Hillary's "3am Ad"

[RunInRed 16,487]

Remember the "3 A.M. ad"? Casey Knowles, the little girl featured in the ad, does...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXmYVRIpu2w

[pensacola tiger 0]

bet her disapproval didn't go so far as to not sign and cash the royalty check.

[RunInRed 16,487]

bet her disapproval didn't go so far as to not sign and cash the royalty check.

royalty check from who?

[pensacola tiger 0]

If her image is used in an advertizement, even an old image, it stands to reason that, unless she signed a waiver at some point, she would be receive payment for the use.

[RunInRed 16,487]

If her image is used in an advertizement, even an old image, it stands to reason that, unless she signed a waiver at some point, she would be receive payment for the use.

so are you saying the clinton campaign had to pay her to use that photo? i doubt it.

[pensacola tiger 0]

Well, I'm not an entertainment lawyer but I'll bet the ad agency did. I doubt that you can just pull people's images and use them without consent or payment unless a waiver was signed previously. Think about it for a minute. That video was taken and used somewhere before or saved in an archive. It was made by an ad agency for something previously, whether used or not and she (probably through her parents) was paid as a model. So when the campaign agency used it they either 1) owned it outright and could use it as they saw fit in which case her parents signed a waiver previously, 2) bought it from another agency with the rights as above, or 3) paid royalties to her at this point (or to her parents if she's still underage). Of course I could be wrong.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Powerful and hi-larious swipe at Hillary.

But I got 1 question....why was this "stock footage" shot for in the first place ? Did young Casey ( or her parents ) simply agree to appear in the shoot, w/ the "hope" that it would be used by some ad agency later on ? Seems like that's the case, and that the Clinton campaign 'bought' the stock footage from the ad campaign, since it wasn't being used by any other company. Seems they could have gotten a more current video clip of a child whose parents were big timel Clinton supporters, rather than risk this coming back to bite her in the arse. Too gorram funny!

runinred....I'd be very surprised if the Clinton campaign didn't have to pay someone to use that 'stock footage' , unless it was filmed in 2000 by the Clinton's themselves, w/ hopes of using it in her 2002 campaign. Wikipeidia might have the rest of the story.

Gotta love how Dems use " the politics of fear " line on one of their own, the 'smartest woman in the world' and the wife of their iconic President, Bill.

[autiger4life 3]

I think it would be better to cash the check. That is less money the Clinton campain has to spend. If she doesn't, they can use that money for part of another anti-Obama ad.

[Auburn85 432]

If her image is used in an advertizement, even an old image, it stands to reason that, unless she signed a waiver at some point, she would be receive payment for the use.

so are you saying the clinton campaign had to pay her to use that photo? i doubt it.

probably promised her healthcare via a mandate on her parents