Coat maker Weatherproof broke a long-standing taboo against using a president's image for commercial purposes by putting a larger-than-life AP photo of President Obama wearing one of its jackets onto a Times Square billboard. The unauthorized sign appeared just hours after the PETA anti-fur ad featuring First Lady Michelle Obama, also without White House permission. The Obama administration asked Weatherproof to take down the billboard, calling it an implicit endorsement, but stunt-prone Weatherproof president Freddie Stollmack said it was "just a great looking jacket on a great looking president." Is Obama's image fair game, or did the company step over the line? (See the Obama billboard.)
 
The Obama billboard is unacceptable: Weatherproof made a "terrible" choice, says Greta Van Susteren at Fox News. "This is not a Democrat or Republican issue"—it's an American one. You can't just "steal the president's likeness." Obama, like all his predecessors, "is the president, not a prop."
"This is terrible"
 
This is the price of being iconic: Lighten up, says Jennifer Harper in The Washington Times. At least the president looks, "well, presidential" on the billboard. And Michelle Obama, "dressed in a svelte black dress and pearls," is surrounded by Oprah and other glamourous celebrities. This just shows "there is a price to pay when one is a global style icon."
"Fur flies for using Obamas in ads"
 
Obama should ignore this exploitation: The administration would win if it sued Weatherproof, said intellectual property lawyer Kevin M. Greenberg, to The New York Times. But any good lawyer would tell Obama this isn't a battle worth fighting. The "very long" trial "would in fact be rewarding" Weatherproof with valuable publicity, instead of punishing the company for "stealing" the president's image.