RECENT  POSTS:  » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Stock questions for the 'Stop SB48' campaign

by Jeremy Hooper

FACT: The campaign to overturn LGBT-inclusive education in California schools is clearly a controversial effort.

FACT: As per usual with anti-equality campaigns, this "Stop SB48" effort is using a stock photo family to represent actual California citizens:


FACT: This stock photo comes from FotoSearch:

Screen Shot 2011-09-07 At 9.38.57 Am
Stock Photo - Family Walking on the Beach [FotoSearch]

FACT: FotoSearch includes this restriction in the license agreement associated with the image in question:

3. Restrictions
3.5 If any Licensed Material featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person, Licensee must accompany each such use with a statement that indicates that: (i) the Licensed Material is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the Licensed Material, if any, is a model."

License Agreement [FotoSearch Gold]

FACT: Nothing on the unduly controversial website or on any of the group's promotional materials (all of which use this same family) contain any sort of disclaimer about the family being made up of models.

QUESTION: If this StopSB48 coalition has the will to make public schools less fair, shouldn't they at least have the fortitude to put their own visual stamp on the effort?

QUESTION: If coalition members won't stand up and be shown, don't they have a responsibility to make the visual outsourcing known?

QUESTION: Don't Californians deserve to know that crucial decisions affecting their state's families and children are being fronted by families (maybe Californian, maybe not) who were paid to smile for the camera?

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails