Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Stock questions for the ‘Stop SB48’ campaign

FAIR Education Act

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

FACT: The campaign to overturn LGBT-inclusive education in California schools is clearly a controversial effort.

FACT: As per usual with anti-equality campaigns, this “Stop SB48” effort is using a stock photo family to represent actual California citizens:


FACT: This stock photo comes from FotoSearch:

Screen Shot 2011-09-07 At 9.38.57 Am

Stock Photo – Family Walking on the Beach [FotoSearch]

FACT: FotoSearch includes this restriction in the license agreement associated with the image in question:

3. Restrictions

3.5 If any Licensed Material featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person, Licensee must accompany each such use with a statement that indicates that: (i) the Licensed Material is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the Licensed Material, if any, is a model.”

License Agreement [FotoSearch Gold]

FACT: Nothing on the unduly controversial website or on any of the group’s promotional materials (all of which use this same family) contain any sort of disclaimer about the family being made up of models.

QUESTION: If this StopSB48 coalition has the will to make public schools less fair, shouldn’t they at least have the fortitude to put their own visual stamp on the effort?

QUESTION: If coalition members won’t stand up and be shown, don’t they have a responsibility to make the visual outsourcing known?

QUESTION: Don’t Californians deserve to know that crucial decisions affecting their state’s families and children are being fronted by families (maybe Californian, maybe not) who were paid to smile for the camera?


  • 1. Alan_Eckert  |  September 7, 2011 at 3:04 pm

  • 2. Fr. Bill  |  September 7, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    If I were Foto Search I would sue to have the ad pulled. If I were one of the models I would sue because a. I wouldn't want to be associated with a controversial issue, b. It would hurt my career and future, c. It violates my political views, d. I might be a Christian who takes Christ's teachings seriously, e. all of the above.

  • 3. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  September 7, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    Has anyone pinged Foto Search about it? A little cease 'n' desist letter always adds to the fun….

  • 4. Ronnie  |  September 7, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    "FACT: FotoSearch includes this restriction in the license agreement associated with the image in question: 3. Restriction. 3.5 If any Licensed Material featuring a model or property is used in connection with a subject that would be unflattering or unduly controversial to a reasonable person, Licensee must accompany each such use with a statement that indicates that: (i) the Licensed Material is being used for illustrative purposes only; and (ii) any person depicted in the Licensed Material, if any, is a model.”

    (me) That restriction wasn't written by a man that spoke to their choice of higher power 2,000 years ago & doesn't appear in their version of the "Bible" so apparently it doesn't count, doesn't apply to them, & they think they can do & say whatever they want as long as it is done in the name of Jeebus, so sayeth the Lord of the Rings & the precious… Their so called "values", "morals" & "ethics" bend & stretch so far that they give Gumby a run for his money.. just saying…. <3…Ronnie

  • 5. Gregory in SLC  |  September 7, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    …and ping Donald Trump while you are at it…

  • 6. DaveP  |  September 7, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    I just went to the Fotosearch web site and clicked "contact us" and sent them the following email:

    A political group is violating your license agreement by using your photos to promote a controversial political campaign to stop SB48. Here is a link to the Prop8 Trial Tracker site with info:

    Everyone else please feel free to do the same! Go here:

    Or call them:
    Publitek, Inc. dba Fotosearch
    21155 Watertown Road
    Waukesha, WI 53186-1898 USA

    +1 262-717-0740
    Fax 262-717-0745

  • 7. Joelle  |  September 7, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Or better yet, point them to the Stop SB48 site, which has the stock photo prominently displayed on their home page:

  • 8. DaveP  |  September 7, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    Very Good! I encourage you (and everyone) to email them the link. But please note that Fotosearch is not in California so they probably don't know what SB48 is. It may be good to briefly tell them in your email that the "Stop SB48" people want to prevent schools from being able to provide accurate information about the historical contributions of LGBT Americans and other minorities, and that their 'family values' image is a smokescreen for anti-gay lobbying and legislation.

  • 9. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  September 7, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    Yeah, I seem to remember that The Donald tried to trademark that phrase. He wasn't successful, or was he? Anyway, he's not much of a same- sex marriage supporter. Better to ping the IRS and see what other campaign finance laws they've violated……

  • 10. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  September 7, 2011 at 11:36 pm

    Hey! Lay off of Gumby, and his pony pal Pokey too! If you've got a heart, then Gumby's a part of you!!!

  • 11. dtwirling  |  September 8, 2011 at 12:21 am

    I'll also point out that I believe their use of the image violates Restriction 3.4: Licensed Material shall not be incorporated into a logo, corporate ID, trademark or service mark, without obtaining the prior written consent of Fotosearch. Now, I have some vague inkling about the law getting quite specific about what constitutes a "logo," but if you scroll down past their banner image on top, you get to this picture here:… … which really does look like a logo to me. It's the main image on the group's Facebook page.

    It would also be useful to inform people that SB 48 also adds historical contributions of Pacific Islanders and people with disabilities. So, perhaps, more importantly from Fotosearch's perspective, the Stop SB48 folks are using FS's picture to protest the inclusion of the achievements of disabled individuals from California social science books. Not enough people are aware that if SB 48 is stopped, they're voting to block acknowledgment of the contributions of disabled Americans.

  • 12. dtwirling  |  September 8, 2011 at 12:24 am

    Well, to clarify… changes the language from people with a "handicap" to people with "disabilities." Still, "handicapped" has been losing favor for years, so one could argue that striking down SB48 is to vote to affirm language that stigmatizes people with disabilities.

  • 13. Sagesse  |  September 8, 2011 at 5:01 am

    Ninth Circuit Decision Suggesting That Opposite-Sex-Only Marriage Rules Are Unconstitutional?

    "It’s possible to distinguish laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples from laws limiting benefits to opposite-sex married couples; perhaps the Circuit would eventually conclude that there is a sufficiently rational basis for so limiting marriage, even though it has concluded that there is no such basis for so limiting benefits. But it seems to me that the similarities of the cases are likely to be more influential to future panels than the differences.

    I thus expect that the Diaz decision to play an important role in any future Ninth Circuit decision on Proposition 8, at least unless either Diaz or the Proposition 8 case goes en banc, or the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the Diaz case, which is unlikely but possible."

    Ed Whelan critique.

    Another Day, Another Daffy Ninth Circuit Ruling

  • 14. Gregory in SLC  |  September 8, 2011 at 7:45 am

    Is Keith Ablow’s Transphobia Finally Too Much For Fox News?

  • 15. Sagesse  |  September 8, 2011 at 8:52 am

    Ooops… the headlines don't make clear these articles refer to the recent Arizona domestic partner benefits ruling.

  • 16. AnonyGrl  |  September 8, 2011 at 9:29 am

    Honestly? This one goes by me. The use of stock photos in advertising is fairly standard practice.

    Perhaps there is some sort of contract violation by the website not posting the required disclaimer, but this, to me, seems an enormous waste of our energy. At MOST the thing we might win here is that the website posts the disclaimer. Whoopie.

    Let us focus rather on the CONTENT of the website, perhaps?

  • 17. MFargo  |  September 8, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Hopeful…although labored in reaching their conclusion.

  • 18. Ann S.  |  September 8, 2011 at 10:00 am


  • 19. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 8, 2011 at 10:26 am

    I find it very petty indeed. Let's focus on the content of the message and not the packaging..kind of makes us look a tad bit whiney.

  • 20. jpmassar  |  September 8, 2011 at 10:40 am

    Maine better than on track to put marriage equality ballot initiative up for a vote in 2012

  • 21. James Sweet  |  September 8, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Completely OT, I thought it was worth mentioning that our friend Bryan Fischer doesn't just hate teh geys, he is also so anti-Muslim that he believes it should be illegal to build a mosque — any mosque — in America:

    I have made no secret in comments here of my contempt for religion in general, but please recognize that staunch secularists like me are not the REAL threat to any given person's religious practice. I don't care how many mosques they want to build — it's theocrats like Bryan Fischer that are the real threat to any given person's religion.

  • 22. Regan  |  September 8, 2011 at 10:53 am

    Oh good, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this slam on what pictures they use is petty and off message.
    The real questions should be:
    1. Why should a child's education and social advancement, include ignorance, fear and libel about a minority? A minority which, BECAUSE of such ignorance and fear, cannot safely attend school without fearing for their lives? Such as in the case of Larry King.

    2. Information and education MUST progress past stone aged, primitive and barbaric information about certain people and their lives. We don't stop school books at around 1929 before blacks or Jews as maligned minorities were understood as making a contribution to society.

    3. Perhaps the parents of said school children should be compelled to attend adult appropriate seminar courses so THEY are informed and educated on the same subject. That way they won't negate necessary education and force unproven and refutable myths and misinformation on their children.

  • 23. DaveP  |  September 8, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Well of course the message and the issues around SB48 are the most important, and yes, we need to counter their campaign of misinformation. But if they are using photos in a way that violates the provider's terms of agreement, why not notify the provider? We can do both.

  • 24. RWG  |  September 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Considering the open warfare being waged against us, in the long tradition of American resistance, we should be (figuratively) sniping at them from behind every tree. Whatever difficulties we are able to cause them, which distract from their efforts, has to be counted as good and worthwhile. Every email and phone call to which they must respond, every notice to cease and desist they receive, helps our cause and costs them money they can not use to take away our liberty.

  • 25. Sagesse  |  September 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Latest information and full cast for "8" Broadway benefit.

    About “8″

  • 26. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    Okay, so how does this make us look to say a person on the fence about this issue?
    Does it make us look mature, intelligent, rational?
    Or does it make us look like we are grasping at straws…like we are more concerned about the picture they use than the lies they are telling.
    It's fine if someone wants to waste their time nit picking about a silly stock photo, but for me I have far better things to do. I have senators to lobby, letters to write, emails to send, lies to refute, and peoples opinions to sway.
    I perfer to maybe lose a few small battles knowing that ultimately we will win the war.
    This is just MY opinion mind you……………

  • 27. DaveP  |  September 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    Wow, that is quite a cast. Very impressive!

  • 28. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 8, 2011 at 4:03 pm


  • 29. Carpool_Cookie  |  September 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Well, in some ways it's not so different from the little blond girl who was filmed watching a same sex marriage with her parents consent, and then ended up having her image used in the H8 campaign in a deceptive way.

    These models in the shot (who include two children) have not consented to having their image ENDORSE a hate bill.

  • 30. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 8, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Not entirely true. Once a model signs a release form they no longer have any say or control over where or how that pic may be used.
    I've worked as a professional model and have signed many a model release form. Luckily non of my images have ever to my knowledge been used for something I do not believe in or endorse…but it is always a risk when you sign that dotted line.
    The little blonde girl was having her image used without her parents consent. No model release form was on file….to the best of my remembering. :-)
    But regardless, those who wish to pursue the picture can certainly do so…I was just expressing my opinion.

  • 31. Michael  |  September 8, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    The goal of radical anti-gay activists here in California is, and always has been, to eradicate gay citizens. As part of their evil agenda, they seek to teach school children that it’s “christian” and “american” and “normal” to pop into a voting booth and vote away the civil rights of any other American you disagree with or dislike. After gay taxpayers are silenced and censored, which group is next? Is this what we really want our children to be taught?

  • 32. Michguy  |  September 11, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    This is the reply I got from the company after I emailed them

    Hello, and thank you for contacting Fotosearch!

    Fotosearch is a reseller for the publisher of this image. The publisher, Getty Images, sells the license themselves as well as through dozens of resellers worldwide. Fotosearch has never sold a license for this image.

    If there is anything else I can help you with, please feel free to contact me using the information below.

    Thank you for visiting!


    Jay Treichel
    Fotosearch Stock Photography and Footage
    21155 Watertown Road Waukesha, WI 53186-1898
    Phone: 800.827.3920 x239
    Fax: 262.717.0745

  • 33. Elizabeth_Oakes  |  September 11, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Depends on the type of license, actually. For example, in many Creative Commons license agreements models and/or the image creator do have a say in who uses their images and can deny licensing if they find a particular political usage objectionable.

    Getty Images, about which many photographers I know wail due to their iron- clad contracts and licensing, prolly not so much.

  • 34. jayjaybear  |  September 12, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    I personally find it interesting that they cropped the pic above the watermark. Knowing how sacred the right-wing holds intellectual property laws (HA!), I'm guessing they never bought the license for that pic. Which makes the whole thing a licensing issue, not a political issue. Although, given previous performance (the GOP using whatever music they want to for their events, etc), the licensing issue becomes a political issue.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!