Also a heavy iStockphoto user. Doubt there’s really a case to be had cuz all NOM needs is a quick disclaimer. They could hurriedly write it on the side of the bus if they needed to. If the photographers themselves (iStockphoto is just a distributor/wrangler) have issues with it, they can follow up and apply cease ‘n’ desist all they want. And that I seriously doubt they can enforce it unless they had expressly written permissions on their page.

So I have to agree that it’s not necessary to point it out.

At the Prop. 8 trial, one of the witnesses in it’s defense, has represented himself as an expert on families and the affect of gay parenting on children.
In reality, most of the defenders of marriage bans have no peer reviewed work or legitimate medical and psychiatric bodies that agree with them.
And Prop. 8′s witness had only ONE article published and that was on cabinetry.

I don’t really care what kinds of PHYSICAL models NOM uses to try and portray families as healthy and good looking.
Gay folks have done the same thing even for HIV medication ads.

No, it’s when they misrepresent their experts and their claims that requires exposure and the political support of either that’s worthy of exposure.

Grouping those two things together make a convincing argument.

A child is used to illustrate BTB’s publication “Are Gays a Threat to Children?”. Would I be reasonable in concluding that the child in the picture endorses BTB? That he supports BTB’s political and religious aims? If I found out that it was a posed picture, and the child was a paid model, or that the photo was taken in some context that had nothing to do with BTB or the subject of the publication, would I be justified in complaining? Of course not. It’s just there as an illustration.

Do we really need to get our knickers in a twist over this kind of thing? NOM has enough to answer for without our needing to nitpick at non-issues.

If merely using an image to illustrate a concept (in this case the “traditional family”) implies the models endorse the message of the group, I can’t really think of *any* way such photos could be used in an ad (even for a business or apoltiical organization) without inviting the same charge.

The legal agreement reads in part that you cannot display licensed photos (Content):

“that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour;”