The truth about the photo in the Hillary smear book

[KennedyGuy]

http://nymetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/12099/index.html
Seems the guy who took the photo is upset at the blatent mis-representation of his photo. What won't these people sink to?

[tk2kewl]

1. The photo was shown as fact on "Inside Edition" last night

:grr:

[LizW]

8. Excellent! The woman in the photo should sue them too!

BC's a public figure, but the woman is not, and these sleazy creeps are using her photograph without permission to promote their crap AND impugn her character by portraying her as having an affair with a married man.

I hope she cleans their clocks in court.

Poor Ed Klein, though. It's been a while since we've seen a man so thouroughly and publicly display his sad Clenis envy. That whiney, defensive tone just tells you everything you need to know about the size of Ed's penis, doesn't it?

:rofl:

[Silverhair]

19. She can't sue. Public news event. No standing.

If you commit an action in public that becomes news, then your permission is NOT needed to use the image.

[LizW]

20. Oh, but she can

You can sue anyone for anything and force them to get a lawyer and defend themselves.

Whether she can win or not depends on state law. At the very least, the old common law doctrine of "false light" would be a place to start. The photograph was taken in a public place, yes, but it was published in an altered form along with captions that intentionally and knowingly gave a false and negative impression about her.

Also, Klein sent the photograph out with promotional materials about his book. He was using the woman's image for his commercial gain. The book is (gag) #1 on Amazon's list, most certainly due in some measure to the photograph and the scandalous caption.

[liberal N proud]

2. Scum nothing but pond scum

[Warpy]

3. They'll keep sinking until somebody SUES

Honestly, Regenery has lucked into quite a racket. They hire some hack to write a book full of the worst smears their team can think of, all unsubstantiated, publish it, and make a bundle on all the bulk sales to right wing news sites and stink tanks. The targets of slander are all in a party that prides itself on taking the high road, so they NEVER SUE.

Well, it's time to hire a team of rabid libel lawyers, folks, and cost Regenery every dime they've made on trying to smear you with shit. It's time to get subpoena power to track back who is funding all this stuff, and how much of it is Scaife and/or Rove, and who exactly they're all connected to, and if RNC money has been laundered to fund men like O'Neil and Corsi. That's the point, folks. Winning is only incidental.

Until somebody sues, these people will only get worse, although it's hard to know what's worse than telling a young girl that she's the product of rape.

[patricia92243]

6. If Hillary were raped - shoud she not receive sympathy - especially by

"compassionate" conservatives.

[Silverhair]

11. Suing would be counterproductive

1. The case would fail. The bar for libel, for a major politician, is so high as to be unreachable. Basically, because Hil is a senator, they can say anything they want to.

2. To sue would merely attract more attention to the book.

[MGKrebs]

14. "how much of it is Scaife and/or Rove"

Newsmax is giving the book away for free if you sign up for their newsletter, and Newsmax is Scaife funded.
Just fyi.

[patricia92243]

4. The woman's mouth is open. Can't tell about Bill. What has this got to

do with Hillary - except invade her private life again?

[Sydnie]

5. We need to find

The woman with the camera behind her. Another perspective could be valuable in a lawsuit.

[Debi]

7. Maybe a dumb question, but

Who wouldn't kiss Bill Clinton at a rally? My husband is a former Congressman and women still come up and hug/kiss him at events. There's just nothing wrong with the photo (certainly a photo-shopped pic being shown as true is bad and wrong, but a woman kissing a politician at a campaign rally is normal not adultery).

I know if I had the chance I'd lay one on the man! :hug:

[Democrat 4 Ever]

9. Me, too! Debi. We all should be so lucky to plant one on the Big Dog.

Just rampant Clinton envy by Klein and the repugs.

Can you picture one repug that people will wait in line to pucker up to? Not one damn one. Like kissing the devil.

Think these holier-than-thous will go on the floor of the Senate and demand an apology for the defaming one of their esteemed members? <Insert crickets chirping here>

[nikraye]

12. If Clinton kissed a baby at a rally, the nasty repugs would...

...probably smear Clinton as a pedophile. It's the same vile logic they're using in the book with respect to this photo.

[Debi]

16. My point is that maybe we should be reacting a little differently

rather than screaming FRAUD, PHOTOSHOPPED, EVILDOER, we should say, "So what? I'd kiss the guy if I had the chance, doesn't mean I'd sleep with him or that he would sleep with me".

We should shrug the garbage off and move on rather than giving it our valuable time and attention.

Just MHO.

[nikraye]

10. Why doesn't the photog sue, demand photos be removed?

I thought a pro photog's photos were copywrited and to use them for any commercial endeavor required permission from the photog? Is this not the case? Any patent/copywrite attorneys out there? If this is the case, why then doesn't Clendenin, the photog and owner of the photos, sue the author and publisher and demand his photos be removed from the book?

“I feel a little guilty,” Clendenin added. “Taken out of context like this, it would appear that I’m insinuating the same thing, with my name on the photo.

[ComerPerro]

13. I was wondering that myself

I mean, its his photo. So shouldn't they need his permission to use it?

[Silverhair]

17. NOT if he already sold the pictures.

From the article it seems that he sold the pictures to Polaris Images. So they would own the copyrights, not him.

[ComerPerro]

18. Ahh. Sucks for him then

[ComerPerro]

15. A very improtant lesson about Republican tactics. This is how its done

The photo—which appears to be intended to back up the book's claims of infidelity—was also key to the publisher’s promotional strategy. An advance copy of the image appeared on the Drudge Report, under the banner headline BOOK CLAIM: HILLARY HUMILIATED AS BILL HAS NEW AFFAIRS. The book, which was officially published on June 21, has since rocketed to No. 1 on Amazon.com's nonfiction list.



So, lets see...

A bunch of fanatics get a picture and use it out of context to accompany a series of lies and speculation, at best. They use their connections to get the book out, and exploit right wing paranoia and venom to get this book public notice. It doesn't matter that its mean-spirited and slanderous. The fact remains that the book is out there.


The next step is for websites like Drudge to pick up the story, as mentioned above, with headlines like BOOK CLAIM: HILLARY HUMILIATED AS BILL HAS NEW AFFAIRS. Now that its on Drudge, right wingers are free to discuss and email this around as though it were an actual news story, citing Drudge as their source (but neglecting the fact that Drudge was reporting on the claims of a book).

Next, people like O'Reiley and Hannity pick up the story. "Tonight, the author of the book alleging that Bill raped Hillary and is currently having other affairs." The author gets some face time, and he is allowed to slander on television without being questioned, challenged, or even asked to back up his assertions.

Finally, we end up with the book on local network news and Good Morning America. "Coming up after the break, new allegations that Former President Bill Clinton is having an affair with a married woman. More on that when we come back."

Suddenly, this slander and rumour becomes fact, without ever offering a shred of evidence or even credibility from the source.


Its exactly how the Swift Boat Liars tore Kerry to pieces.