Yesterday I talked about the untimely publication of some modeling photographs of 32nd Tennessee House district candidate Julia Hurley (R-Lenoir City) and how Ms. Hurley and others needed to be careful about what pictures of them might float around and cause controversy where there need not be any. A source which has chose not to be identified has passed along copies of the controversial photographs of Hurley to The Examiner.
I have in my possession the controversial photograph that was discussed all over Tennessee's blogosphere yesterday. I took one look at it and my first thought was "this is all you have on this poor woman..."
With that said, I can't help but wonder: "Where's the beef?" Julia Hurley is a model by profession, so yes she needs to be aware that some pictures of her might become a political issue, but there is such a thing as making a mountain out of a molehill, and whoever thought this was something that was, on its face, going to cause any real damage to Ms. Hurley is attempting to carve Mount Rushmore out of flat ground. Frankly, I can't tell if Ms. Hurley was wearing pants in this photograph or not, but she may very well have had a leotard on. Whether she did or didn't, if you can't tell it isn't exactly a filthy picture. Honestly, if this is somebody's idea of a nudie picture, they need very seriously to get a life.
I'm sorry, but these pictures just aren't scandalous, especially considering Ms. Hurley's line of work. Neither of them show Hurley naked, despite the efforts by some people to pass them off as nude photographs-they are not, and it is a disservice both to Julia Hurley and to the voters to pass them off as such. It can certainly be argued that the pictures are "suggestive," as some might say, but they are modelling pictures. Any man or woman who has ever seen a copy of the Victoria's Secret catalogue has seen pictures that are far more suggestive than this.
If the attempt here is to smear Julia Hurley, I don't think those trying to do so have been very successful. If anything, you may have won her a few votes. As for whether Ms. Hurley herself should be upset that I put this pictures here-I don't think so, because I think we've shown that this is much ado about absolutely nothing. If we are indeed to have a citizen legislature where legislators have lives outside of politics, Julia Hurley is certainly entitled to her modeling career.
Comments
This is copyright infringement regardless of whether the owner complains or not. A crime is a crime even if you don't get caught. (Also, it is against Examiner policies to use copyrighted pictured without permission.)
Once this has become a political issue, it has become news and the posting of the photo is clearly within the scope of fair use.
I should point out that I removed the one with the clear mark. I have not received any negative notice about either of them, I should point out, and it might be Ms. Hurley's wish (as the article is favorable to her) that both pictures be seen...and she certainly has that right
She doesn't have the right if the photos are owned by someone else.
It was she who posted them on the internet to begin with, and I should point out that the pictures aren't there (though we are working on permissions to make use of them). Ms. Hurley does have usage permissions for her phtographs.
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term fair use originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.
When the photographs themselves are the news, especially in the case of a political candidate, I'd believe they are definitely in the realm of "fair use" for a commentator or reporter. Especially when the photos weren't taken by a competing news entity.
Where are the pics?
Curious;
There is an issue of copyright with one of the two photographs. I hold, as does the commenter JD, that I have the right to use them here. I believe voters should see them and, as a matter of personal opinion, I actually believe that their publication on this page would benefit Ms. Hurley. I've examined the controversial so-called "pantless picture" up close and I have determined that Ms. Hurley was not pantless, as her detractors are claiming. However, I am not in a position to contest my fair use rights in court unless I have a copyright and patent lawyer ready to take the case pro bono. So I'm going to wait out trying to get permissions rather than risk some legal haie (I should point out that I'm not sure any would come, but if the Examiner people don't want to recognize fair use, I can't help it that they want to cost both their business and the writers they claim to prize so highly the traffic they claim to want. You'd think they'd stand up for the free press.
Is the commenter going by 'Examiner' actually Examiner.com staff? It's a common tactic for trolls to use titles that make them sound like Examiner staff.
If you haven't heard directly from your content manager then the staff probably isn't paying the least attention to what's going on. Email your manager direct and ask them about it if you haven't heard from them already.
David,
This is kinda like the "have you stopped beating your wife" tactic. "Do you still have nudie pictures from your modeling days?"
Having said that, I wouldn't want my wife or daughters photographed in that manner. But I'm not 28 years old.
W;
I'm going to look into it and see if I can use Fair Use to run those pictures here. It isn't just the traffic I'm interested in-I wouldn't post pornography here if I could. I think people should see what all the fuss is about.
She was a professional model paid for the shoot. SOP would be for her to sign the publicity rights to the photographer, who would have already had the copyrights. He may have allowed her to use the for her own professional promotion. I am sure you would object if another reporter copied your story and used it in another publication. There is no way you use is "fair use" If it was, no reporter would ever be paid for any work that they did.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!