Atheist Group uses photos of Christians on a billboard as if they are atheists

[Angel4Truth]

Christian Mother, Daughter on 'Atheist Christmas' Billboard Slam Group for Using Their Photos

The mother and daughter featured on American Atheists' billboard campaign urging people to "skip church" this Christmas have turned out to be Christians who say they love God.

The two are featured on one of the group's billboards that is on display in Colorado Springs, Colorado; Lynchburg, Virginia; Augusta, Georgia; Shreveport, Louisiana; and Georgetown, South Carolina, which depicts a text message exchange between two teenagers, with one declaring that she "no longer believes" in going to church, and that her parents will "get over it."

The Gazette reported on Monday that the mother, Candy Burns, had no idea that atheists would end up using her stock photo images, which she made four year ago, and revealed that she and her daughter are both Christians.

"Normally, I could care less, but this hits a little under the belt for me," Burns said. "I'm not an atheist. I love the Lord. My daughter is not an atheist. I have a life in Christ."

Burns noted that there is nothing she can do about the atheist group using her images, since she signed a release for them, and only found out about the billboards after a friend emailed her a link to a news story.

"If they want to sit there and not believe in God, that's on them," the mother said. "But for them to take a Christian mother and daughter and put them on a billboard, I think that's low. Why don't they use their own people?"

American Atheists' National Program Director Nick Fish has said that his group licensed the photos from iStockPhoto, and have met all legal requirements to use them.

American Atheists' President David Silverman said in a press release last week that the ads aim to tackle the stigma he thinks nonbelievers face in the United States.

"It is important for people to know religion has nothing to do with being a good person, and that being open and honest about what you believe — and don't believe — is the best gift you can give this holiday season," Silverman said. "More and more Americans are leaving religion, but we still have work to do when it comes to fighting the stigma many atheists face."

The group's second Christmas billboard doesn't make use of photos of people, but uses President-elect Donald Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again" by calling on atheists to skip church in a "Make Christmas Great Again" parody.

Seems to me she could sue them for libel, because they have text to the pics as if they are saying things they are not, thats more than just using their stock pics, its implying that is their beliefs.

Thoughts?

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. When someone signs a release form for a stock photo, they relinquish any say over how that photo is used.

Here is the actual release form from iStockPhoto (PDF): http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/languages/english/modelrelease.pdf

 

[Greg Jennings]

Christian Mother, Daughter on 'Atheist Christmas' Billboard Slam Group for Using Their Photos




Seems to me she could sue them for libel, because they have text to the pics as if they are saying things they are not, thats more than just using their stock pics, its implying that is their beliefs.

Thoughts?

That's not right at all

 

[Tambora]

To me, it looks like the pic is of a daughter texting a friend on the phone and her mother standing behind her (shocked that the daughter doesn't believe anymore).

It's obviously a staged ad (in other words, it's fiction depicted as fact).
Not much different than an actor playing a fictional role as if it were real life.

They are not famous and not know in the media, so it's just a staged pic for an ad.
I don't think it slanders the people in pic.

 

[Tambora]

Could always start the rumor that they had to use Christians in the pic for the ad because all the atheists were too ugly.

:chuckle:

 

[Daniel1769]

It was wrong for that group to do that, but from what I've read about libel, it's very hard to prove. My understanding is that these people would have to prove that some damage had come to them because of this billboard and that it;s creators intended malice. That seems hard to prove here. They'd probably be better off trying to prove slander rather than libel, but I'd be surprised if an attorney took the case. The people that used the pictures shouldn't have done it, but i doubt there's much the people in the photos can do. Maybe they can have the billboard removed.

 

[Angel4Truth]

To me, it looks like the pic is of a daughter texting a friend on the phone and her mother standing behind her (shocked that the daughter doesn't believe anymore).

It's obviously a staged ad (in other words, it's fiction depicted as fact).
Not much different than an actor playing a fictional role as if it were real life.

They are not famous and not know in the media, so it's just a staged pic for an ad.
I don't think it slanders the people in pic.

Does famous make a difference in a waved pic?

Would it be ok for example to claim that Richard Dawkins converted to Christianity because you have a stock photo of him?

 

[Daniel1769]

Does famous make a difference in a waved pic?

Would it be ok for example to claim that Richard Dawkins converted to Christianity because you have a stock photo of him?

It seems to make a difference if the person is famous or influential because it's easier to prove malice and damages. Dawkins could probably make a case that since he's a well known atheist writer who makes his living from writing about atheism, that the person calling him a Christian was trying to undermine his work, and if he could show some sort of damages, he might win a case. It's pretty hard to imagine how a person like those in the photos could prove that the creator of the billboard somehow did so in malice and how it caused them any sort of damage. This just seems to be how it works, right or wrong.

 

[Tambora]

Does famous make a difference in a waved pic?

I was just making the point that I didn't see the ad as deliberately trying to represent the real life of the real people in the pic.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I was just making the point that I didn't see the ad as deliberately trying to represent the real life of the real people in the pic.

What if a new believer who had no clue who a famous (to atheists) person was, and used them in an ad about their church and christianity?

Why or why not would that make any difference on the use of a stock photo?

Im just trying to figure out how far "fair use" can go, when statements are added that can be political, religious, etc, go, when using canvas pics of people and giving them opinions that seem to be basis in facts.

Or if there should be limitations and what those limitations should be.

 

[Lighthouse]

They agreed to the waiver, so they can't legally challenge this. But the group should have used their own people. It might have cost them less to do so.

It's sort of like the episode of Friends in which Joey's picture was used in an ad that implied he had an STD.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Does famous make a difference in a waved pic?

Would it be ok for example to claim that Richard Dawkins converted to Christianity because you have a stock photo of him?

If it's a stock photo and you're creating an ad for converting to Christianity or something, then yes that's completely legal

 

[Angel4Truth]

They agreed to the waiver, so they can't legally challenge this. But the group should have used their own people. It might have cost them less to do so.

It's sort of like the episode of Friends in which Joey's picture was used in an ad that implied he had an STD.

So fair use is ok for whatever and richard dawkins even should have to just suck it up, right?

 

[Lighthouse]

So fair use is ok for whatever and richard dawkins even should have to just suck it up, right?

In the case of someone like Dawkins no, because though he is a public figure his likeness does not fall under the same category as a stock photo.

Now, if a stock photo of him did exist [it would be from before his fame] then it could be used in may ways as long as the license is paid. However, his name could not appear with it. And in such a case he would not be likely to be recognized enough by the public who would see it for it to have the effect of which you speak.

But, because of the recognition he has if he were recognizable in said stock photo then you would not be able to lie about him because the law regarding that trumps the law regarding fair use.

 

[Tambora]

Suck up what????
The females in the photo did not release their photo to be used only as their real life depicts.
They got paid and signed a waver.
Their pic was nothing more than a cardboard prop used in an ad.
It had nothing to do with their real life.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Suck up what????
The females in the photo did not release their photo to be used only as their real life depicts.
They got paid and signed a waver.
Their pic was nothing more than a cardboard prop used in an ad.
It had nothing to do with their real life.

I asked if dawkins should have to get over it (suck it up meaning) if there was a stock photo of him out there under fair use, no matter what someone said with it.

Im asking does it really matter if the person is now famous or not, if a stock photo of them exists ot would their fame make the rules different for them.

 

[Tambora]

I asked if dawkins should have to get over it (suck it up meaning) if there was a stock photo of him out there under fair use, no matter what someone said with it.

Im asking does it really matter if the person is now famous or not, if a stock photo of them exists.

No, it doesn't matter.
If there is a stock photo of them then it can be used for anything.

But common sense would tell you that if you use a famously known atheist by sight on an ad about Christianity, then you really just sabotaged your own ad as a farce.
I don't think any ad agency would be so stupid.
Which is why they use stock photos of folks that are not known, because they could be anybody (ie. no one in particular).

 

[Lighthouse]

No, it doesn't matter.
If there is a stock photo of them then it can be used for anything.

But common sense would tell you that if you use a famously known atheist by sight on an ad about Christianity, then you really just sabotaged your own ad as a farce.
I don't think any ad agency would be so stupid.
Which is why they use stock photos of folks that are not known, because they could be anybody (ie. no one in particular).

:thumb: