Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

New York, NY - Photo of Obama In Coat Maker's Times Square Ad Wasn't Approved by White House

Published on:   January 6, 2010 11:28 PM
News Source:  NY Times
Change text size Text Size  
Bookmark and Share
A Weatherproof billboard featuring President Obama in China, at the corner of 41st St. and 7th Ave. in Manhattan. Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times  A Weatherproof billboard featuring President Obama in China, at the corner of 41st St. and 7th Ave. in Manhattan. Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

New York, NY - A garment company in New York known for publicity stunts has seized the attention of the Obama administration.

The Weatherproof Garment Company installed a billboard in Times Square today showing President Obama wearing what appears to be one of its coats. The image, which is licensed by The Associated Press, was taken during the president’s visit to the Great Wall of China last November. Weatherproof also put the image on its Web site home page for a time on Wednesday, promoting “The Obama Jacket.”

The White House expects to contact the company on Thursday and to ask it to take the billboard down, aides said. “This ad is clearly misleading because the company suggests the approval or endorsement of the president or the White House that it does not have,” said a White House aide.

Advertisement:

Weatherproof’s president, Freddie Stollmack, said he recognized the coat after he saw a photograph of the presidential visit, and ordered a high-resolution photograph for confirmation. “With a magnifying glass, we saw our logo and zipper pull, and we said, ‘That’s our coat,’ ” Mr. Stollmack said.

The company issued a press release in December praising Mr. Obama’s choice of coats. And on Wednesday, it installed the billboard in Times Square at 41st Street with the image.

A Weatherproof spokesman, Allen Cohen, said the company had also tried to run ads in The New York Times, The New York Post and Women’s Wear Daily with the image, but had been turned down by the publications - something it tried to publicize this week.

The Obama administration had not approved the use of the image, a spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said in an e-mail message. “The White House has a longstanding policy disapproving of the use of the president’s name and likeness for commercial purposes,” he said.

Paul Colford, a spokesman for The A.P., said that Weatherproof had paid it the appropriate license fee for the billboard image, “but the agreement is that it requires the licensing party, in this case the Weatherproof Garment Company, to obtain the necessary clearances - that is their obligation.”

Mr. Stollmack said the company had not gained approval from the White House. Asked whether he was taking a risk, he said: “Is it a calculated risk? Not being an attorney - I’m being, really, a designer, merchandiser guy in the apparel business - I would leave that to the attorneys or whatever. We’re not saying President Obama endorses Weatherproof apparel.”

He added: “If we were to get a letter or a call from the White House saying they didn’t approve of it or they didn’t like it or whatever, or they see it as an ad, we’ll do whatever we have to do. We’re not looking to alienate the White House.” But as of early Wednesday evening, the White House had not contacted Weatherproof, Mr. Cohen said.

Kevin M. Greenberg, a lawyer who handles intellectual property cases, said that while Weatherproof should have obtained consent from Mr. Obama as a matter of practice, “legally, the framework is that it’s very unclear where the First Amendment ends” and where public officials’ right to control their endorsements begins.

While Mr. Obama could probably get an injunction against Weatherproof’s use of his image, “the advice any good lawyer will give is sometimes there are fights not worth fighting,” said Mr. Greenberg, a partner at Flaster Greenberg in Philadelphia. “And if Barack Obama were to win this fight, he would in fact be rewarding the bad actor, simply because the fight itself” - over an injunction and damages - “would go on for a very long time and provide tremendous return to this company that’s stealing his image.”

Weatherproof’s history of attention-grabbing efforts suggests the company may be seeking controversy.

In 2008, it issued a release saying that it would run the shortest television commercial ever during the Super Bowl, at two seconds. The same day, it issued an update saying that, unfortunately, it had just learned that two-second Super Bowl slots were unavailable.

(As was reported today here on VIN News), the White House contacted People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals after it started running an anti-fur ad last week that praised Michelle Obama. Semonti Stephens, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Obama, said her office had not consented to that ad. The White House declined to comment on whether the matter had been resolved.


More of today's headlines

Clintonville, PA - State police say three people have been killed in a multi-vehicle accident on Interstate 80 western Pennsylvania. Police say the crash occurred... Warsaw, Poland - The Krakow Prosecutor’s Office is issuing arrest warrants for a Swede and a citizen from former Yugoslavia in connection with theft of the “work...

 

Total20

Read Comments (20)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Jan 06, 2010 at 10:41 PM Anonymous Says:

The owner of this company is a jerk. Under every president going back to Eisenhower, the White House has strongly protected the presdident's image and blocked efforts to use the likeness for cheap ads. This is without regard to Republican or Democrat. This guy knew that this cheap shot was for publicity and would trigger a white house demand to take it down. Hopefully, he will lose business and money from his greedy effort to exploit the office of the presidency.

2

 Jan 06, 2010 at 10:55 PM Joey Says:

I think Bammy is the koolest guy alive! I will buy these coats!)

3

 Jan 06, 2010 at 11:00 PM Get a life Says:

Obama is a meshuganeh! and so iz the dumb shm*k who posted #1 get a job and a life

4

 Jan 07, 2010 at 05:56 AM Anonymous Says:

it will take a lot more publicity to get anyone to buy anything endorsed by this prez!!!!!!!

5

 Jan 07, 2010 at 08:14 AM fact! Says:

I work in marketing. This guys a genius. He knew the white house would remove it. But look at the exposure he got! More than any other ad. Irs even on VIN

6

 Jan 07, 2010 at 08:34 AM jim Says:

I am on my way buy a jacket from weatherproof

7

 Jan 06, 2010 at 11:23 PM mentch Says:

i find nothing wrong with advertising big deal so he used the president, it is a democracy after all

8

 Jan 07, 2010 at 02:18 AM hey yo! Says:

Listen up! u could use whatever picture u want in any ad. the question is if they could DEMAND that the ad should copme off. this company is paying millions for the space of this ad. if it does come of then i think the white house administration should remburse the company for the amount paid for the space. now with every speach obama gives he says in a different way that we dont have 2.5 million to give to this company for a stupid picture. people get a life!

9

 Jan 07, 2010 at 08:56 AM ctvi.com Says:

The owner of the company is a brilliant marketeer.

Obama should not be wearing lables in public if he wishes to ward off this kind of advertising. It is not Obama's first time.

Way to go Weatherproof!!!

10

 Jan 06, 2010 at 11:58 PM Right there thats the problem Says:

Reply to #2  
Joey Says:

I think Bammy is the koolest guy alive! I will buy these coats!)

These ads make people say stuff like you just said. While good for the company its bad for the image of the President. Its disrespectful to call him Bammy or previous president Georgie...Have some respect for the office of the President.

11

 Jan 07, 2010 at 09:36 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #8  
hey yo! Says:

Listen up! u could use whatever picture u want in any ad. the question is if they could DEMAND that the ad should copme off. this company is paying millions for the space of this ad. if it does come of then i think the white house administration should remburse the company for the amount paid for the space. now with every speach obama gives he says in a different way that we dont have 2.5 million to give to this company for a stupid picture. people get a life!

No, actually the compny would have to pay the model (in this case obama) royalties for using his image . you obviously know nothing about nothing and just spew. you must be from flatbush. can i take a picture of you wearing a suit and use in a billboard without your permission and not pay you a dime?

12

 Jan 07, 2010 at 09:51 AM PMO Says:

Reply to #8  
hey yo! Says:

Listen up! u could use whatever picture u want in any ad. the question is if they could DEMAND that the ad should copme off. this company is paying millions for the space of this ad. if it does come of then i think the white house administration should remburse the company for the amount paid for the space. now with every speach obama gives he says in a different way that we dont have 2.5 million to give to this company for a stupid picture. people get a life!

This makes no sense. You cannot use someone's likeness or image to endorse a product without their permission. Period. Imagine if someone put up a billboard with YOUR picture on it advertising pork, or worse. There is more than enough precedent in the law that would allow the President to sue the company for payment.

13

 Jan 07, 2010 at 09:58 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #11  
Anonymous Says:

No, actually the compny would have to pay the model (in this case obama) royalties for using his image . you obviously know nothing about nothing and just spew. you must be from flatbush. can i take a picture of you wearing a suit and use in a billboard without your permission and not pay you a dime?

Unfortunately it's the case, as usual, those who scream and rail at those claiming they know nothing, know even less themselves.

In the case a picture is taken in the public arena, the picture can be used for profit by the picture taker. In this case the AP took the picture and is permitted to license it - in this case to weatherproof - see http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/case-over-heads-photo-is-dismissed/ - for a similar case.

As always it pays to do some research before telling other people they know nothing, lest it become clear that you in fact know less.

14

 Jan 07, 2010 at 10:58 AM PMO Says:

Reply to #13  
Anonymous Says:

Unfortunately it's the case, as usual, those who scream and rail at those claiming they know nothing, know even less themselves.

In the case a picture is taken in the public arena, the picture can be used for profit by the picture taker. In this case the AP took the picture and is permitted to license it - in this case to weatherproof - see http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/case-over-heads-photo-is-dismissed/ - for a similar case.

As always it pays to do some research before telling other people they know nothing, lest it become clear that you in fact know less.

Similar case? A case where a judge threw out a lawsuit because the plaintiff waited too long to file suit is similar? How?

The correct case to look at for precedent is Woody Allen vs. American Apparel. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/american-apparel-settles-lawsuit-with-woody-allen/

While the suit was settled for $5 million, it was clear from the get-go that American Apparel used the marketable value of his "likeness" to sell a product and they knew they would lose (knowing that the $5 million was worth every penny for the publicity).

15

 Jan 07, 2010 at 11:02 AM anoonymous Says:

isnt the owner of this company, the peyser family from atlantic beach? frum people i think. its a brilliant move

16

 Jan 07, 2010 at 11:21 AM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #14  
PMO Says:

Similar case? A case where a judge threw out a lawsuit because the plaintiff waited too long to file suit is similar? How?

The correct case to look at for precedent is Woody Allen vs. American Apparel. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/american-apparel-settles-lawsuit-with-woody-allen/

While the suit was settled for $5 million, it was clear from the get-go that American Apparel used the marketable value of his "likeness" to sell a product and they knew they would lose (knowing that the $5 million was worth every penny for the publicity).

Unfortunately in that case American Apparel did not own nor did they purchase the licensing fee from the license owner - in this case Woody Allen as the writer/director of Annie Hall or the studio - Weatherproof licensed from AP who had license to take and disseminate the picture in this case it is more similar to the public picture in the above times article - which granted was time-barred - and not similar at all to Woody Allen even though President Obama and the White House are claiming, similar to Woody, that they have policies against commercial usage of his likeness.

17

 Jan 07, 2010 at 07:01 PM PMO Says:

Reply to #16  
Anonymous Says:

Unfortunately in that case American Apparel did not own nor did they purchase the licensing fee from the license owner - in this case Woody Allen as the writer/director of Annie Hall or the studio - Weatherproof licensed from AP who had license to take and disseminate the picture in this case it is more similar to the public picture in the above times article - which granted was time-barred - and not similar at all to Woody Allen even though President Obama and the White House are claiming, similar to Woody, that they have policies against commercial usage of his likeness.

Still wrong. A person can own rights to a photo, and display the photo as-is, but cannot use the subject's "likeness" to endorse or advertise a product or idea without the subject's consent. That has been the law in the US for 20 years.

18

 Jan 07, 2010 at 10:09 PM Yoily Says:

I'm so proud of this, because I own a Weatherproof coat!!! i got it for a quarter of the price in Century. Wow, Obama wears my coat!

19

 Jan 08, 2010 at 05:18 AM Anonymous Says:

The guy has a win win situation. The news has generated a thousand times more advertisng than the guy could afford to pay for and even if he has to take the sign down, "Outdoor" brand is now a household word.

20

 Jan 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM jack Says:

Anybody knows where to buy this Jacket?

21

Sign-in to post a comment

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!