PETA Features Michelle Obama In Anti-Fur Ad

WASHINGTON — The fur is flying over a new ad campaign by an animal rights group the White House says is using first lady Michelle Obama's image without her permission.

The president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Ingrid Newkirk, said her organization wouldn't have sought Mrs. Obama's consent for the anti-fur ad because it knows that she can't make such an endorsement.

PETA included the first lady in its Washington ad campaign based on White House confirmation that she does not wear fur.

Mrs. Obama appears in the ad with celebrities Oprah Winfrey, Carrie Underwood and Tyra Banks – three others who have shunned fur. The ads are appearing in Washington's Metro stations, magazines and PETA's Web site.

Comments

[Faithtoo]

01:31 PM on 01/07/2010

If they couldn't seek Mrs. Obama's permission then they should NOT have used her image in the ad.

Who do they think they are and how do they know she supports this cause? While she may not own fur it does not mean she is against it. The fact the Oprah and Tyra Banks do not wear fur means nothing.

[Luna C666]

10:33 AM on 01/07/2010

@Yemaya

PETA gave a man $50,000 dollars after he'd publicly confessed to firebombing a clinic and he went out that year and did it again.
Watch Penn and Teller's BULLS#IT episode about PETA.

They are against anyone owning pets, if you own a pet set it free. They are against beef or pork or eggs, all farm animals are to be set free. You can't even use a seeing-eye-dog if you are blind. Can't test medicine or surgical procedures on animals, we would have not discovered insulin without animal testing.
PETA are over the top, off the deep end. They got onto Obama for killing a fly, no one took it seriously but PETA sure did..so what do you do to a mosquito? Or lice? Fleas?
Peta are the example of taking a good idea to the radical extreme, to the point where the idea becomes and ideology and irrelevant.

[kareemachan]

10:49 AM on 01/07/2010

And don't forget the sea kittens!

[mreaid]

11:15 AM on 01/07/2010

Another ridiculous myth... PETA does not want to take your pets away. What PETA is against is pet breeding, and for good reason what with so many animals out there in need already. Population control does not equal "setting them free," no matter how hard you try to twist it around.

Yes, they are against the tortured slaughter of, and let's get real and call it what it is, cows, pigs, and chickens.

And no, PETA is not against seeing eye dogs. They are against, and go back to my first bit, the breeding of these dogs when there are so many already in shelters that are of equal intelligence and trainability. So no, PETA is not against that, just that more animals are bred while even more rot away in shelters when they could go to these homes.

Animal testing is falling by the wayside. Yes, it had its day when there were no alternatives, but that's quickly changing. A bit of research on this on your end would go a long way!

The fly issue... When people see the leader of their country blatantly kill a fly like that, there are idiots that make the analogy that "if he did it, then why can't I do it to my dog too?" or something like that. It's called setting an example. I believe the official response was something like, "Where people can be compassionate, they should be for all animals." Operative bit being "can be."

[fromdnorth]

06:52 PM on 01/09/2010

Every domestic breed of dog is man made. Every dog is a designed animal.

Animals (ie except human animals) are not always brutally slaughtered. And what is brutally slaughtered anyway?

All animals are subject to consumption throughout their life and even after death.

Komodo dragons kill other animals by poisoning them with bacterial infections, Yes cheetahs do kill little cute deer for food.

The more violent the act of killing, the more effective it can be.

Most animals are killed humanely by humans. To do otherwise affects the quality and quantity of meat available from the carcass.

Take the example of a deer hit by a car. The meat is invariably unfit for human consumption. But it is good for a vulture, beetles, flies, bacteria and ants.

A deadly shot through to the heart is clean, effective and humane...

To consume a living animal e.g. oyster or a dead one is as natural as not consuming one and has played a major role in the survival of the human species and its success...

When a python envelops a rat, it is not cruel, brutal or undesirable.. A domestic cat at large in a sub-urban back yard is not natural since domesticated cats are not part of the natural American environment... Panthers and bob-cats are...

PETA is not natural in any environment..

[Arrech]

11:01 AM on 01/12/2010

You are good. Fanned

[hugs4u]

09:52 AM on 01/07/2010

PETA what really means is People Eat Tasty Animals

[dems08]

06:31 AM on 01/07/2010

so when tea baggers put President Obama's face on their posters, that's illegal, right?

[BlackJAC]

08:43 AM on 01/07/2010

No, because that's not an official endorsement. I've been to air shows where the various food stands had Pepsi logo banners advertising their wares, and they'd handwritten "No Federal Endorsement Implied" on each and every one of them.

[anghiari]

09:50 PM on 01/06/2010

Peta staff prostitutes animal rights by their arrogance and supreme ego.....

[Luna C666]

10:37 AM on 01/07/2010

They also kill 2/3 of the animals they rescue.
While they stand out and shout obscenities, vandalize shelter worker's cars and threaten them for killing so many animals..peta does it themselves.

[mreaid]

10:53 AM on 01/07/2010

Entirely misleading... PETA is not a shelter, and never claimed to be. Part of its goal is to provide a humane end for animals that are suffering. So before you keep spreading those ridiculous numbers, remember, context is everything!

""The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again. "

And PETA has never "vandalize shelter worker's cars and threaten them for killing so many animals," that's just factually wrong..

[Poorsarah]

09:14 PM on 01/06/2010

PETA is going down...credibility lost.

[ohnoforgotmyusername]

08:43 PM on 01/06/2010

funny thing is - Michelle is a fur wearing woman!

Peta should do some research instead of just asuming that the Obamas are progressives on this issue.

(like maybe how 92% of the huffpost readership shoulda done back in 2008)

I worked for hillarys campaign and I tried to get the media to care about this when i found a story about how she had her MINK COAT stolen at a event for jesse jackson's PUSH. In two separate article that wrote about this theft - it said this MINK COAT was a gift from her husband.

Of course, the press didnt want to portray the Obamas as the kind of couple that would buy a MINK COAT - so NONE of them picked it up ....

but I found it ironic that all the serious veggies and animal lovers were backing obama -and slamming hillary when I know for a fact that Mrs Clinton has NEVER owned a fur and her own daughter is 100% vegan.

MINK COAT people - MINK COAT!

[mreaid]

09:15 PM on 01/06/2010

"PETA included the first lady in its Washington ad campaign based on White House confirmation that she does not wear fur."

That's in the story. Sounds like they did inquire before just putting her on there willy-nilly...

[ToniaB]

10:06 PM on 01/06/2010

The White House staff confirming that the FLOTUS does not wear fur, is not the same as the FLOTUS giving her consent to appear in an anti-fur ad on behalf of PETA!

[ohnoforgotmyusername]

01:42 PM on 01/07/2010

they said "does not" - that doesnt change the truth that the Obamas bought and she wore a mink coat before they ran for prez.

note the difference?

[Faithtoo]

02:00 PM on 01/07/2010

I would love to see Hillary and Michelle in fur. They are cold weather garments and they look great...on almost anyone.

This is still America and one should be able to wear what they desire. For those we do not like fur more power to them. Don't wear it! For those who like fur there should be no problem.

I haven't heard of any PETA advocate giving up leather goods (shoes, purses, belts etc.). Do they refuse to sit on leather couches or ride in cars with leather seats?

[ohnoforgotmyusername]

02:20 PM on 01/07/2010

personally i dont give much of a care to the idea of wearing dead animal skins - i wear leather etc...

but i do despise the wearing of the more expensive furs because they really are just status symbols -meant to show monetary superiority etc....

which of course is michelles way and why she also bought that mansion in chicago that theyu couldnt afford and so had to have a convicted briber and influence peddler put up 7000 Gs for it....

and the idea that this obvious symbol of what is really in this womans soul - was buried by the MSM...completely

shes a fraud, hes afraud and the media are their enablers.

[mreaid]

03:17 PM on 01/07/2010

"I haven't heard of any PETA advocate giving up leather goods (shoes, purses, belts etc.). Do they refuse to sit on leather couches or ride in cars with leather seats?"

...then you're not listening...

And as far as fur looking good? I think it looks just incredibly tacky, putting aside even the ethical issues.

And yes, it is America, and we should be able to do what we want, as long as it is not harming others. This certainly looks like it is harming others:

http://www.peta.org/feat/chineseFurFarms/index.asp

[S1m0n]

06:31 PM on 01/06/2010

She's a public figure. They can do what they like.

[tarowig]

08:04 PM on 01/06/2010

Wrong. Advertisers cannot and should not use anyone's image without their permission. Doesn't matter who you are or what you're flogging you need to be respectful of the rights of individuals involved. Public figures are especially sensitive to this as their reputation/career may hinge on how people perceive them.

[EmilyRose2010]

05:53 PM on 01/06/2010

this is BIG NEWS!

[gbrooks]

09:34 PM on 01/06/2010

Sarcasm?

[ToniaB]

10:08 PM on 01/06/2010

Grabbed your attention didn't it...?

[fromdnorth]

03:03 PM on 01/06/2010

From: The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit organization devoted to promoting personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices. I am not endorsing this group but I am quoting only...:

"Parents shouldn't be fooled into thinking that PETA is warm and fuzzy. It's a band of radicals intent on doing away with all meat, dairy, circuses, zoos, aquariums, wool, leather, hunting and fishing."

information, or to read CCF's comprehensive report "Your Kids, PETA's Pawns," visit www.ConsumerFreedom.com/PETAkids.

I would not want any animal to be abused or humiliated, but I would not abstain from using fur simply because it is fur... or meat because it is meat...

Qusetion: If a public figure has not had an abortion, does that entitle anti-abortion people from using their image? Or if one has had an abortion, does that allow a pro woman group to use her image to advocate for abortions?

[fromdnorth]

03:06 PM on 01/06/2010

Sorry: does that entitle anti-abortion people to use their image?

[Pema]

04:05 PM on 01/06/2010

oh so i get a group and a website and that makes me an authority to speak? pahleese. i never saw so many people blind to the suffering of animals. i am ill over some of these posts.

[fromdnorth]

06:26 PM on 01/06/2010

It is rude of you to suggest that those who resent the excesses of PETA is blind to the suffering of animals. I do not believe that animals should not be killed for food, clothes and other comforts including kept as pets. In some societies, it is a imperative to eat meat.

Our teeth and alimentary canal are made to eat a wide variety of foods. Some may chose not to eat certain foods but to suggest that those who do not represent some sort of moral turpitude is dishonest at best and more likely wrong.

Cruelty to animals and consuming them are mutually exclusive.

I invite those celebrities who would rather go naked than wear fur to do so and come to Labrador before the spring thaw...

[Jack78]

02:26 PM on 01/06/2010

She looks fabulous! I want that dress..........

[Denalidog]

01:57 PM on 01/06/2010

aren't images of public figures considered in the public domain? I think Mrs. Obama forfeited the rights to her own image when her husband ran for public office. The only person with the rights to that photo is the photographer who took it, or perhaps the publication he sold it to.

[RightWingMarine]

02:33 PM on 01/06/2010

my understanding in regards to a public figure is that while their image may be used it cannot be used in a way that a reasonable person would believe that that public figure was making an endorsement.
Larry Flynt did this years ago by photoshopping images of politicians into images of a sexual nature. A reasonable person wouldn't believe that these politicians gathered for this dalliance, therefore the use is permitted. With this image a reasonable person could believe that Mrs. Obama gave her consent.

[littlebrowngirl]

04:29 PM on 01/06/2010

These images are NOT in the public domain. You have to have some one's permission to use their image in an endorsement.

For example, if you told someone that you loved green vegetables, would you be pissed if you saw your picture on a can of Green Giant String beans?

The ad clearly is meant to give you the impression that M. Obama endorses PETA which is the problem with the advertising.

They should call themselves "PETA" = People for the erroneous treatment of advertising.

[Bubba Gump]

02:56 PM on 01/06/2010

"aren't images of public figures considered in the public domain?" Denalidog, that's precisely what I've always heard, as well. Has the law changed? I don't know, even after a quick internet search. But what disturbs me more is the Obama administration's mixed signals: their words "we stand for transparency" don't match their actions of upset over a respectful photograph of the First Lady in an elegant dress. Yes, she didn't officially endorse PETA because the First Lady can't. But PETA's statement was, "Fur-free and fabulous!" That's accurate and news worthy, therefore First Amendment protected.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1047

The White House needs to get a clue: public officials who tout "transparency" shouldn't get worked up over their photographs being used for a variety of reasons -- and this one was tasteful.

[Grannyover70]

03:52 PM on 01/06/2010

You got to be kidding me. That is what I call convoluted thinking. The problem is, there are too many people in this country that think if something is legal, it does not have to be ethical. It would only be etrhical to contact these people before they do this stuff, and why not, are they afraid they would say "no"? I seriously doubt it is legal, either.

[SpankedMeGood]

07:11 PM on 01/06/2010

How does having your photo used in advertising without your permission = transparency?

[DreamWeaver2nd]

01:35 PM on 01/06/2010

Is there a sponsor for all the PETA bashing here? It wouldn't be so obvious, if it were toned down.

[Libra24]

07:34 PM on 01/06/2010

They invite the bashing. I had nothing against them (except their own ads and protests are almost always highly offensive) until I found out that they also don't really serve their purpose. Some organizations deserve the criticism and this is one of them. There are much more reputable pet organizations out there.

[kareemachan]

10:57 AM on 01/07/2010

I have no problem with organizations that are looking out for the welfare of animals. PETA takes it too far, though. I remember when a mink farm was "liberated" in Oregon a number of years ago. And what did PETA do with said liberated animals? They let them go there. Now considering these were animals that had never lived in the wild, it was most likely a slow, cruel death for them. Also, to put that many predators in a small area would warp the ecosystem, causing pain and suffering for the other animals there. Brilliant, PETA.

And then they decided to rename fish "sea kittens". Oh snap.

[DreamWeaver2nd]

03:44 PM on 01/07/2010

"Freeing" poor, caged minks into the wild was stupid and cruel.
You lost me with "sea kittens" as your taking a step too far ... snap.

[DreamWeaver2nd]

04:18 PM on 01/07/2010

PETA does have a "sea kitten" campaign. Oh snap, you are correct. PETA has raised awareness in important areas. Their ideas are sometimes off the mark. But because we need education and awareness, I wish them well as an independent organization and hope their creative ideas don't turn into "stunts" that backfire...

[Grannyover70]

12:59 PM on 01/06/2010

The problem here is not whether PETA's goals are worthy or not. It is whether they have the right to use anyone in their ads without permission. They do not! It makes their whole project suspicious. If you are going to upfront, ethical, and honest, then you have to be that way all the time, not just when it suits your purpose. The end does not justify the means.

[DreamWeaver2nd]

01:34 PM on 01/06/2010

If PETA ran an ad showing a lot of "public" persons (a dozen or more) for whom it is public knowledge from their own bios that they do not wear fur, I think that's fair publicity. Without or without permission. Taking just several public persons and showcasing them as if its an endorsement is too narrow and smacks of being an infringement of those few for PETA's use. Bad publicity. But is "publicity" ever bad?

[hdohighdesertobserver]

02:50 PM on 01/06/2010

Her image in the ad implies her support for the position as well as her permission to use the image. No one is suing and it's questionable that a suit would even be heard.

It was, however, unethical if not illegal to create the ad at all. If the ads are not down in a reasonable time frame, the White House will send a firm but courteous letter asking that they be taken down. If the ads are not taken down, PETA will have lost whatever good will the ad might ever have generated.

[Faithtoo]

02:18 PM on 01/07/2010

Ask Tiger Woods if "publicity" is ever bad.

Legal or not using someone's image without their permission as an endorsement for something they agree with or not is still wrong.

I used to be a smoker but I would never had wanted my image associated with an ad promoting cigarette smoking.

[Reito Hikari]

11:42 AM on 01/06/2010

PETA are the real animal k illers. They have a 95% k ill rate on adoptable animals!

[Pema]

12:27 PM on 01/06/2010

whats your source? that is a horrible thing to say so whats your source. or no cred

[Libra24]

12:37 PM on 01/06/2010

Unfortunately it's true. It's cited multiple places, but the one I found was at Consumerfreedom.com (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/r/224-consumer-group-asks-virginia-government-to-reclassify-peta-as-a-slaughterhouse)

[Reito Hikari]

12:37 PM on 01/06/2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/5106600/Peta-under-fire-over-claim-that-it-kills-most-animals-left-at-its-US-headquarters.html

[Libra24]

12:35 PM on 01/06/2010

When I found that out...I was floored. They should really just dissolve as an organization because they are utterly useless and only make f ools of themselves with very protest. At this point PETA doesn't know the meaning of good publicity.

[mreaid]

07:17 PM on 01/06/2010

And you base all this on a superficial glance at some random protest without finding out what actually goes on behind the scenes...the less "glamorous" aspect of peta?

"Since 2001, PETA's low- to no-cost spay-and-neuter mobile clinics, SNIP and ABC, have sterilized more than 50,000 animals, preventing hundreds of thousands of animals from being born, neglected, abandoned, abused, or euthanized when no one wanted them."

"The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again. "