New technology has made its way into campaign ads. A group that wants to “counter-balance” Meg Whitmans’ financial advantage in the California Governor race has come out with an advertisement using a computer-generated avatar for Meg named “Meg-a-tar.” Meg is the former CEO of Ebay. Although the avatar is not flattering and speaks poorly about Meg Whitman, I’m not sure if it will hurt her campaign or bring about more interest in her campaign among younger voters. On the other hand, this creation may breach Meg’s right of publicity. Every person has the right to control the use of his or her own likeness, especially for commercial purposes. These cases usually arise in product endorsement situations, but one could make the argument that only Meg Whitman has the right to create and publish a Meg-a-tar to endorse her own candidacy and that it is actually a breach of this right to use a Meg-a-tar without her consent. I don’t think I would want a Kim-a-tar out there espousing rhetoric that I did not approve. Let me know if you’ve seen the clip, and if so, how do you think Meg should respond?
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
In the eyes of the law 
During elections politicians always seem to pinpoint really small facts about each other and twist those ideas in order to prevent people from voting for that person. These TV ads are annoying and a waste of money. Rather than trying to knock off the other person from their saddle, politicians should simply present their side on why they are the best person for the job. These types of ads simply create a horn effect as well as leaves citizens puzzled.
I have seen the clip and it most definately exaggerates things about Meg Whitman. Its almost as if it were a parody of her. Meg Whitman could probably look into the elements of defamation if she feels affected by this ad but the Meg-a-tar is not her property nor infringement.
Maybe she could claim that the avatar looks too much like her and that she was copied…lol.
For those who haven’t seen it, the ad mentioned above can be seen here.
(http://www.youtube.com/watchv=Q28mq9W3bKE&feature=player_embedded)
I found the advert effective. Not having a previous opinion about Meg Whitman, I now think she is grotesque, wasteful, and careless. This was a well produced piece of political propaganda.
Because Meg Whitman is running for office, she is now a public figure, and subjects her self to the possibility to receive a lot of praise and criticisms for her political actions and beliefs.
In addition to criticisms Meg Whitman should expect to see some parodies of her actions/statements to influence others to siding against her political campaign.
I don’t think there is much she can do about the advert.
She needs to respond with a counter advertisement that shows that she is strong, thoughtful, and resourceful. Damage control is key. She needs to appear positive and strong in the public image. The sooner she retaliates with a counter-ad the better.
I completely agree with Bryan, and as a public figure running for office, you would think that there would be an immediate damage control action taking place. I don’t feel like she should do anything but ignore the avatar, and keep moving on through the running for office. She should re-establish herself as a candidate and enforce her true qualities. She should definitely not target any of the other candidates in the running, because in my eyes, that advertisement with the avatar would be justified.
As with the first comment, i’m sure in the future there will be some law to copying people and using them in advertisements!
I have mixed opinions on this article. I feel like Meg should have the rights to her image and how it is used, but I also believe in freedom of speech. “Meg-a-tar” is considered libel, then Meg should have the right to sue the creators for damage of her good name. However, if Meg-a-tar is just insulting, then Meg should have no rights to it.