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

[rug]

American Atheists Christmas billboard for December 2016, encouraging an "Atheist Christmas." (Photo: Courtesy of American Atheists)

BY STOYAN ZAIMOV
Dec 6, 2016 | 12:14 PM

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."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-mother-daughter-on-atheist-christmas-billboard-slam-group-for-using-their-photos-171947/

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Stock photos, eh? Sometimes ya just gotta sit back and laugh.

[exboyfil]

2. I wonder if this would violate their stock photo contract

Don't know how those work, but I got to imagine the industry would collapse if the models are allowed to complain about how they are used? This is so long as they are used for the terms of the contract. If not then they would have a right to complain and even sue.

Here is the story of a lawsuit for misuse that was not authorized by the photographer.

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/11/help-sued-nearly-500000-model-photographed/

[hrmjustin]

3. I would be upset too.

[jonno99]

4. Yep. nt

[lunamagica]

30. Me too

[Goblinmonger]

44. Really? You three are disappointing.

So, you are telling me that if you decided to and got hired to do a shoot for a company that is a stock photo company and you know that these photos are going to be used by anyone that pays the fee, that you would get upset because an atheist group used it? I mean, you got paid. You did the work, you knew it was for "whatever," but atheists using your picture is over the line?

And people wonder if atheists are really a shit on subgroup in this country.

What if it were a white mother and daughter and they complained because the billboard was for a minority group?
What if they were evangelicals and complained because Anglicans are going to hell and they don't want to be on their advertisement?
What if they complained because it was an LGBTQ organization and they were so full of Jesus they didn't want to be aon an ad for sinners?

[hrmjustin]

47. Bad PR move to have someone on an advertisement that didn't want to be.

As for me I would not want to be on a piece of advertisement that denied the Christ!

[Goblinmonger]

48. They are models for a stock photography company.

They have no say in how their image is used. That's part of the job. If they have a problem with that, they shouldn't do that kind of work.

So you would have no problem with the other objections I listed? If they said, "I don't want to be associated with the gays; they are horrible people," that's fine?

[hrmjustin]

49. I have been dealing with homophobia my whole life so if they wanted off I couldn't give 2 shits.

[Goblinmonger]

50. But nobody on DU would be saying "I'd be upset, too"

and supporting them for wanting off and making reasons why the organization should give in to it and take them off.

But it's an atheist group, so....

[hrmjustin]

51. Putting aside the contract issues how would you feel if your face was put an advertisement for

the Roman Catholic Church?

[Goblinmonger]

52. If I got paid for it

I'd be fine with it. If they just used my likeness, that's another story.

How would you feel if people on DU reacted to a stock model saying "I don't want to be on a gay website" they way they are reacting to an atheist one? Would you think that is the reaction that progressives should be taking? Would you feel welcome and supported here?

[hrmjustin]

53. So you can understand how she was upset right?

As for me I would not want to be put on an atheist advertisement that states my faith is nonsense or not true. If this is a problem for anyone here that is their problem not mine.

[Goblinmonger]

54. Nope. She got paid for it.

When they did that photo how ever many years back, they received a paycheck.

[hrmjustin]

55. OK.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Then don't sell stock photos of yourself with usage waivers attached.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

The group that used the photo did so with permission.

[hrmjustin]

88. I am not claiming they have legal issues.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. I know. Not suggesting you were.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Awesome. Now make that response into a principle, and apply it equally to all similar situations.

And then we'll all be one big happy family on the same page and there will be no controversy.

[hrmjustin]

90. Are you saying that not wanting to be in an ad that says your faith is nonsense is bigoted?

[AtheistCrusader]

91. No, i'm saying the people in the ad have no rights whatsoever to complain because they signed

away their rights when they were paid for the image.

Check out the Contributor Agreement on say, Shutterstock.com.

This is not a controversy.

[hrmjustin]

93. They can complain but they have no other options.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Sure.

I would argue the complaint isn't newsworthy, but, slow news day I guess.

[hrmjustin]

95. OK.

[rug]

67. And given American Atheists' decidedly skewed white demographic,

the fact they are African American models must be a bonus.

The same models you want to shut up because they were paid.

Disgusting.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Quelle horreur an advertising campaign reach out to an under-represented demographic.

fucking paint me shocked.

[rug]

98. Would you also like them to shut up?

[AtheistCrusader]

101. Because I believe in contracts, I feel they have no right to complain.

They are not being represented as personally endorsing atheism, so it's all within stock photo contributor contracts that I'm aware of.

If you want creative control over how your photo is used, don't sell the rights to it.

[rug]

105. Lol, you're a walking Citizens United.

How about protests? You want them dispersed if they interfere with your use of your private property?

How about homeless people? You want them moved to shelters out of sight?

[msongs]

5. yeah but it's god's will right? the lord works in mysterious ways nt

[rug]

6. No, it's more a matter of due diligence.

It's the first rule of publicity.

[Heddi]

7. Shoulda read the terms of their stock-photo-photo-release contracts

Mr. Heddi used to be a graphic designer (as were most of our friends at the time) and those stock photo release contracts pretty much say that by agreeing to be photographed as a model to be used in stock photography that you understand that your image will be used for every imaginable thing, whether you like it or not, and may be used for things that you specifically don't like, don't agree with, don't support, and if you don't like the idea of that then you really shouldn't be a model for stock photography.

People/Companies pay *huge* sums of money to have access to stock photography libraries. I don't know how it is these days, but back in the 90's/2000's, there were *thousands* of images in each library, and my husband had access (through his company) to tens of dozens of different libraries. Hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of photos of individual people, groups of people, children, women, men, elderly, people of all ethnic and racial makeups, in addition to household items, food, locations, background, shapes...you name it, there's a stock photo of it. Many of the pictures were the same (used between libraries) but many were different.

A picture of a lady eating a sandwich could be used for a restaurant ad, for an article about a restaurant, for an ad for an eating disorder clinic, a website about food fetishes, etc.

A photo of a man crying could be used in an ad for a funeral home, an article about prison rape, an ad for addiction treatment, a flyer for a political organization making a point about loss of housing benefits.

The model has no control over what the photo is used for as long as the photo was purchased legally.

In other words, unless they can show that the billboard company did not have permission to use their image (stole the photo), their dislike about what their photo was used for is cancelled by the very broad allowance in the contract they no doubt signed for what the photos can be used for

[rug]

8. How hard would it be to get two people who share the billboard's beliefs?

It's not really about modeling law.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Should they get to approve products

that use them? How much controlled do stock models get? Are they going to return their check?

[rug]

12. Should who?

Should advocacy groups rely on mannequins rather than actual supporters?

Talking about modeling contracts is rank deflection. Surely Silverman should have no trouble finding two people who agree with him to spread his message.

[Goblinmonger]

14. They used stock actors

Lots of organizations do. What's the big deal?

[rug]

15. Not a big deal at all. More of a laughingstock.

It's not a corporate Wheaties ad.

Mockers should not mock with their flies down.

[Goblinmonger]

17. You're tilting at windmills, Don.

And it looks a little foolish. Using a stock photo is pretty common place.

But by all means, continue your rant if you want.

[rug]

18. Not my ad, Sancho.

There's a difference between a stock photo and a laughingstock photo.

But by all means, continue your apologetics if you want.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Christians never use stock photography.

[rug]

27. Not for American Atheists, Inc.

Which is the topic at hand, much as you'd like to tu quoque the discussion.

I must say, certain reactions in this thread are fascinating.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. tu quoque is actually appropriate in this case.

That Christian evangelizing shit I linked is not from a church utilizing its own members. It's packaged and crafted by a stock photo company.

The people in it could be of any or no faith, who knows. Moreover, the person purchasing the photo has no way to discover the beliefs of the people in the photos.

[rug]

40. Any fallacy in a storm.

Your boat is still sinking.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. I'm sorry you don't understand how advertising works.

[rug]

61. Lol, you'd be surprised.

In any event, you are the next to last authority on advertising I'd consult.

[Heddi]

11. How is the ad agency supposed to know that?

They are literally looking at hundreds or thousands of images of people to find the ones that fit the ad they have in Mind. How are they supposed to know? Email about each person for each ad for each client? "are they an Atheist?" "do they like the color green?" "do they have objections to poly - cotton blends?" "do they prefer louver blinds or large slat verticals?"

It's ridiculous. They signed a release that their image would be used for things that they may not agree with.

[rug]

13. It's the organization that should know who's pumping their message, not the ad agency.

If not, their PR stunt will backfire as it did here.

What's ridiculous is attempting to turn this incident into a seminar on modeling contracts.

[hrmjustin]

16. They should just take it down and replace it with people who are atheists.

[rug]

19. That's the simple thing to do.

It also is the path with most integrity.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. So, if you hunt these people down, and check, do you suppose they still have a nissan?

Do you suppose the two adults in the photo are even a couple or parents?

[rug]

28. Lol, you're striving mightily to spin this laughingstock.

The fact is Silverman has had the integrity to use members in past campaigns. No hunting involved.

The fact he's caught with his pants down here shows he didn't this time.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Your spin is getting dangerous. Something is going to fly off of you.

It's a fucking stock photo. It's what they are for. End of controversy.

I have SOLD stock photos, and like a person who knows what the fuck a contract is, I know I have NO further input on the use of my photos once I sign.

[rug]

39. I'm spinning nothing. Facts are facts.

Facts that you clearly don't like.

You, on the other hand, feel the need to address these facts by the expected resort to "Fucking" this and "fucking" that, sprinkled with personal anecdote and a crude statement of contract law, complete with bold face.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. You should put facts in scare quotes.

"The fact he's caught with his pants down here shows he didn't this time."

That is not a fact.

[rug]

60. You should put "fucking" in scare quotes.

Facts don't need quotes.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. 'They should just take it down and replace it with people who drive Fords'.

Advertising does this about EVERYTHING.

[hrmjustin]

24. I understand that but now that they know they can replace it.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. They likely will, however

they likely have a contract with the billboard company, and that might not be an option. They might not have enough crews in the rotation to go take a billboard down ahead of schedule or put a new one up.

These things are scheduled pretty tight to control costs.

[hrmjustin]

26. OK. Well whatever!

[AtheistCrusader]

31. I know, reality sucks right?

[hrmjustin]

33. Not to me. Life goes on!

[Heddi]

37. it's turning into a "seminar on modeling contracts' because you don't know how ad agencies work

I do.

So I'm trying my best, despite attempts that are...shall I say...less than sincere in their outrage...to educate the public on how advertising agencies work. Not only was my husband in advertising, I was as well. I sold the ads, he created them.

You seem to have some erroneous ideas of how advertising agencies, who most likely have HUNDREDS of clients, all with different needs, should operate. Your ideas that every photo should be cleared with the models to ensure that they have no objections to how their likenesses are being used are implausable and unworkable. The legwork needed just to track DOWN the models would take so much time as to make the ad that is being created obsolete or irrelevant.

The reason advertising agencies (and publication sources, such as newspapers, websites, magazines, etc) use stock photos is *specifically* so they don't have to get a specific release for every model to be used in every ad/article/story/website. That's the whole point of using stock photography. The "release" has been taken care of.

If they chose not to read their contract, that's their issue. They can pound their feet all they want and say "I don't like my photo being used for this," but they have no legal basis to demand it be taken down unless they can prove the creator of the billboard used the images illegally or agains the license agreement between the agency/artist/company and the stock photography company.

Their photo could have just as easily have been used for topical relief of genital herpes.

That's the chances they (and all stock models) take when you agree to be a stock photo model.

The idea that the ad agency should just take their own photos is, again, ridiculous. That's why stock photos are used. Not only are agencies not going to hire someone and/or pay an artist to track down every single model before any single ad is created, they're also not going to pay for a photographer (or more than one), a studio, photo processing lab, artists specifically hired to tweak and perfect said photos, their own individual model contracts -- that's what the stock photos are for. It take care of all of that. $10,000 for a 5year license to use Jim's Stock Photo Library of 30,000 images is much cheaper than any suggestion have made, and that's why stock photo companies/libraries exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. There might even be something in the model's contracts about speaking up publicly about the use of

the photo.

Something... they won't enjoy.

[rug]

63. Ooh a sinister trumpian nondisclosure clause.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Oh please.

Whatever man.

[rug]

65. From a sub rosa threat to feigned indifference.

Like a minor character in a bad play.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Again, sorry you have no idea how this shit works.

http://digiday.com/brands/stock-photography-model/

What if you hate Velveeta?
They can’t use a picture and say Tony Northrup likes Velveeta because in the photo I’m not Tony Northrup. I’m Gray-Haired White Guy.

Has a picture of you ever ended up anywhere you truly objected to?
I’ve found my images popping up in a few racist uses, some sort of racist article that happened to use a photo of me. Those are pretty rare.

[rug]

68. You must. You think a Velveeta ad is the same as American Atheists Inc.'s billboard.

I won't argue the point.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. You're welcome not to.

You're trying to cast shade and I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what you think about the motives, merits, value, and purpose of that ad.

Really don't.

Stock photos are used all the time. Rarely do the models have such abject misunderstanding of what they are selling, that they would be surprised by this sort of eventuality. I can find no end of Christian orgs that use stock photos all day long. So no. Super don't give a shit what you think anymore. Have a lovely day.

[rug]

70. You "don't give a flying fuck"? You antics in the thread say otherwise.

Hint: neither the OP nor your comments have a thing to do with stock photos. Admit it. You'll feel lighter.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. It is ONLY about the use of stock photos.

That's all it is.

If they used the photos in any other context, it would be without permission, and that would be a VERY big deal.

[rug]

73. Sure it is. Doesn't have a thing to do with David Silverman blundering.

That would not be cool.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. I don't know who the fuck david silverman is and I don't care.

[rug]

78. Maybe you should read OPs before reflexively defending perceived slights on atheism.

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.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. How is that relevant to the concept of stock photography in advertising?

IT ISN'T.

[rug]

80. No it isn't. That's because the concept of stock photography is not relevant to the OP.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. It's the entirety of the OP.

These disputes are age-old.

'Stock photo used in context the subject of the stock photo objects to'

That's the OP story. And like ALL stories of this nature; tough noogies you signed away your rights when you sold the photo and everyone working in stock photography damn well knows this can happen.

[rug]

82. Only in your head.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. You keep trying to introduce some 'special' element to this story that makes it meaningful.

It's not. It's precisely the same as the velveeta ad. It doesn't say 'Tom endorses this cheese-like shit'. It says 'this grey haired generic human is a backdrop for this cheese like shit.'.

That's all. There is no unfair endorsement implied. It doesn't matter if the people in the stock photo are religious. It's not of interest.

[rug]

100. And you keep trying, desperately, to deny what's in front of your face.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. Says you.

[rug]

107. Ouch.

[rug]

62. You do? Because "Mr. Heddi used to be a graphic designer"?

If you in fact knew what ad agencies do, you'd know that in highly publicized campaigns - and this is explicitly a pr campaign - you don't use stock photos because they may bite you in the ass. Which this one did.

Now why don't you just admit that if this blunder was made in - oh let's just say a Catholic Charities campaign - you would be the last one to trot out your half-baked bromides on the law of stock photo contracts.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I found stock photos used by religious entities, including RCC affiliated churches.

I found no reason to bring them to this thread, because they are not 'bad things' to do.

[rug]

74. Are you speaking for Heddi or Mr. Heddi?

[Heddi]

75. Reading is FUNdamental

I know how ad agencies work because.... :cue dramatic music: I worked in advertising sales. I worked in marketing. I worked in newspaper ad sales. I worked in web marketing sales. I have dealt with more advertising and marketing firms, design groups, independent artists, and artist/designer co-ops than I care to count. Small one person independent operations to multinational firms with thousands of artists and billions of dollars in sales.

Look Above. . I clearly wrote "Not only was my husband in advertising, I was as well. I sold the ads, he created them" I Thought that was a pretty straight forward statement that didn't need any extra details.

I'm happy to provide my illustrious resume if you'd like.

The fact remains, though, that you don't know how marketing agencies and graphic artists /designers operate. I'm trying to provide a valuable, educational service and this is the thanks I get? Sheesh

[rug]

77. Here's another dramatic pause.

I worked for the second oldest ad agency in the U.S. (You should know it without looking) and the direct marketing agency that pioneered 800 numbers, literally on Madison Avenue and 56th Street.

What you call "valuable, educational service" I call drivel.

Feel free to provide your illustrious resume.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Janitor, right?

See the quantifiable difference in your statement versus hers? 'I sold ads' vs. 'I worked'.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you were the guy working the parking lot entry booth.

[rug]

96. I don't know any janitors who have a window on Madison Avenue.

I'm just going to assume your idiotic post was an accident.

[rug]

102. Still sounds like you're posting out of ignorance.

[rug]

106. You've now removed all doubt.

[Heddi]

92. You certainly didn't work in the advertising side of it

You may have worked in some capacity, but not in any way regarding the creation of advertising and the use of stock photos

It's okay... It's not expected that everyone is an expert in everything. Don't feel ashamed. I'm not a structural engineer, so I would never take offense if someone who had experience in that field corrected errors I had made regarding how I *thought* something should be done vs how it actually is done.

Remember, a day you don't learn something new is a day that is wasted.

So rather than be offended that someone knows something better, or differently, than you do, embrace the knowledge you have just gained!!!

[rug]

97. Selling stock photos is hardly working in advertising.

Frankly, the two agencies I worked at almost never used stock photos. Creative, marketing and account eecutives provided detailed descriptions of the people they wanted depicted along with all the props. Then, the people were hired and the props were bought or rented.

Maybe it's because they didn't advertise in pennysavers. Yes, I'd say our experiences are vastly different.

Your "illustrious resume" would clear that up.

In the meantime, I'll sit back and watch your posts devolve. It starts with the exclamation points.

[Heddi]

109. Ah, so you admit that you did not work on the advertising side of things

you worked at a marketing firm in some capacity, but not in advertising, not in creative services, and not in sales.

And I was just kidding about providing my resume. We all know that posting public information here really isn't a good idea, as you never know who in the world would get a hold of it and use it for nefarious purposes. I'd rather not have some atheist-hating knob trying to get me fired from my job because they take umbrage at my lack of belief. Crazy people on the internet are willing to do anything to "get even" with someone they are ideologically opposed to -- everything as simple as falsifying alerts on a website such as this to get messages hidden or removed, or online harassment on other websites, to actual web-stalking and real life threats. No way, sir.

Many people here know me in real life and will vouch for my experience and work history and resume. Although you may not believe them because they're :shudder: atheists

Whatever. I'm done with the wing-wang measuring contest.

YOU WIN RUG YOU ARE THE EXPERT OF ALL THINGS YOU HAVE FOUND ME OUT. NOT ONLY HAVE I NEVER WOKRED IN ADVERTISING AND AM I NOT CURRENTLY A NURSE BUT I'VE NEVER ACTUALLY DONE ANYTHING IN MY LIFE BECAUSE I'M ACTUALLY A FETUS THAT WAS ABORTED AT 20 WEEKS if only my mom had given me a chance....think of all the advertising sales and case management I could have done...sob...cry...tear...

[rug]

110. No. Read the posts again. Reading is FUNdamental.

So, I guess I just have to take your internet boasts at face value.



And you have not disappointed me with the devolution of your posts. Preferable to licking your wounds in public I suppose.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. The same could be said of any advertising for XYZ widget.

[rug]

29. If you think atheist outreach is equivalent to XYZ widget.

Widgets are not thinking entities.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Advertising is advertising.

[rug]

35. Evangelizing is evangelizing.

They're different things that require different methods. Assuming one wants to avoid ridicule.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. It's the same thing.

evangelizing IS advertising.

[nil desperandum]

46. Except

evangelizing IS advertising.

Except with evangelizing, the product advertised never delivers as promised....

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Well, there's always the placebo effect to consider. But I take your point.

[nil desperandum]

57. I see what you did there....

[50 Shades Of Blue]

45. ITA and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

[Laffy Kat]

58. A contract is a contract.

Mother, daughter signed on the line. No complaining, IMO.

[rug]

59. I doubt the contract has a no complaining clause.

To return to the topic, why do you think Silverman did not get his members to appear in this billboard?

[Qutzupalotl]

108. It's cheaper to use stock photography.

You don't have to hire a pro photographer. You get good results for very little money.

Hell, my BANK uses stock photos on their app, and they're filthy rich. But that does not imply that the models endorse the bank.

[Lordquinton]

111. The doublethink in this thread is appalling

Anything to make atheists look bad, and facts don't matter. From declaring that this cannot be compared to other similar ads, to outright anti-atheist bigotry, and a sprinkle of racism to spice it up.

Good times...

[rug]

112. The amount of irrational defensiveness in this thread is appalling.

If you think this billboard campaign does "make atheists look bad", one, you are extremely easy to take offense and two, blame Silverman.

The irony of you complaining about religious bigotry is exquisite. Read your own posting history.