It's Not About Who Took The Bloody Picture

It doesn't matter who took the photograph. For the moment, we can even ignore the question of who paid for it. It doesn't matter if it was donated, or to whom that donation was made. The big deal here, and I don't know how many times we will have to say this until the issue becomes clear in everybody's heads, is that the same image has been used as the visual centerpiece of both any number of official city programs and, as of this moment, of a prominent election campaign. Even a grade-school politician running for class president knows that this behavior is wrong, wrong, wrong. And there is simply no way on earth for anyone to argue otherwise with even a scintilla of legitimacy.

Yesterday, WTAE reporter and fellow blogger Bob Mayo broadcast a piece which detailed much of the recent firestorm concern the use of the same photographs in both official city documents (most commonly web pages) and in the election campaign of Interim Mayor Luke "Flip Flop" Ravenstahl (most prominently on its own website). Mr. Mayo's story correctly notes that many of the photographs which appear on the city's website have now been removed from the interim mayor's campaign site. He also notes, however, that the most obvious image continues to be used in both locations (and in locations throughout our great city):

The biggest buzz is about this hands-on-the-hips photo that remains on the city's and the campaign's sites, as well as city Redd-Up fliers and billboards.

"Those were private photos that were generated and given to me personally from a photographer in the South Side," said Ravenstahl. "So that was a file that was given to me. The city never paid anything for those photos, so that's my personal photo." [snip...]

The professional photographer who took that hands-on-the-hips photo of the mayor confirmed that he gave the mayor the photo for free.

It's from a photo session that would normally cost $1,500.

Ravenstahl [himself] provided that photo to both the city and the campaign.

Fine. Let's take the interim mayor for his word. The city didn't pay for that photograph to be taken. Some photographer generously donated the $1,500 sitting fee and took the photograph at no charge to anyone, including the city, Master Ravenstahl, or the interim mayor's election campaign. The photograph was given to the interim mayor personally, and was -- at least at that point -- the mayor's personal property. I accept that all of that is completely factual.

At this point, however, the mayor handed the photograph over to the City of Pittsburgh. And it got a bit of use. It wasn't just buried in the explosion of smiling pictures that constitute the mayor's portion of the city's official website. Instead, it became the iconic image that has been used countless times, on billboards, on official mailings, and as the visual anchor to the entire "Redd Up" program. In other words, at that moment, it became the property of the city and it's taxpayers. It wasn't Luke Ravenstahl's picture any longer. If it showed up on my garbage collection calendar, which is an official city document, then it belongs to me and every last one of my neighbors.

And so now this same image is being used by the Ravenstahl campaign. And once again, it's not just being used in an ancillary sort of way. Just as it has been used on the "Redd Up" billboards, just as it has been used on three different refuse and recycling mailings, and just as it is continues to be used on the city's official website, the Ravenstahl campaign is using this very same photograh as its visual centerpiece. Once again, it is being employed as the central visual icon that defines every last page on the campaign website, and (for all I know) in other campaign publications.

If the campaign really wants to use this image, that's fine. But if the campaign wishes to define themselves with this photograph -- if they continue to use this "hand on hips" picture as the central visual anchor which defines their candidate's political aspirations -- then all of the following inescapable conclusions must necessarily follow:

• The $1,500 sitting fee donated by the photographer must be declared on the campaign's financial disclosure forms as a campaign donation. Since this picture has been in circulation for months, this donation should have already been reported in earlier financial disclosure filings.



• Every billboard donated to the City of Pittsburgh for the "Redd Up" program must similarly be declared to be a campaign contribution. Again, since these billboards have been up for some time now, these declarations should have already been included in earlier filings.



• The "garbage collection day may change" notice mailed to homes throughout the city in December 2006, which carried the campaign's central defining "hands on hips" image, officially becomes -- as many of us suspected all along -- a piece of campaign literature.



• The recycling newsletter mailed to homes throughout the city in January 2007, which carried this same image, must also be recognized as a campaign mailing.



• Every last copy of the a city refuse collection calendar, which also featured (you guessed it!) this exact same photograph, is therefore also a piece of campaign literature. So is any city document which featured this image. If you don't believe me, imagine how up in arms many of us would be if every Federal tax form prominently featured the red-white-and blue elephant symbol of the Republican Party. The use of the Ravenstahl campaign photograph on official city mailings is exactly the same kind of thing.



• The city must be reimbursed for its costs in printing, distributing, and mailing all of these pieces of campaign literature. There must be more than half a million official city mailings that, having used the campaign's central iconic image, must now be paid for out of the campaign's coffers.

If this photograph is the personal property of Luke Ravenstahl, that's fine. If he wants to use his own personally-owned photograph in his personal political campaign, that's fine, too. But if he wants me to pay for printing up his campaign photograph hundreds of thousands of times, mailing it throughout the city, and slapping it up on official city billboards, then I have a real problem with that.

And I'm betting that the State Ethics Board will, too.