Online dating, affairs service picks Sanford as poster boy

[brooklynite]

Source: WCSC TV

COLUMBIA, SC (WCSC) - A website connecting users looking for casual, and often extramarital, affairs is making Mark Sanford the face of their new marketing campaign, and it could not come at a worse time for the former governor.

Sanford is hitting the campaign trail hard following a Monday night debate with Democrat Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, part of their battle for the 1st Congressional District seat left vacant by now-Senator Tim Scott.

Meanwhile, in Columbia, AshleyMadison.com unveiled a billboard on Interstate 26 which shows a younger Mark Sanford smiling, next to the words, "Next time use....AshleyMadison.com to find your 'running mate'."

Read more: http://www.live5news.com/story/22116460/online-dating-service-picks-sanford-as-new-poster-boy

---

Wonder if he gets a free membership...

[lastlib]

1. That's awesome!!

is that 'running mate' or 'hiking mate'?? LMAOSHIPMP!!

[zazen]

2. what a disgusting way to make money . . .however

am I unhappy that they're dragging him through the swamp of their vile business concept?

Nope.

[Orrex]

3. Good! He deserves to be slut-shamed!

[bobclark86]

4. So... how did they get

the rights to the photo? Using a person's likeness for commercial purposes (i.e.: advertising) without a release or compensation is illegal and leaves them open to mad-ass lawsuits.

As much as I hate this asshat, he still has rights like you and me...

[dothemath]

6. thle rights to the photo .........

Sanford is a public figure. He is responsible for plastering his photo in many venues and, when appearing in a public venue, anyone who takes a photo has the right to that photo. I suspect AshleyMadison.com had their attorney give the ok to use the photo without repercussion.

Thanks for asking an intelligent question. I have no use for that A**hat either ....... oh wait, I can think of a few but can't post them here. Thanks again, Bob.

[bobclark86]

8. Well, actually, no...

Federal case law is very clear on this point: You can take a photo in public of anyone you want. You can use it for any non-commercial use you want. The second you use it to sell something, you need a release. Especially when you use it in this sort of a way (a billboard playing off of a person's faults, making it seem like he's endorsing something when he's not getting paid for it).

Now, however, if there WAS a release, even if a photographer took a photo, got a release, and sold it to a stock company, it's fair game (think the Campari ad featuring Jerry Falwell in Hustler). It's likely this is the case, but then again, the initial report doesn't say.

Here's a good primer... it's a very long, complex issue that has plagued photographers for, oh, 100 years or longer: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/12-b.html

You're right, though, the lawyer probably gave them a go-ahead (or the guy has no idea what he's doing and is about to cost these guys an awful lot of money). In our society, it's almost unthinkable for something like this to not go in front of a lawyer.

The only reason I know any of this is I've worked as a photographer, and media and intellectual property usage are part of my stock and trade.

BTW, I'm glad you appreciate the question. That's why I like this board — the community as a whole seems to have a higher IQ and better critical thinking skills than most others I have visited.

[Orsino]

10. Yeah, try selling your own line of sneakers with Jordan's picture on them.

However, I note that this was two separate billboards. That would be a pretty transparent ruse.

I admit that I want to see Sanford have to step up with a C&D, again acknowledging the elephant on the Appalachian Trail.

[geek tragedy]

11. The short answer is that publicity-hungry companies really don't fear a public battle with

a politician eager to change the subject.

[freshwest]

5. This will appeal to the sex starved teabaggers. Oooh, he's so hot!

[ashling]

7. The comments to that article illustrate te rw's

endless capacity to rationalize slime

[bobclark86]

9. Well, in the teabagger's defense...

The Boston Tea Party WAS about a bunch of rich white guys who didn't want to pay their taxes...

[freshwest]

12. More of a description of anti-corporation rebellion:

The Boston Tea Party (referred to in its time simply as "the destruction of the tea" or by other informal names and so named until half a century later,[2]) was a political protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, a city in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the tax policy of the British government and the East India Company that controlled all the tea imported into the colonies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

The Teabaggers revised history to fit their secessionist creed. The Founders should never be confused with those who since the Civil War have worked to bring down the government those patriots established. We do not live under British rule nor the global corporations they used to extract the wealth of nations, although their revisionist conspiracy theorists have been making such claims for years. They even say we never broke from England and are still their colony. I won't defend them in any way.

See you later.

[VA_Jill]

13. This

was a Coke-on-the-monitor moment!!!!

[B Stieg]

14. Scum meeting its own level...

[bemildred]

15. Perfect. nt