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


Taking 'stock' of TVC's graphics

by Jeremy Hooper

Hey Traditional Values Coalition: When using images you find via a Google image search to create a collage that highlights yet another of your anti-gay posts...

Picture 12-60

...it's much more fetching if you remove the stock photo water mark off of the California graphic. It's super easy to do. You can simply Photoshop it out using the eyedropper and paint tools. Or if you don't have heightened photo-editing skills, you can find one of the gagillion other California outlines that are readily available on these here Intertube-net-webs-SuperHighways. But leaving the stock photo mark intact just looks tacky!

We tell you this because we care, TVC. And since the rhetoric that you use to support your California positions is so "stock" in its logic...

This is an outrageous attempt to confuse California voters over homosexual marriage,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon. “This language distorts the purpose of the amendment in defending marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Marriage in America has always been between men and women, not between any other arrangements. The alleged ‘right’ of homosexuals to marry in California has only existed since May when the California Supreme Court invented it!

...you all really need any and every originality point that you can seize elsewhere!

Yours in unique illustration,

Good As You

*Photo source/ CA, AZ, FL story: Three States Will Vote On Marriage Protection Amendments! [TVC]

**Oh, and as if we need to tell you: It is, indeed, a slow news day.

**UPDATE: The water mark has now been removed. Glad we could be of assistance, TVC. See, we gays are good for something, huh?

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

Your thoughts

I guess one of the "traditional values" is THEFT. They may have well just put a caption under the graphic that says "we're unwilling to pay for this image"

Posted by: Jason D | Aug 6, 2008 5:51:08 PM

Just like all the rights that were "invented" for blacks in the past 60 years, right?

Posted by: Christopher | Aug 6, 2008 5:56:45 PM

Well Jason, I'd be careful using "theft" claims in this instance. The image they are running is only slightly larger than how I've linked it here, and it can't be reproduced. Their usage of the image in this way would surely fall under the "good enough for Google" rule (following the acceptability model of Google linking thumbnail photos for their image searches).

So let's just focus on the ridiculousness on this one :-)

Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 6, 2008 6:12:04 PM

Slightly off topic: The ADF is apparently suing NY Gov. Paterson for his pro-marriage actions and are citing the definition of marriage used by the Merriam-Webster dictionary online (per the New York Sun). This is ridiculous to begin with, but when I looked up marriage in MW it was:

(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

So unless I am mistaken, not only are they citing a source which has no legal value in a lawsuit, that source does not even support them.

Anyway, my point is, they have no shame.

Posted by: Phil | Aug 6, 2008 7:52:36 PM

I'm not so sure, do you mean to tell me that taking a copyrighted image you normally have to pay to use, and then creating a new image using the first image is legal? How is that NOT theft? What's the point of actually purchasing stock photos if you're allowed to use them without permission to create new graphics?

Posted by: Jason D | Aug 6, 2008 10:32:02 PM

Jason: Well it's not that simple. Because it's only a thumbnail, the likes of which cannot be reproduced full size without completely depreciating the quality, it creates a diff. issue. What they have used is not really the image that you would purchase from the stock photo site -- it's only the thumbnail version of it, which one can easily find in a Google image search. That's where the whole "good enough for Google" precedent comes into play: If Google can use the images on their search page without penalty, then other sites can use the same sort of non-reproducible thumbnail in the same way. It's the ceoncept that has allowed for gagillions of bloggers to pretty up their sites for years and years.

Does that make sense?

That being said, it's certainly ridiculous that they used this photo, since there is absolutely no reason. An outline of California can easily be found in a number of places wherein their lifting/usage would be a non-debate.

**It should be noted that TVC has now removed the water mark.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 6, 2008 10:45:21 PM

Man, I LOVE reading the panic on all of these so-called pro-family sites. All of a sudden, passage of these amendments isn't such a done deal! Sure, Arizona will probably pass. But 60% is a tough nut to crack in Florida. California? The battle is already over. Even if the amendment passes, it'll probably be tossed out under the same judicial scrutiny as Prop 22.

Posted by: stojef | Aug 6, 2008 11:38:01 PM

Either way, they are on the run, these (so-called) Christian groups. History is stumbling forward, however achingly slow.

Posted by: Chris Holden | Sep 23, 2008 7:59:41 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails