States Try to Stop Commercial Use of Dead Soldiers' Photos, Names

uscitizen

Villified User
States Try to Stop Commercial Use of Dead Soldiers' Photos, Names

Thursday, May 17, 2007


PHOENIX — Incensed by the sale of anti-war T-shirts and other paraphernalia emblazoned with the names and pictures of America's military dead, some states are outlawing the commercial use of the fallen without the permission of their families.

Despite serious questions of constitutionality, Oklahoma and Louisiana enacted such laws last year, and the governors of Texas and Florida have legislation waiting on their desks. Arizona lawmakers are on the verge of approving a similar measure.

"You should have some rights to your own name and your own legacy, particularly if you're a deceased veteran," said state Sen. Jim Waring, a Republican who sponsored the Arizona bill. "Celebrities have that. Why shouldn't our soldiers have that?"

The bills were prompted largely by pleas from military families upset that their loved ones' names and photos were being used on phone cards, body armor and other products.

In many cases, the target of their ire is Dan Frazier, a Flagstaff man who sells T-shirts online that list the names of 3,155 U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq. The shirts bear slogans such as "Bush Lied — They Died" and "Support Our Remaining Troops — Bring the Rest Home Alive."

Margy Bons, a Phoenix-area woman whose Marine reservist son, Sgt. Michael A. Marzano, was killed by an insurgent bomb in Iraq in 2005, said he believed in his mission.

"My son was not duped into going to war," she said. "I'm angry that somebody can use somebody else's name for their political beliefs without permission."

Frazier, 41, said he will not retreat. "I'm providing a valuable service to people to help show the enormity of the cost of war," he said.

Under the Arizona bill, violators could get up to six months in jail and fines of $2,500 for an individual and $20,000 for an enterprise. A spokeswoman for Gov. Janet Napolitano declined to say whether she would sign the bill if it reached her desk.

The Florida bill would impose a $1,000 penalty per violation for using a military member's name or photo commercially without permission.

Law enforcement officials in Oklahoma and Louisiana said they were unaware of any prosecutions under their laws. But the Arizona legislation also authorizes families to sue, and Bons said she will see Frazier in court.

Frazier said he has sold a couple of thousand shirts through his Web site, www.carryabigsticker.com, since 2005 and regards it as more of a political statement than a moneymaker. He said the shirts, which sell for $20 to $22, are expensive to produce.

Frazier said the various state bills and laws infringe on his First Amendment rights to free speech.

Waring said Frazier is selling a commercial product, and that opens the door to state regulation.

"This is clearly commercial speech. He's not giving the shirts away," Waring said. "I don't dispute that if he was giving the shirts away to make a political statement, we probably couldn't do anything about that."

However, a constitutional law expert said the fact that the dead soldiers' names are public record and that the Arizona legislation grants exceptions for plays, articles and certain other uses could undermine its constitutionality.

"You can't make some irrational distinctions and stop some people and not others without a really good reason," said Paul Bender, an Arizona State University professor and a top Justice Department official in the Clinton administration.

Bender said the shirts are clearly a political statement: "He's not advertising anything on the T-shirts."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273360,00.html
 
Does this mean that the meida cannot even report these troops as dead ?
Looks that way to me....
Darned liberal media!
 
Does this mean that the meida cannot even report these troops as dead ?
Looks that way to me....
Darned liberal media!
I don't think so, it would mean that they cannot produce products to sell that had your name. At least that is how it appears to me.
 
Oh like a newspaper or magazine or TV show that gets ad revenue.....
No, like a t-shirt where I get to make a ton. The newspaper, magazine, etc would sell regardless of the name on the magazine.

There is a difference between reporting and selling.

If you died in VN and some group just decided to use your image to promote the war and how great it was, your family objected, how long do you think they should be able to use your image and your name to promote the war?

It's more like a newspaper can report on a celebrity, but they cannot just decide to make t-shirts with their name promoting their product without permission. Nike cannot just use Jordan's image without his permission and paying him a ton.

In this case, just because you are less famous you do not have the same right?
 
Margy Bons, a Phoenix-area woman whose Marine reservist son, Sgt. Michael A. Marzano, was killed by an insurgent bomb in Iraq in 2005, said he believed in his mission.

"My son was not duped into going to war," she said.



A classic case of psychological denial. It must be hard to face up to the fact, that the man you helped become president twice, killed your son unneccessarilly. One might even conclude, that your vote even contributed to the unneccessary death of your son.

It's far easier to remain in denial, and imagine your son was part of some grand, noble, mission. Heck, if my brother were killed because of the man I helped put in to the presidency, I would be psychologically conflicted too. I'd probably be in denial.
 
No, like a t-shirt where I get to make a ton. The newspaper, magazine, etc would sell regardless of the name on the magazine.

There is a difference between reporting and selling.

If you died in VN and some group just decided to use your image to promote the war and how great it was, your family objected, how long do you think they should be able to use your image and your name to promote the war?

It's more like a newspaper can report on a celebrity, but they cannot just decide to make t-shirts with their name promoting their product without permission.
A newspaper is a commercial product that is sold and therefore under the law cannot contain the names/photos of dead soldiers. (period) Rationalize all you want, it is just a republican way to keep the dead out of the view of the public . Out of sight out of mmind...

But then you seem to think we are covering this war the same way we did Nam.. sigh...
 
This is a tough one. You know, the problem is that anytime you mention the dead, you are exploiting the dead. I sometimes feel I am exploiting them in my peace work. But, I received emails after 9/11, from blood-thirsty war-mongers, that had a close up of a woman, mid-air, falling from the WTC. It was horrific. Now, did anybody ask her or her family if it was ok to use pictures of her dying to advocate for a war? Did anybody get signed permission from every one of the family members of th 3,000 dead in the WTC for the use of their deaths in political commericals all advocating war?

It is always ok to memorialize the dead if you want to start another war, or glorify a current one. But let an anti-war person use those deaths to advocat for peace, and everybody gets all upset. It's explotation! Well, the whole damned racket is explotation.
 
A newspaper is a commercial product that is sold and therefore under the law cannot contain the names/photos of dead soldiers. (period) Rationalize all you want, it is just a republican way to keep the dead out of the view of the public . Out of sight out of mmind...

But then you seem to think we are covering this war the same way we did Nam.. sigh...
If the law was written that way then it would be unconstitutional.

I think you assign intentions that didn't exist because you want them to.

From reading their statements it was exactly what I described that they attempted to stop. The use of their image without permission to promote their idea or product. Just as Jordan would have the right to stop it with his image, so should you.
 
Well, the whole damned racket is explotation.
//

Yep and the Republicans are trying to make sure only the pro war exploitation is legal.
 
This is a tough one. You know, the problem is that anytime you mention the dead, you are exploiting the dead. I sometimes feel I am exploiting them in my peace work. But, I received emails after 9/11, from blood-thirsty war-mongers, that had a close up of a woman, mid-air, falling from the WTC. It was horrific. Now, did anybody ask her or her family if it was ok to use pictures of her dying to advocate for a war? Did anybody get signed permission from every one of the family members of th 3,000 dead in the WTC for the use of their deaths in political commericals all advocating war?

It is always ok to memorialize the dead if you want to start another war, or glorify a current one. But let an anti-war person use those deaths to advocat for peace, and everybody gets all upset. It's explotation! Well, the whole damned racket is explotation.
I do not think that specific images should be used without permission in either context.
 
Damo that is the story they are trying to sell.
If you read the article there are serious concerns about the constitionality of the laws....
 
Damo that is the story they are trying to sell.
If you read the article there are serious concerns about the constitionality of the laws....
I understand that, but often people write laws that are unconstitutional when intending another thing. To assign specific intent that has been otherwise unexpressed is a dangerous road. This is what leads to some saying that the Democrats "want" defeat, and other spin.

The assumption that all of them just wanted to stop 'you' when it speaks to both sides of the debate is a ridiculous assumption. It doesn't say, "well if the story is pro-war then it is okay, but if it is anti-war it is bad and you have to get permission." It says you have to get permission in all cases.
 
I understand that, but often people write laws that are unconstitutional when intending another thing. To assign specific intent that has been otherwise unexpressed is a dangerous road. This is what leads to some saying that the Democrats "want" defeat, and other spin.

The assumption that all of them just wanted to stop 'you' when it speaks to both sides of the debate is a ridiculous assumption. It doesn't say, "well if the story is pro-war then it is okay, but if it is anti-war it is bad and you have to get permission." It says you have to get permission in all cases.

Umm Damo, not dispalying the names or pictures of the dead military personel is PRO War no mattrer how you look at it. Out of sight is out of mind for most.
The lower the war profile repubs can keep the more pro war it is.
 
My opinion is that any news agency or business should be required to get permission from the next of kin or a legal will first...soldiers are not public domain per sey! Before printing... the next of kin or will administrator... should have input in what could be said...end of story!
 
Does this mean that the meida cannot even report these troops as dead ?
Looks that way to me....
Darned liberal media!
It still doesn't appear that anywhere in the story was a mention of this. I don't think the laws stop reporting the names of those fallen, just using them in a commercial venture.

The constitutionality is questionable, I agree. But I don't think the intent, or the action stops anybody from reporting on who has died. I am reasonably sure if such was the case it would have definitely been included in the story.
 
It still doesn't appear that anywhere in the story was a mention of this. I don't think the laws stop reporting the names of those fallen, just using them in a commercial venture.
//

Duhhh.... the media are all commerical ventures with the exception of PBS and NPR.
 
It still doesn't appear that anywhere in the story was a mention of this. I don't think the laws stop reporting the names of those fallen, just using them in a commercial venture.
//

Duhhh.... the media are all commerical ventures with the exception of PBS and NPR.

Except they are given a different definition in the law. Reporting a story is not the same as using the name specifically to sell a product. If the law actually stopped the media from reporting such things it would be in the story or a myriad of other stories about it. I think you are attempting to obfuscate the issue with a supposed aspect that does not exist.
 
Now who is obfusticating the issue. Is the news media not comercial ventures ? Are they not paid for their content ?

They were released from that public service liscencising requirement to provide news years ago. About the same time as they dropped the fairness doctrine I think.
 
Now who is obfusticating the issue. Is the news media not comercial ventures ? Are they not paid for their content ?

They were released from that public service liscencising requirement to provide news years ago. About the same time as they dropped the fairness doctrine I think.
One more time for the slow and old... ;)

IF the law did what you say it would, they would be specific about how it did when reporting it in such a media. That not even one media outlet has been silenced in such a way, with even laws that are current mentioned, pretty much tells me that what you are attempting to pass hasn't been proposed or put into any action whatsoever.

It is scare tactic, spin, propaganda, not true in any reality other than your assumption.

That being said, the names being public domain, it will be difficult for them to stop the use in this way if it is a political statement regardless of whether people are selling them or not.
 
Back
Top