contract with her:
“Kristina Hill, the wedding photographer who took the 2010 picture, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Hill said Public Advocate violated her copyright claim to the photo by using it without her permission.”
That’s all we know.
Messed up as usual. this was meant for wolfndeer
Yes, and if you know anything about Southern Poverty Law Center they are a very sketchy group. They blacklist anyone who writes anything anti Israel, anti homosexual or is pro life. Many conservative writers are on their list. They think they wield power. However they are a group that begs for money from liberals and paystheir staff big salaries for doing nothing but coming up with blacklists.
The South is foreign to many of us and can be hard for most of us to understand. After spending several seasons at archeological sites in the middle east, I can understand their strict rules better than the South’s attitude. At least Islam goes along with basic Abraham/old testament laws with none of the hypocrisy. Not the terrorists, they are just that and are not part of Islam. Wasn’t Timothy McVeigh one of our own homegrown fundamentalist whacko’s?
Do you have a clue to what I am even talking about. Timothy McVeigh didn’t adhere to any religious beliefs.
First of all, I didn’t/don’t know how your original comment pertained to what I had said. I assumed (bad me) that you was talking about the attitude of Southerners and how they are heavily influenced by being in the so called ‘Bible Belt’, whether they realize it specifically or not. What else could I say except my experiences with different religion influenced cultures?
Timothy McVeigh only fails to be a Christian by the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy.
He drew the vast majority of his theology from a arean christian nationalistic type ideology.
He may have warped it and twisted it to almost beyond recognition but he still leaned heavily on that influence.
As far as religion is concerned we are what we define our selves as.
They’re not a sketchy group — they’re a group that monitors hate groups.
Well, that’s one version. Another is that they’re a Left-wing group that throws “hate group” around recklessly in order to justify the their continued, profitable, existence; the Progressive equivalent of groups that find “communists” behind every tree and then ask for contributions.
Just screech that all you want, but hate is hate. When a group say gays are destructive towards society and that they prey on children — that’s hateful. The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors those kinds of groups. Call it a difference of opinion and swear on the bible that it’s not hate — guess what? It’s still hate. Dismiss this group as somehow just being a machine for profits — guess what? It’s still hate.
By gosh, you’re right!
Asking a corporation to pay their share of taxes isn’t hate. Quit being pathetic.
“Pathetic” again?
FYI:
hapless
miserable
misfortunate
piteous
pitiable
pitiful
poor
wretched
unfortunate (vs. fortunate)
contemptible (vs. estimable)
ridiculous
silly.
Again, you prove my point. You’re not concerned about discussions or even relevant facts and honesty — just playing silly and irrelevant gotcha games. It’s still pathetic.
Yeah right, hate group in their eye. They are the new thought police.
Awww boohoo, hate groups being rightfully called out for their bigotry, how awful and sad. Completely like 1984! I mean, the KKK? My heart goes out to them!
No sweetcheeks… they’re not telling you how to think.
Like the KKKlan, you are free to think however you wish. That’s the nature of liberty.
Nobody said liberty comes without cost, and nobody said that you can’t be shunned for using your liberty to harm.
Skechy implies that they hide their motives.
We are all free to be bigoted and as hate filled as we want.
They are free to monitor, publicly speak against, refuse to work with, and call into legal action where the law may have been broken against anyone they feel is a hate group.
Freedom works both ways.
Crapola….
Yes, it is totally inappropriate for anyone to use personal photos without permission!
BWA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!!! That’s the super-lunatic Eugene Delgaudio!!!
He’s also being investigated by the FBI… he’s a criminal, but boy, he sure is good for some laughs! One of my favorite liars and cheats in the world of liars and cheats who wish to harm gay citizens.
The group being sued, “Public Advocate,” is truly a scam artist pandering to extremists.
Public Advocate draws donations of $1.4 million (in 2009), pays Eugene Delgaudio close to $200,000, and does little else except send emails begging for more donations.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2012/01/06/40373
The emails he sends to his audience are so frothing with hatred for gays and lesbians, they come across as a parody of how the opposition to gay rights thinks. Sadly, he isn’t faking it as far as I can tell, this man is truly unhinged.
A great example from 2011— Public Advocate vigorously opposed the safe classrooms act, which would give bullied students safety from their tormentors. Why? Because gay students might be spared suicide-inducing torment in the public school system.