- Joined
- Feb 15, 2014
- Messages
- 19,599
- Reaction score
- 11,565
- Location
- South Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
OKgrannie posted this on another thread earlier today.
I really don't understand why CMP felt the need to use a picture of still born baby from unrelated source and put it into an undercover documentary video. You don't ever want to do that no matter the reason because it can be misleading and would naturally lead to predictable attacks from the other side. The cost outweighs the benefit. People can just google for what a 19 week fetus looks like without having it shown in the video unless the fetus was actually part of the event during the documentary. Not to mention it harms the family whose still born baby was used in such manner without their direct permission.
It's unfortunate.
I don't know whether it is legal or not...I suspect that it is legal BUT for a movement that differentiates between what is legally right and what is morally right.....they sure tossed that concept out the door with respect to this picture. I can only imagine how I would feel !!!!
It is to sensationalize the issue.I really don't understand why CMP felt the need to use a picture of still born baby from unrelated source and put it into an undercover documentary video. You don't ever want to do that no matter the reason because it can be misleading and would naturally lead to predictable attacks from the other side. The cost outweighs the benefit. People can just google for what a 19 week fetus looks like without having it shown in the video unless the fetus was actually part of the event during the documentary. Not to mention it harms the family whose still born baby was used in such manner without their direct permission.
It's unfortunate.
The woman gave permission for the photo to be published. If the group violated copyright law, then they violated copyright law, but this seems within Fair Use Doctrine.
Citing the woman’s Facebook post, Planned Parenthood said the photo was used by the Center for Medical Progress “without her permission [and that] she believes it is an illegal use of the image.”
It also seems that the group did not attempt to deceive anyone as to the nature of the photograph - pointing out only that it was a child at the end of the 2nd Trimester. :shrug: that's what a baby looks like at 20 weeks.
.The anti-abortion-rights group targeting Planned Parenthood is acknowledging that its most recent video used an image of a stillborn baby that was made to look like an aborted fetus
It says quite a lot for our side and about yours that the best argument we can make is to simply show what it is abortionists do, while the most energy on your side is spent trying to keep us from doing so.
that some one used your photo for a political viewpoint that you oppose? I suspect you would be mad, however making some one angry is not inherently morally wrong
No, how many people really pay attention or bother to read. But, that's besides the point. The cost outweighs the benefit. You can't clean up the mess that shouldn't be necessary in the first place. And how about the hurt on the family involved in this who didn't ask for it?only to those who cant read, which would seem to be a bigger group than you would think
what privacy rights? she published that photo in the guardian and it was used again under the fair use doctrine. 1st amendment anyone?
If it was previously published, I have no idea if legally they did anything wrong.
But for a group of people that pretend to care that while something may be legal, there are moral issues........they seemed to toss that concept aside with ease.
that some one used your photo for a political viewpoint that you oppose? I suspect you would be mad, however making some one angry is not inherently morally wrong
So you admit that there is no fundamental visual difference between a fetus aborted at 19 weeks and a still born at 19 weeks
are you implying that a fetus aborted at 19 weeks and a still born at 19 weeks look fundamentally different?
read the article "The photo had been published with permission by The Guardian last year."
Shes not upset about the photo just at who was using it and she probably doesnt have a suit under the fair use doctrine
what privacy rights? she published that photo in the guardian and it was used again under the fair use doctrine. 1st amendment anyone?
From the article linked to in the OP:
Also from the same link:
Your side doesn't seem to be able to present it's case without deception and lies.
So your defense is "It's legal"???
That is a lie.
She gave permission to The Guardian. Not to CMP
Well, the opening posts were "she should sue". And since it seems that the accusations of falsehoods have pretty much fallen on their face, that's all they really have left.
The anti-abortion-rights group targeting Planned Parenthood is acknowledging that its most recent video used an image of a stillborn baby that was made to look like an aborted fetus.
The Center for Medical Progress posted a new link on its video late Thursday, adding that one of the images was actually a baby named Walter Fretz, born prematurely at 19 weeks.
Well, the opening posts were "she should sue".
She said she was okay with the images of her child being published. :shrug: She may be upset now and I can understand why, but she signed the papers and made pictures of her child part of the public record.
That's right. Are you going to argue that there is a significant developmental difference between a child 20 weeks old and a child 20 weeks old?
The group used the child to demonstrate what a 20 week old child looked like. :shrug: again, if you find that upsetting, why? Does it look awfully like a human child to you?
She did not say she gave CMP permission to use the picture
Whaaat?
No, it misrepresented it to look like an aborted fetus, they ADMITTED to this.
Anyone with half an ounce of compassion for a woman who had lost her child would not agree with this. So far, only one antichoicer has had the integrity to say it's wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?