This stuff about controlling the Obama Family's image is just weird

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

It is unfortunate that children of politicians are public figures, but they are.

We are allowed to comment in any way we like on people who are on magazine covers and TV. And we are free to profit by it.

Andy Warhol never cut Marilyn or Jackie or Chairman Mao a check. If you took pictures at the inauguration you are free to make them into posters and sell them.

This is a classic case of people thinking that if something sucks there must be a law against it. No free society can operate on that basis. 99.9% of things that suck are, and must be, legal.

Laws regarding control of an image are financial. If you make a Cameron Diaz doll and she sues you the suit is based on your dilution of her ability to make MONEY from pimping her own image. Her self-hood, her brand, is an asset... a financial asset.

It has nothing to do with whether the doll is flattering, invades her privacy, etc. She has no intrinsic right to not be depicted in doll form. It is only about $$$

So if the Obama family wants to argue that all these kitsch products are diluting their profits or potential profits from exploiting their own children for profit then there's an argument to be made. But that's obviously not the case.

[AllentownJake]

1. It's disgusting

there should be an exemption and a stricter law for children.

There isn't. If the kids were Miley Cyrus or the Jonas brothers...they could sue...how ironic is that.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Government property and things related to the govt. are not protected like other things. nt

[jenmito]

3. I LOVED the idea of making Sasha and Malia into dolls. They send a message to

kids of ALL colors that these girls-these BLACK girls-are beautiful. You remember the study where kids were asked to choose which doll they preferred or thought was prettier, and even the black kids picked the white doll? This can change all of that.

[mtnsnake]

6. I don't think we need dolls of the Obama girls to send that kind of message

to "kids of ALL colors that these girls-these BLACK girls-are beautiful."

What we need is more education and stressing the importance of placing the burden of responsibility on the parents for them to educate their kids that children of all colors are beautiful.

[NOLALady]

7. Ya think?

I thought the black kids picked the white dolls because the black kids had low self esteem.

Dr Kenneth Clark concluded that "prejudice, discrimination, and segregation" caused black children to develop a sense of inferiority and self-hatred. Positive characteristics were attributed to the dolls who represented those in power.

I don't think the choice of the white dolls had anything to do with "beauty".

[FrenchieCat]

4. Is it truly "Weird" not wanting others to make a buck exploiting

the likeness of one's young children, no matter who you are? Did these children choose to be in the limelight? Are their parents going out of their way to shove them out there to benefit themselves? If so, I think I would have seen those little girls walking down Penn and Constitution Avenue.....which I didn't.

I consider the danger to this society being the profit being made by those doing exactly that.

To me, your conclusion in your headline is what is weird....as though you believe that writing "control the image" makes what the Obamas are doing nefarious.....as opposed to you concentrating on the intent of the company doing the unapproved exploitation for profit.

If Cameron Diaz had a 10 or a 7 year old daughter that was being made into a doll, would it be "weird" if Ms. Diaz objected?

I expect better from you.

[BlooInBloo]

5. mmmm.... Cameron Diaz doll.....

I'll be right back.

[WinkyDink]

9. Don't forget the anti-acne medicine! :)

[WinkyDink]

8. The image of MLK, Jr., is copyrighted. I know. Zazzle.com rejected a magnet image for that reason.