For the Record: I Did NOT Call the 3 A.M. Girl a Whore

[lame54]

A video was posted of Casey Knowles(the 3 a.m. girl) rebutting Hillary's 3 a.m. phone call ad.
In the video Casey mentions that Hillary used stock footage of her that was filmed 8 years ago when she was 9 years old. She says that the footage is the type that is usually used for "pajama or toothpaste ads", as if there is something sinister in using it for a political ad. It's stock footage, which means that Casey(actually her parents) got paid and forfeited her rights as to who the footage would be sold to and how it would be used.
This is the contract they willingly entered into.

When the story first came out that the ad featured a little girl who grew up to be an active Obama supporter I thought it was Ironic and hilarious. In fact, I posted it on a thread with the title "This Is Hillary-arious".

I think it is great that Casey is politically involved at such a young age(I know I wasn't) and that she has decided to take advantage of her circumstances to get her message out. She says she is not afraid and challenges tactics of the ad as fear-mongering. Good for her. We've had 7+ years of that crap and enough is enough.

But, i felt she insulted my intelligence when she inferred that stock footage should only be used for certain purposes and that is was somehow wrong for the Clinton Campaign to use it without first asking her. She(her parents) signed away those rights years ago.

So, here is what I did:

I posted a reply that compared the signing away of her rights to Ashley Dupre's(the Spitzer girl as I called her) signing away of her rights to Girls Gone Wild.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Girls Gone Wild was going to offer Ashley $1,000,000 to appear in a video. Then they looked into their archives and found that she had signed a waiver and spent a week on their tour bus. They now realize that they have a couple hours of material on her. Bye Bye $1,000,000.
http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/18/peop...

She does not have a say in how they will be using that footage. And, you can bet we will soon be seeing late night ads an Comedy Central.

Of course, I got flamed for comparing an inspiring young woman with a known prostitute.

I probably should have written more to explain my case better but I don't know if that would have stopped what happened next.

I was accused of calling Casey a whore. I was accused of using a non sequitur(o.k. I admit I had to look that up - under the correct spelling). It was suggested that I become a right wing pundit.

I was assumed to be a Hillary supporter and would stoop to any level(by someone who has a permanent unflattering pic of Hillary on their posts) - I am actually an Edwards supporter who is leaning toward Obama(especially after his great speech on race).

I did not call Casey a whore.. I simply compared two people who signed away their rights only to have it come back years later to bite them in the a**. Only in Casey's case she is turning it to her advantage.

I hope to see more of her but, I hope she tightens up her scripts. The 3 a.m. ad gave her enough ammo without her trying to infer something that isn't there.

I am not trying to inflame the Obama/Hillary wars.

In fact, I declared long ago that I would support the dem that won the nomination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUiEd0IHaDs

[thunder rising]

1. "insulted my intelligence"? It's an opinion. Sleep it off.

[roguevalley]

2. she may have signed something about the viewing, buit

she has every right and even a duty to protest the inclusion if she disagrees.

[Ravy]

4. I have a feeling that if her image had been used for a toothpaste commercial and

she made press releases afterwards saying that she tried that toothpaste and she thought it was horrible, that there would be a lawsuit.

I imagine that her photo contract contained such a clause, but of course, it would be stupid for the Clinton campaign to try to enforce that part.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. You need to look up 'stock footage'.

Casey did not 'make' the Clinton ad, the Clinton campaign bought stock footage of Casey to use in their ad.

[Ravy]

14. Right. And when you sell your image for stock footage,

I think you probably give up the right to publicly comment on how it is used. Otherwise, no one would buy stock footage if the person in the image can come out and tell everyone that your product is terrible.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. I don't think you do that at all.

I think Casey most likely signed a model release contract for the clip, such as this sample:

http://www.proposalkit.com/pdf/IT_web_software_hardware_contracts/ModelRelease_Sample.pdf

and that gives the clip purchaser unrestricted rights to use the clip and does not put any restrictions on Casy at all.

You have miscontrued this as an endorsement deal, which it was not.

[Ravy]

16. No, I didn't confuse it.

I just think it is ridiculous for companies (or campaigns) to base an expensive ad campaign with images of people who have not agreed to some sort of clause that they cannot publically comment on the film's use. I believe you, I just think it is bad business (or campaign management, in this case).

If Mikey (of "Give it to Mikey, he'll eat anything" fame) had gone on TV and said that Life cereal gave him the shits for days every time he was forced to eat it, you can bet Quaker Oats would have him in court really quickly. I am not confusing issues, I know Mikey was not stock footage and, as such, would have had a more restrictive contract than that you showed. I am surprised, and more educated (thank you) that stock footage models are typically not signed to a more restrictive agreement. After all, if they comment negatively when one company licenses and uses their image, other companies might think twice about licensing other images of that model from the company that owns the images. That is more likely to make a library of images from that model worthless.

[InsultComicDog]

3. Ah.

[McCamy Taylor]

5. You just did in this thread header. Shame on you.

[Blue-Jay]

6. I'm sorry.... Who are you?

I only skimmed your OP, but it seemed as though you were defending another post that I didn't bother to read.

[Thepricebreaker]

7. This required a post? who are you?

[joshcryer]

9. Probably someone who got vilified, harrassed, and shot down.

The original link of course doesn't work, so I can't be sure of the content of the replies to the poster. But I have a good feeling given how utterly insane this place gets.

[Lerkfish]

8. and I want to say that I never said Hillary was a crack whore who sleeps with Cheney in a broomclose

I mean, I never said it, right, so its ok for me to just put i out there as a disclaimer, making the words stick in your head anyways, right? I mean, as long as I disclaim that Hillary is a crack whore, right?



:sarcasn:

[joshcryer]

10. "I hope to see more of her but, I hope she tightens up her scripts."

HAHAHA, you're just digging yourself deeper. Sometimes it's not even worth it to defend yourself around here, people are insane.

[Adelante]

11. Thank you for the explanation nt

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.