TikTok Creator Blasts Oprah for Including Her in Harris Ad
LOL: “To my Americans, let me make something perfectly clear. M’kay? I do not support Harris for president. M’kay? I want to be unburdened by who has been in the White House the last three-and-a-half years. M’kay.”
You know, maybe these arrogant celebrities should check a person’s background before they include the person in anything.
Oprah Winfrey included a TikTok video from Blaire Allison, who said, “I don’t know how people are affording life right now.”
The clip was only four seconds long, but people noticed.
The thing is, Allison does not support VP Kamala Harris.
“I had no clue that clip would be shared while she interviewed Kamala Harris. I have made it very clear I do not support Kamala Harris, at all,” Allison said in her video. “I wish there were rules in place where national television shows must be granted permission before using a creator’s content. At the least, they should notify the creator before airing it on National TV.”
Fvcking EPIC 🤣🤣🤣
The woman featured during an Oprah Winfrey town hall endorsing Kamala DROPPED a new video to announce who she supports for the next president. pic.twitter.com/bmhOh8KwMV
— I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸 (@ImMeme0) September 21, 2024
Right? I wonder if anyone else in the ad support Harris. Maybe they don’t support either one? That is possible!
Allison mocks Harris’s infamous word salads in her epic response (emphasis mine):
“So I got my four seconds of fame on the Oprah Winfrey show and of all people to be her guest, let me show you who it was,” said the woman in the video, Blaire Allison, before sharing a clip that evidently featured her saying, “I don’t understand how people are affording life right now.”
Foregoing the mental gymnastics required to dismiss Harris’ culpability for the current state of economic duress felt by millions of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, the featured social media user turned to impersonating the vice president’s speech patterns as she explained, “To my Americans, let me make something perfectly clear. M’kay? I do not support Harris for president. M’kay.?”
“I want to be unburdened by who has been in the White House the last three-and-a-half years. M’kay,” she added.
“As I stand here today, on this stage, standing on this stage today, the day after yesterday, I just want you to know, m’kay, how I stand. And how I stand today is that I do not support Harris for president, m’kay? M’kay,” the impersonator went on before pretending the cameras had stopped filming while further mocking the heavily scripted campaign by suggesting the questions had been given to her days in advance.
Social media users reveled in the opportunity to counter the astroturf support that had included the likes of Ben Stiller, Chris Rock and Meryl Streep calling in at the beginning of the event as Allison added a statement on her TikTok account that explained, “Many have asked if the Oprah Winfrey show asked for my permission to post my TikTok. No, they didn’t.”
Awful. Let’s help Blaire go viral for the right reason.
Again, make sure the people you include in your ad actually support you. This is hilarious. I’m tempted to ask the others in the ad if they support Harris or thoughts about Oprah using their video.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“ I want to be unburdened by who has been in the White House the last three-and-a-half years. M’kay?”
Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark. You have my word as a Biden* on that.
*Is that the most ridiculous, vacuous and ironic boast ever? I wouldn’t believe FJB if he told me the sky was blue.
Does she get revenue for clicks?
TikTok, like Instagram, pays almost nothing. If you have a TikTok that goes viral and generates 10M views, maybe you get $100. But, that presupposes that you’re eligible for their creator fund and you’ve gone through the steps to join that program. The real benefit to these huge TikTok creators is getting sent things to wear/show in your TikToks or through other kind of partner advertising programs negotiated outside of the TikTok agreement.
Not only that, there were duplicates in the Zoom audience,
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2024/09/22/kamala-oprah-zoom-event-n2179629
LOL.
They had more duplicates on the Zoom screen than people actually watching the “interview”.
This had to be Oprah’s smallest broadcast audience ever for anything she’s ever done.
Hey Allison, “you didn’t make that!”
To each according to their need, M’kay? And I needed it!
Who the hell would assume that someone who said that would support Biden/Harris/Obama (BHO)???
No one assumed that. There is no implication that either of the two commentators excerpted in that clip support Harris. Quite the contrary. From the fact that Winfrey confronted Harris with those two excerpts, and with what they imply about public sentiment, it seems obvious that they do not support her.
There you go again….. presuming logic was somehow at play. This was absolutely an emotional play. The producers – and the audience- do not associate Kamala nor even the actions of the government with the economic situation. They just know that things are BAD and thar Oprah is presenting them with a very nice woman who will make things better, somehow.
To oversimplify just a bit – when Mom kisses your boo-boos after dad smacked you after a fall, you know it will make you feel better, and you don’t analyze the physics of how exactly that is supped to work.
When they show people saying something that is bad for Harris, it’s obvious that those people don’t support Harris. Where do you people get this bizarre idea that they were pretending these people were Harris supporters? I think it’s because you are still thinking this was something like a 2-minute ad, where you don’t generally show negative things. But it wasn’t. It was an interview, a very friendly one, very softball, but they did confront her very gently with criticism, in order to give her an opportunity to address it.
>>“I wish there were rules in place where national television shows must be granted permission before using a creator’s content,”<<
There is a rule (law) in place, it's called copyright, The content creator holds the copyright to the material they create and it simply cannot be ripped from the internet/service and used for other purposes without the permission of the creator/author. Even if it's a "derivative" of the original content. Period.
I don't know the TOS for TikTok and I'm not really up to finding out what it is but I assume that the TikTok content creators retain copyright on their material while granting TikTok a no-cost perpetual license to show the content At least that's the way it usually goes with these kinds of things. And if so, then Oprah violated copyright law when she used the material without permission of the content creator. Allison should send Oprah Inc. an invoice for their use of her material for some obnoxious large amount informing them they used her material and image without permission and now owe her a monetary licensing fee for the use of the material. And when they just laugh it off she should sue Oprah Inc. in court.
Winfrey’s very expensive lawyers will argue that it was fair use until the plaintiff is bankrupt.
So it’s “fair use” to take copyright content off the internet, edit that content to create a derivative work from that content, and then broadcast that derivative work across the public airwaves and cable systems all without all without having to gain permission from the original copyright owners because, “FAIR USE!”?
Yes, that is a textbook example of fair use. A short clip of the entire video is shown in order to demonstrate how typical voters are feeling.
No, there was no copyright violation. It’s fair use. And no, you don’t need expensive lawyers to argue that; it’s completely obvious. It’s pretty much the textbook example. The blogger would need expensive lawyers to argue that it isn’t fair use — and they would fail, because it so obviously is.
I think the blogger’s creative response will go further than any court case, and cost a lot less.
Please explain to use poor stupid people exactly how it is “completely obvious” that this is “fair use” under copyright law. Because it ain’t obvious to me. How you can take (steal?) copyright content off the internet or a particular service (ie. TikTok), edit and alter said content with other material to create a derivative work, and then broadcast said derivative work across the public airwaves and on cable systems without apparent attribution to, or acknowledgement of, the original content creator(s) and copyright holder. Please explain how that’s actually “fair use” of the material in question. Because again, doesn’t seem to be fair use to me. Just theft and use of someone else’s copyright content.
And as an aside, I’m more than sure that if Oprah Inc. had used copyright material from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, FOX or any other major news outlet they would at least have gone through the pro forma motions to obtain permission to use their content. So why didn’t they do so here.
It’s not simple. It’s really complicated and it’s difficult to find consensus between copyright and 1A advocates. But, setting aside the fair use issues, there are also potential pitfalls in Lanham Act violations, specifically Section 43 which prohibits the copyrighted material’s use when it ‘is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person’.” This is usually the statutory and case law that news organizations cite when getting campaigns to remove their logos/anchors from campaign commercials.
No, that is not copyright law at all, it’s trademark law, which is a very different kind of creature. Likelihood of confusion plays no part at all in copyright law; it is everything in trademark law.
First of all, they did not alter the original video at all. They simply extracted a short clip from it.
And if it’s not completely obvious to you that it’s fair use, then you have no idea what fair use means. They used her video to make their point, and they used no more than was necessary to make that point. There couldn’t be a fairer use than that.
M’Kay!
She didn’t do that. This wasn’t an ad, it was an interview. And going on the tiny clip shown in the embedded response, it looks like Winfrey used those two excerpts as examples of what typical voters are thinking, and she confronted Harris with them, to ask how she would respond to those people. So there was never any implication that the two people in the excerpts support Harris.
“This wasn’t an ad, it was an interview.”
So precious.
I don’t want to be the one to tell Milhouse about Santa Claus, or why GMail is free.
There is a difference between an ad and an interview. They may both serve the same purpose, but they are not the same thing. The two excerpts seem to have been shown to challenge Harris, not to support her. Which makes all the difference in the world,.
Mistaking it for an ad is exactly why both Ms Chastain and multiple commenters, and the video creator herself, came up with the strange idea that there was some kind of implication that she supports Harris.
It was an ad, Milhouse.
A paid promo for Harris.
I know you know that and are grinning your Democrat grin as you type spreading demoralization and despair as you, once again, tell everyone that the democrats are always right.
You are right and Milhouse is right. The interview was indeed a de facto advertisement for the Harris campaign but legally it is not, and a four-second soundbite of someone is perfectly legal and not conpensable.
And here we have the demonspawn Azathoth back to his filthy evil lying ways. Go back to Hell, you have nothing of value to contribute, here or anywhere else in this world.
“The two excerpts seem to have been shown to challenge Harris, not to support her.”
Yeah, sure.
Like the shill who asks Billy Mays, “But isn’t peeling potatoes complicated and dangerous?”
Well, yes. It’s a friendly challenge, but it’s still a challenge, not a compliment. It’s not “Here’s an example of how great you’ve been doing”, it’s “Here’s something bad, what are you going to do about it?”.
And therefore… an essential part of the ad.
It’s a floor wax AND a dessert topping, Milhouse… and carefully positioned that way to avoid
FECFDA regulation.Again, not an ad. You are deliberately avoiding the entire point of this stupid post. The entire point was that a few seconds of this person’s video was used to imply an endorsement of Harris. You just admitted that that is simply not true.
And the only reason to suppose the excerpt was used to imply an endorsement, is the entirely false claim that this was an “ad”, which is a short-form type of work in which it is unheard of to include clips that attack the product rather than promote it. In an ad you don’t have time for that, and ads rely on punchiness which means you don’t want to include anything negative.
But this was not an ad, and therefore that assumption just doesn’t apply. In a long-form promotion such as an interview it is common and expected to present the subject with criticisms in order to give her the opportunity to knock them down, or at least pretend to do so. And that’s exactly what this is.
Without that premise there is simply no story here. Winfrey did something completely normal and above-board, and the video maker has no legitimate complaint.
It was more of an ad than an interview. This was a sales-job. Period. It was an in-kind contribution to the Komrade Harris campaign.
“Interview” … LOL.
No, it was not an ad. An ad is one kind of thing, and this was a very different kind of thing. Ads are short and to the point, and usually don’t include contrary views; that is the entire basis for the strange idea that Winfrey somehow thought the people she excerpted were Harris supporters. And that basis is just wrong.
And no, it was not a contribution to the campaign, because it wasn’t anything the campaign had asked for.
Infomercials are ads, you blithering idiot.
LOL.
Sometimes you are just too dumb for words …
No, infomercials are not ads. That’s why they’re called something else. Ads are a specific kind of thing.
And the definition of “donation” is something given. If you do something because a campaign asked you to do it, then it’s a donation. If you do it for any other reason then it’s not a donation, no matter how much it may help the campaign.
More brilliance from Milhouse:
ROFLMAO.
You really need to take a break. You’re losing it.
You’re the one who seems to be posting from another planet. Infomercials and ads are literally different things. They’re both intended to convey a message, but in different ways. They’re aimed at different audiences and are structured completely differently. And the kind of content they include is very different.
“No, infomercials are not ads. That’s why they’re called something else. Ads are a specific kind of thing.”
I’m sorry, but this is where it devolves into insanity. Infomercials are ads that exceed the old FCC limitation on the length of a commercial — no more, no less.
No, they are a different art form. If they were the same thing they would have the same name.
If an ad were extended beyond a few minutes, would anyone watch it? But people watch infomercials. In order to achieve that you have to make them differently. You can’t use the same techniques, and you can’t analyze them by the same rules.
>>This wasn’t an ad, it was an interview.<<
Nope. It wasn't an "interview". It was a bought and paid for political campaign advertisement for the Harris campaign pretending to be an innocuous interview between Winfrey and Harris. And you can argue all you want but it doesn’t change that fact.
No, it was neither bought nor paid for. Or do you not know what those words mean?
I saw no interview. I saw The Oprah engaged in a softball lovefest campaign ad for Harris. To be fair to The Oprah, she is not an interviewer or a journalist anymore than the harridans on the View are. She is what she is. She wanted to help out Harris without violating campaign finance laws and this was the result much like other “hard hitting” interviews.
A softball interview is still an interview, and that’s what this was. And in the course of the interview Winfrey seems to have confronted Harris with what were purported to be typical voters, who were seriously concerned about the cost of living, and would therefore be inclined to vote against her. Obviously the point was to allow Harris to respond in a way that might allay such voters’ concerns and bring them around. But there was no implication that people who have such concerns already support her!
Not a lawyer, but I kind of remember something like this coming up before; campaigns/PACs inappropriately using a person’s name, image or likeness in commercials or other campaign materials in a way that implies endorsement of a campaign/candidate. I thought that was prohibited by the FEC. Maybe the Fraudulent Misrepresentation Doctrine or perhaps something else?
There was no implication of any endorsement. I don’t understand how you could possibly think there was. Where are you getting this bizarre idea?
Fair Use Doctrine gives particularly wide berth to political speech, so no there is nothing illegal about what Harpo did.
At the same time, I’m quite sure that the content creator knows this full well; otherwise she’d be suing and going after those deep pockets.
But she’s not… she’s just doing what social media content creators do… stoking the outrage machine, which is how they make money.
She’s probably not suing for the same reason most people who aren’t involved in serious injury accidents don’t sue: It’s expensive AF. There are few qualified lawyers who will take these kind of esoteric copyright infringement cases on contingency. That means you’re going to have to front a big, fat retainer. And as you point out, Oprah has deep pockets and could drag it out for years. I’ve been involved in a copyright defense case. It cost us $75K just to get to discovery.
She’s not suing because there’s nothing to sue for. There is simply no case at all.
a guy was sent to prison for “misrepresenting” a vote for hillary meme
time for lawfare to catch up to opie
There was no misrepresentation.
And he wasn’t charged with “misrepresentation”, he was charged with deliberately preventing people from voting.
It wasn’t an ad and that’s obvious. Oprah was making a point when asking a softball question. The question resulted in a word salad and deflection from Comrade Harris. That word salad will finds its way into an ad from the Trump campaign. The content creator got her point across and that may be included in the Trump teams ad also. FKH
Yes, exactly. At least someone sees the truth here.
That’s like claiming that the Trump/Biden wasn’t a “debate” because Biden… was incapable of debating.
If you give your preferred candidate a block of free time to shine, and she faceplants… its still a gift,
And again you miss the point. The point is the kind of thing it was and the expectations one should have in watching it, not the intent behind making it, let alone how it turned out. It’s like comparing a novel and a tweet.
Leave a Comment