There's a new political ad out from the Trump campaign that is slickly produced, with a large number of seemingly average people artfully showing their distaste for Joe Biden's vision of America should he become president. Or is that actually the case? In what's an epic takedown of the ad, a former Obama spokesperson digs up every clip used in the video to show that not a moment of it is real, raising the question of whether such uses of stock footage have a place in ads that can easily sway the electorate.
The ad, dubbed the "Great American Comeback," was released earlier this month by the campaign. Progressive ad-maker Kevin Cate took a look at each shot in the original ad and tracked down the stock footage that was used to make it, and then assembled it all into one massive Twitter thread:
This isn't a general indictment of stock footage, as Cate puts it in a tweet: "Remember, the lesson isn’t that all stock b-roll is bad. I use it when budget, location, or time doesn’t permit original footage. The lesson is that it’s all he has — actors living in an alternative universe where his racism, selfishness, and stupidity hasn’t ruined the world yet."
But, when those ordinary people in the stock footage are made to represent a point of view that they may or may not share (and given that they're actors, I'm going to lean towards not), is it ethical to use them in that video? It's a very different thing than using slick time-lapses of cities or shots of factories. Buildings don't have feelings or values.
Cate points out that the ad leaned into many things that are antithetical to the Trump message, such as a clip of a teacher and student wearing masks, something the president himself has been reluctant to do or promote. Likewise, there's a clip showing solar panels being installed on a roof, and the president has doubled down on the opposite of solar panels in the form of coal. There was an attempt at diversity in the "Asian woman sitting on sofa and watching TV at home" clip but that's not readily viewable in the final product. Asian women aren't a huge part of Trump's base. There's also a "Mature aged black man putting on a tie" clip, which raises the question of why white models aren't as prominently identified as such and assumed to be the default, but that's a topic for another story entirely. I won't even touch the fake COVID vaccine footage.
It's not the first time or the last time that stock models and footage will appear in political advertisements, of course, but in an age where misinformation, disinformation, and lies poison the political waters, is it time that social media platforms consider tagging videos produced this way as untruthful? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Unfortunately, when you sign a model release, you're giving up control over how your image is used. It's been long understood that you could wind up being featured in an ad for herpes medication, so winding up in a Trump ad shouldn't be that shocking by comparison.
What I would like to see, though, is a small text disclaimer about how they're actors like you see in car commercials.
This.
I find it very strange that the author does not understand how model releases work for stock imagery.
It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of ethics, which the author is clear on. It's the difference between being allowed to do something, and whether or not it is the right thing to do.
The model knowingly takes the risk of being in footage they may not like.
That's literally the point of the contract.
That's one half of it. The other half is that political ads often feature real supporters, or actors who know who they're working for. A viewer of an ad may reasonably assume that one of those is true of the models, so the presentation itself could be seen as disingenuous.
You could say the same thing about literally every ad in existence. People understand how commercials work.
Obviously, the author has not seen many political as thru the years
I think most people understand that the purpose of a commercial is to sell them on something, not necessarily to present that thing in a fair and unbiased way. However, I mentioned car commercials in my original comment, and I've also seen this in commercials for lawyers - text on screen that outright tells you whether that person is an actor or a real client, and whether the content is based on actual customer reviews. I'd say the existence of those proves that there is some ambiguity.
I also don't think most people are aware of the idea of using stock footage of people in an ad. Commercials have, historically, featured an actor handling a product and/or talking about it, when if they don't use it personally, so the idea of a person appearing in a commercial totally unaware of what the product even is likely doesn't occur to a lot of people.
Each of those commercials falls in different regulatory guidelines by the FCC.
Political advertising regulations are made by politicians.
Go figure that the only regulations are about revealing who paid for it and whether they are libelous.
Also note that the only time you see a mention about actors in ads is when they actually have lines to read on camera. Otherwise they are never declared as actors in ads.
Good points. I guess I should have specified that by ambiguity, I was referring to how viewers would interpret it, not legal. But, the question remains - Just because this is the way it is, is this the way it should be? Should the regulations change? If they don't, is pointing out the use of stock model footage, like was done here, a fair and/or worthwhile endeavor?
Only you can decide what you think is fair and worthwhile trying to change.
All I can say is Don Quixote was a great character, but not the kind of path I have the time and energy to pursue.
Human nature is a pretty stable platform.
Greed and the pursuit of power have been around as long as we have.
Nothing is ethical if it comes from trump.
Don't ever make the mistake of associating ethics with politics. These are mutually incompatible.
Hear, hear!! You, sir, have stated a mouthful!!! :-)
The Orange man (tm) is a shameless, disgusting authoritarian. Nothing is ethical if it's coming from him or his minions.
Whichever side of the politics you are on please keep it off this photography site. We are bombarded with it every place we go. We come here to get away from it.
This particular author is on some sort of mission, writing articles from a slanted half truth perspective every time there is the slightest way to try and link it to photography. He lies easily as much as Trump does.
By the way I am not a supported of Trump for a lot f reasons. I just don't want politics mixed on my photography sites.
Wasim's post's make Fstoppers more money than any of their other articles. Fstoppers is a business. He's probably loved by the financial managers. It's also interesting to see some of the comments and lets face it, they get way more comments and views than any of the site's other articles.
This article definitely has political overtones and it's placement here is goal orientated. I just wish we could all have the "safe haven" for photography and stay away from political rhetoric. I immediately can see where this article wants to take us.
If the question being asked is it "ethical" to use stock footage in a political ad? This is also an integrity issue and the creators of the ads need to answer that. Personally, they paid for it, let them use it.
Political advertising is big business. It's right up there with sports advertising. I make ads and work with people that I personally find repulsive. Their money is just as green as anybody else's. If I was a baker, I'd bake them a wedding cake if it paid the bills.
I personally think this discussion and article are legitimately about the photography business.
I agree I also think this article does have issues that are worth discussing, though when you bring in and try to introduce your personal political agenda, whatever that may be then it becomes an unethical article, the writer is trying to sublimely bring his political views to the forefront of this article. By the way I definitely agree, if it pays the bills....
It's an ad. Anyone not unhinged can tell they're just clips put together.
--- "in an age where misinformation, disinformation, and lies poison the political waters"
LOL, that's rich, coming from you and the mainstream media you support. smh
...epic takedown? maggot.
(Not your comment, BZE. The author's.)
Wake up for goodness sakes!
They're commercials. In case you haven't noticed they seldom are ethical, or moral.
What part of commercial advertising do people think is ethical?
I'll tell you.
NONE.
Doesn't matter what the advert is for, or about, they are about getting people to spend money on something when most likely they'd be better off saving the money instead,
There is nothing ethical about advertising.
When you work in advertising ethics and morals are the first things you'd better be able to let go of.
If you can't you're not going to last in the business.
FYI, I make commercials for a living.
Want moral and ethical?
Make a PSA.
LOL everyone knows none of that is real anyways. The first rule of keeping your sanity in the US is to realize the news and commercials are all bogus.
100%
All political adds lie to some degree, trump is not the first president to lie and he won’t be the last. Let’s try and keep this a politics free zone. For Christ sakes, I can’t even watch sports anymore🤦♂️
Yeah, you can watch sports... you CHOOSE not to ;)
So far, Curling hasn't been invaded by political activism....yet. Being a curling fan, I'm hoping that this wretched disease lets up so that the curling season can start.
So yes, I'll watch sports, but it won't be the NFL and I gave up on the NBA after the golden era of Magic and Larry.
😂 I hope curling doesn’t get too political for your sake!
It's no worse than a photographer manipulating the crap out of a photograph and not mentioning it was altered. In this case all politicians are full of it. Biden ads are just as bad. And it's obvious the author Wasim Ahmad who wrote this article has his own agenda on politics and found a way to slip this in Fstoppers.
P.S. Politics is like those Hamburger ads that always look big and jucie. But when you unwrap the package it looks like someone sat on your burger. So funny.
Just wait for another few months and this nightmare is mostly over. And if not, blame yourself.
Next up:
Is It Ethical to Use Political Baiting on Photography Sites?
For Wasim, that's a Yes. 😎
It got you to post a comment.
More eyeballs for Fstoppers = Money in the bank.
Wasim story placement has been very financially rewarding for Fstoppers.
People who would never comment otherwise, can't resist commenting on his posts.
How about this one https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/14/trump-ad-asks-people-to-support...
A MiG 29 and Russian soldiers with AKs supporting our troops? ;)
Also looks very much like an American F-15EX.
Why would you say that when the creator of the image has already identified it as a MiG 29? With 1 second of looking at it, you can clearly see the tilted outwards tails of the MiG 29, which the F-15 very definitely does not have.
From the Politico article:
"After this story was published, the creator of the image, Arthur Zakirov, confirmed in a Facebook message that it shows a 3D model of a MiG-29"
I mean, I guess there is some similarity, but it pretty clearly isn't an F-15 of any kind, so I'm not sure what your point is, other than the ppl that made this ad, were sloppy, didn't care, or didn't think anyone would notice (which is a pretty clueless stand for a political ad).
It's a silhouette. So unless someone has X-ray vision no one can identify it as being either one. Who cares what the author says.
No one needs X-ray vision to see the shape isn't the same (there are at least 2 more obvious differences as well, but I don't feel the need to give a list, the tails are incredibly obvious here), it's not an F-15 of any kind. End of story.
You have a right to your opinion. A few people here think it looks exactly like a F-15EX specifically. But then again it's a silhouette. Anyone of us could be mistaken. To say you know without a doubt is totally ridiculous. End of story or not.
No, you're mistaken.
My gf thinks a certain Porsche looks like a Volkswagon too, she's also wrong. Just because you think it looks like something it doesn't, doesn't make anyone else, except you, wrong.
We do know without a doubt, the person that made the image has already told us, but you're right someone here is being totally ridiculous, it's not an F-15EX, without any question, get over it.
Sounds like you're the kind of guy who still believes in Santa Claus. Still doesn't make it a reality. One thing is for sure, every time I pull your chain I get a full flush.
P.S. I bet your girlfriend knows more about cars than you do.
Like somehow any of that idiocy you just spouted makes you any less completely, and embarrassingly, wrong...
Nothing like a good flush to clean a dirty drain.