We got their photo pulled. Now on to their hurtful measure.
Remember when we told you about StandForMarriageMaine using a stock photo that was seemingly in violation of istockphoto.com's contractual agreement? Yea, well -- this happened:
SFMME.com Front page as of this weekend:
SFMME.com Front page as of now:
Is it a big victory? Of course not. They're still exploiting (very lily white) family imagery for the sake of discrimination, just not in a way that so fully looks like a direct endorsement. And as best we can tell, they're not using istockphoto.com for the pics.
But we did accomplish our goal. Because what we wanted them to know is that we are taking stock of their every last maneuver. And be it a terms-violating stock photo or a rights-violating referendum, we will not -- WILL NOT! -- rest until the arcs, both big and small, bend toward what's just.
Very Good. We, the internet blogger, must keep them responsible and challenge them at every turn.
Posted by: Alex Cheney | Aug 19, 2009 5:33:06 PM
They may not be istockphoto, but they do look to be stock photographs.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Aug 19, 2009 6:01:33 PM
Yea, I'm trying to place them, TK.
But I actually think this new batch might be acceptable. Whereas the first was nothing more than a family of four seemingly lending their name to the campaign, this new batch is more benign family imagery. I think they might be able to justify it a little more.
Or, of course, they can find a stock photo company that doesn't have such a policy.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 19, 2009 6:50:15 PM
They look like the pictures that pop up on the Kaiser Permanente computers when you are waiting for the doctor to come back in the room.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Aug 19, 2009 7:01:59 PM
Good work. But they really should change their name to "Stand for White Opposite (Preferably Christian) Marriage". It would be more honest.
Posted by: Buffy | Aug 19, 2009 7:52:00 PM
Good work, Jeremy! Small victory, but rich in symbolism.
"Yes on 1" folks, we don't hate you, we just hate your sinful disregard of contractual obligations!
Posted by: Steven | Aug 19, 2009 11:33:33 PMcomments powered by Disqus