Fur-Free? Yes. Fabulous? The White House Says, No. PETA Using FLOTUS Image Without Permission
EmailFrom Sunlen Miller:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is using first lady Michelle Obama’s image in a new ad campaign, dubbed “fur-free and fabulous” without the White House’s permission. The first lady’s office says that they did not give PETA consent to use Michelle Obama’s image in their ad campaign, which this week popped up on buses and metro stations across Washington, D.C. The ads feature Obama’s official White House portrait, as well as photos of Oprah Winfrey, Carrie Underwood, and Tyra Banks under the words “fur-free and fabulous.” The first lady’s office has contacted PETA and informed them that they did not have their consent to use the first lady’s image in the campaign. PETA will not be pulling the ads, though. “We haven't asked the White House to fund or promote the campaign, as they can’t do such things, but the fact is that Michelle Obama has issued a statement indicating that she doesn't wear fur, and the world should know that in PETA's eyes, that makes her pretty fabulous,” Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s President said in a statement issued to ABC News. White House deputy press secretary for the first lady, Semonti Stephens, says that indeed, “Mrs. Obama does not wear fur,” but that the issue is over permission of Mrs. Obama’s image.This isn’t the first run-in between the White House and PETA. In June, Mr. Obama’s rather public killing of a fly during a TV interview, led PETA to issue a statement pleading for the president to show compassion for even the smallest animals.And this also isn’t the first time a member of the Obama family has been used in an ad campaign without the White House’s permissionIn August, the White House’s lawyers contacted the nonprofit Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and asked them to take down posters that mentioned the Obama daughters in their healthy school campaign ads.– Sunlen Miller
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Why is the White House so opposed to PETA? The fur-free thing is hardly a controversial issue…
Posted by: matt | January 5, 2010, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
The President and his family are not commercial figures, regardless of the ‘worthiness’ of the cause. If Obama wants to make the political move of endorsing PETA personally (and take the political heat), fine, just like Bush was free to make the political move of endorsing Operation Rescue personally if he wished. But such moves are indeed political statements and therefore MUST be approved by those they are being attributed to. And leave the kids out of it (just as Bush’s and Clinton’s kids were left mostly alone by the reputable press and FoxNews).
Posted by: jhw539 | January 5, 2010, 9:10 pm 9:10 pm
PETA will do ANYTHING for publicity. The WH is right– PETA is wrong and should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted by: moderate | January 5, 2010, 9:10 pm 9:10 pm
I disagree on one point jhw…the obama’s have made themselves commercial figures by gracing the covers of dozens of magazines over the last three or so years. i’m not sure that this is a legal point (not sure what if any $ they receive/d, but the fact is they are the biggest commercial figures in the world (with Tiger a close third). So maybe not a legal issue, but certainly a cultural one. It seems to me that by working the press, especially this first year in office, they have enjoyed much control over their images.
I see why they are irked that Peta is using Michelle’s photo (it would irk me too), but I must say this issue shows the tight-rope they walk: be a commercial figure whey they want, but not when they don’t want. That works legally, but culturally not so much. Because they have been so exposed these last years, they are iconic. People feel that they can own a piece of an icon. It may not be right, but it’s reality. They have to live with what they created: rock star images.
Posted by: kelli | January 5, 2010, 9:56 pm 9:56 pm
I disagree on one point jhw…the obama’s have made themselves commercial figures by gracing the covers of dozens of magazines over the last three or so years.
kelli | Jan 5, 2010 9:56:57 PM
Every president in the modern age has been on dozens of magazine covers. John McCain (thanks to his longevity in politics) has probably been on more magazine covers, and both Obama and McCain have authored books with high sales. That doesn’t make them commercial figures, they don’t sell commercial endorsements.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 5, 2010, 10:00 pm 10:00 pm
Ultimately, this is political adversiting and Michelle is a political figure, as much as Hillary was when Bill was president. I think it’s fair.
Also, they want to be rock stars and icons, well, rock stars and icons have their image lifted, and mocked, all the time. Comes with the territory. Sorry you can’t always control the message, that comes with the territory too.
Posted by: Jordan | January 5, 2010, 11:26 pm 11:26 pm
Gee, no fur, how sensitive to our animal friends. It’s too bad that the same can’t be said for the Obama’s sensitivity to the innocent human babies that he aggressively sought to slaughter in the cruelest of manners, to appease the infanticide and abortion gods. A woman’s “intent” lasts after the baby is completely born, free at last from her precious anti-mother’s body, says Obama, though he never told us just how many years his Harvard trained law talk would subject someone to their “mother’s intent” to abort. Why? No one saw it immportant enough to ask him out loud. And we worry about fur, while we replicate the road to Nazi Germany in our treament of human life.
Posted by: Don L | January 6, 2010, 6:03 am 6:03 am
The ad makes it appear that Michelle Obama is supporting PETA. Both Michelle & Barack Obama are meat eaters. In fact, Michelle claimed they had a cake made of veal for their dog, Bo, when he first arrived to their home. It seems a little hypocritical for her to be supporting PETA under the circumstances so her position on this issue is understandable. PETA is wrong to misrepresent the first lady this way.
Posted by: kbbaby | January 6, 2010, 9:02 am 9:02 am
I’m not a fan of Mr, Obama but this is ridiculous.I thought that there were laws against using people’s images without their consent for endorsement purposes.PETA should realize that false advertising hurts their position and they should pull the ad.
Posted by: Nephron | January 6, 2010, 9:36 am 9:36 am
jhw…
he was on half of time magazine’s covers in ’09. she is on the food network. she is on the cover of vogue. all of them are on the cover of people, several times.
they are living–and dying, so to speak–by the media enterprise they helped created. that’s a fact.
say what you will about “all presidents” but this one got elected with massive media blitzing assistance and now he has to swim in that wake.
if you don’t believe this, notice that PETA is not backing down and there is nothing the white house can do about it. it’s ironic, really. obama can strong arm just about everyone, but PETA: not so much. it’s because he has no leverage. he and his family became media icons and now they must live with that reality.
H.I.L.A.R.I.O.U.S
Posted by: kelli | January 6, 2010, 10:55 am 10:55 am
If this is another one of those slams against Mrs Obama for looking like some kind of animal I am appalled .
Posted by: nat turner | January 6, 2010, 1:45 pm 1:45 pm
=============================
PETA proves time and time again that the last word any should associate with PETA is ETHICAL
=============================
PETA is a bunch of perverts (with their pornographic advertising) and thugs.
Posted by: N Waff | January 6, 2010, 2:08 pm 2:08 pm
Funny Oprah is wearing a leather skirt.
Ha, Ha…….
Posted by: Mark | January 6, 2010, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm
Mark….Your right..Hahahaaah : )
Posted by: betty | January 6, 2010, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm
I am always reading posters say “Peta will do anything for publicity” as if this is a negative thing. Peta does publicity stunts only to bring attention
to the horrible suffering of animals.
Peta does publicity stunts not for any personal gain but to bring attention to the suffering of others.
Posted by: elia | January 7, 2010, 3:06 am 3:06 am