Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
That covers some types of "bad press," but consider this scenario: A diaper company ... from a freedom of speech perspective.
Good point.

Maybe this angle then. If a company chooses to have a pubic presence anywhere then they also choose to accept the risk that bad things may happen near their trademark... because they have no control over life and bad things DO happen.

If I drive by that road rage shooting and see the aftermath laying on the ground under that billboard, I would make the same association as I would have after seeing a photograph of the scene. Both the live vew of the accident and the photograph of the accident represent the same slice of life in public.

If the diaper company objects to a photograph then they must also object to the retention of that memory in the minds of innocent passers by. If only a single person sees the live tragedy and 1000 people see the photograph, is that really different than 1000 people driving by the scene and one person seeing the photograph?

Life happens and the photographer is just recording it. Is it live, or is it Memorex?

My argument may be completely wrong. What do you think?