PETA Uses First Lady's Image Without White House Consent

I have never been a huge PETA lover. Don’t get me wrong- I don’t condone the mistreatment of animals. However I don’t agree with PETA guerilla tactics. Therefore, I was kind of excited when I read the article featured in the New York Times “PETA Didn’t Get First Lady’s OK for Anti-Fur Ad. The recent anti- fur PETA campaign features Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Carrie Underwood and Tyra Banks. The ads appeared in Washington’s metro stations, magazines and Peat’s Web site. Michelle Obama’s image was used without her permission. The president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, said her organization chose not to get First Lady Obama’s consent for the anti-fur ad because the organization knows Mrs. Obama can’t make such an endorsement.

I found this article interesting because the issue deals with the right of privacy. Appropriation is a branch of the privacy law. Appropriation is the unauthorized commercial use of a person’s name or picture in an advertisement, poster, public relations or any other commercial context. To some the use of Michelle Obama’s image could be considered fair game because she is a public figure. However the unautherorized use of a picture to promote a product or a cause is a violation of the right of privacy and/ or the right of publicity. Under the privacy law PETA had no right to use First Lady Obama’s image without her consent.

Just as a side note PETA is urging the White House to stand against another unauthorized use. The Ringling Bros. circus recently debut their newest performer- elephant "Baby Barack." According to PETA the use of Obama's name for the elephant is more troubling then the Michelle Obama Ad. When in all reality both issues are complete opposites.