The photo is one of several I took of Murtha in profile at a town hall in Virginia in 2006, listening to the public talk about the Iraq war and the Bush Administration. The scene was a packed room, full of people with 9/11 memorial t-shirts, American flags, comprising of local constituents that included veterans and Defense Department employees. There were peace activist veterans and veteran peace activists alike. Murtha’s scrunched facial expression as depicted in my photo is one of concentration and attentiveness (something you might derive from seeing the whole set and knowing about the event). In the ad it is reduced to a context-less scowl coupled with something else entirely.

I share many photos on Flickr under Creative Commons licenses and this photo is one of those. The Creative Commons is a way of using copyright to share material while retaining rights as one sees fit. It is a philosophy for using copyright constructively.

The license I chose was the “Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic” license, and the conditions are boiled down to the following points:

• Provide attribution
• No commercial use
• No derivative works
• And, of course, make clear the terms under which the CC-licensed work being used is available to others as well.

It seems obvious to me that the Russell campaign’s production people didn’t give proper attribution in the video or elsewhere, nor did they make the terms of the license clear in redistributing my work. They’ve manipulated the background of the photo further taking it out of context, which I believe constitutes a derivative work, and while this isn’t commercial speech, they did use the ad as fodder for fundraising. Depending on how the ad was created and the relationship between the producers and the campaign, I kind of wonder if the “commercial use” restriction wasn’t still violated (but that is speculation).

I don’t like the implication that I gave the Russell campaign permission beyond the limitations of the license I gave to the public. I’m trying, whenever I feel it appropriate, to share my photos with the commons to support the kind of substantive media and dialogue I believe in (even if I disagree with a given argument) and I am trying to be able to do more media making. Inappropriate use of my work undermines this.

This morning I woke to see, upon closer inspection of the web site, that my image is being used in other promotional content on the campaign site and in another spot, “The King of Pork” ad.

I didn’t react publicly right away last night because I reached out to friends who know lawyers and to Public Knowledge for advice first. I got the beginnings of advice this morning. I’ve written Russell’s campaign to ask them to stop using my work beyond the bounds of the Creative Commons license and I’m interested in finding out what more I can do.

I feel like I should say I am also all for fair use (an implied right that long precedes the Creative Commons) but I don’t think this fits. Others have agreed.

I don’t know yet if they’ve run these ads on TV, but they appear to want to and they have gotten a sizable enough views on YouTube for a congressional race.

I would hope that when Creative Commons works are used properly in any kind of speech the public would understand such use is not the same as endorsement by the original creator. By not following the rules of the Creative Commons license, Russell’s ad leaves people to reasonably conclude an endorsement by me if they happen to recognize the photo or find it elsewhere, properly attributed. Ben’s message to me last night was an example of such an inference – that I had somehow collaborated with this campaign – being drawn by a complete stranger.

I could imagine Creative Commons-supplied works figuring into constructive mainstream political volleys some day. Where dynamic and well-attributed and linked remixed works themselves could be maps to the nuance and reality of the political scene, via which deceit and inaccuracies could be routed out by tracing the component parts of these works.

This misuse is an example of diminishing the productive uses of copyright, of the commons and I find this a threat to democracy (however important this small example is or is not). The consequences of stomping across the commons could become quite significant if people become afraid to share their work, particularly if like much of mine it is documentary in nature, because they’re afraid it will be unattributed, taken out of context, or worse.

By documenting this publicly, I’m not implicitly defending the comments by Murtha that the first ad is ostensibly criticizing. I personally have fundamental disagreements with Murtha’s hawkishness, nevermind the pork end of his role in defense spending. To be frank, I doubt I agree with much of Murtha’s or Russell’s stated positions or their track records overall.

Inskeep at one point does mention that “we’ve had our share of critics” (ah, yes, “one’s share” again — meeting some minimum obligation to defer to the minority view that doesn’t fit conveniently in the two sided volley that they’d prefer, I guess) in questioning the Republican guest who voted against the bill.

But the critiques Inskeep has apparently been informed of (I am most familiar with those of Dean Baker, not sure if he was a guest) do not seem to inform the questions. Shouldn’t they? Shouldn’t Inskeep ditch the verbage that defers to Capitol Hill back rooms and actively try to reconsile all the assertions, including those beyond the default false dichotomy?

If there is a bias, shouldn’t it be towards those who don’t have a vested interest in the power structure and who have a track record of getting things right? Shouldn’t there be less deference for those who have been repeatedly wrong or massively inconsistent without rationale?

Instead Inskeep sounds like he is play-acting sounding puzzled that the two party machines could not keep the game playing the way the normally do and making little effort to go much further. Backroom tactics can be news but they should either be equal or second to routing out the facts of the issue, reconsiling the assertions about the public policy and the problems.

That most Americans opposed the bailout seems to be a footnote: often mentioned as an aside, never explained in as many words are given to all the tactical explanations.

Much emphasis has also been given to Wall Street’s reaction to the vote — but what do we expect? It is the trader’s own industry that is affected, whatever the real meaning for the rest of us is. I know so many have their futures tied-up in mortgages and investments, and this is real for a lot of regular Americans, but it seems like the casino of Wall Street is prone to manic behavior. Perhaps Wall Street isn’t unlike a three year old who just ate all the cake, is sick, wants more cake still, and is throwing a tantrum of impatience because typically capitulating parents can’t come to any other agreement as to how to handle the infantile beast.

A rough metaphor perhaps. But what I mean to say is that Wall Street is not a purely rational actor in this case (if it ever is), as it is not remotely observing other parts of the system and then making projections based on it. Its own profits, treasure, is at stake, and whether or not things could work without a bailout of this sort, the analysts and traders seem to have an incentive for the market to behave “badly” at worst and little perspective to be level-headed at best. The stock market cannot be relied upon — again — this is problematic for a lot of people who are tied up in it as other guaranteed benefits have been stripped away (by bought lawmakers and Wall Street lobbyists). If help should get to anyone, perhaps to them.

But let the traders thrash about a bit more. For all those who need real help, let us consider other ways for the State to spend $700 billion, so long as it can be done and we still have this state around to cajole into helping the people it allegedly exists to serve.