The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
FDNY Firefighter Blows Whistle On Photoshopped WTC Ad
REUVEN FENTON and JENNIFER FERMINO
The New York Post
An ad for a controversial law firm specializing in 9/11 lawsuits shows a somber, soot-smeared FDNY firefighter holding an image of the charred remains of the World Trade Center under the headline "I was there."
The problem is, he wasn't.
Related
- SideCharlie.com: NYC Firm Throws Firefighter, Daily Show Unde the Bus
- STATter911: UPDATED: FDNY Firefighter/Model Blows Whistle on WTC Ad
Firefighter Robert Keiley - who joined New York's Bravest only in 2004 - was working as a model when he posed for what he thought would be used for a run-of-the-mill fire-prevention ad.
He appeared in generic firefighter gear and gripped a helmet for the shot - not the photo of the destroyed Twin Towers that was "put" into his hands with Photoshop software for the Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern ad.
"It's an insult to the Fire Department. It's an insult to all the families who lost people that day," said Keiley, 34, an ex-cop who now works out of an engine company in Flatbush, Brooklyn.
"It makes me look like I'm cashing in on 9/11, saying I was there even though I was never there, and that I'm sick and possibly suing, trying to get a chunk of money."
WTC-disaster law firm Worby Groner raised eyebrows in May when news surfaced that its lawyers were ready to take home a third or more of a settlement negotiated on behalf of sickened Ground Zero workers.
An angry federal judge said the arrangement gave too much money to the legal team and too little to sick workers - and the firm reduced its fees.
Keiley said that in one of his most painful moments since the ad surfaced, he had to call his best friend, whose brother died in 9/11, to tell him he had nothing to do with it.
"I had friends who died on 9/11," Keiley said. "How can I look their families in the eye if they see this picture, thinking I'm trying to make money on their [loved ones'] deaths? They'd probably think I'm a scumbag."
The Photoshopped image debuted Wednesday on a flier at the World Police Fire Games Event Gala, a fund-raiser for the annual sporting event.
At the bottom, in tiny letters, the ad stated, "This is an actor portrayal of a potential Zadroga claimant," referring to sick 9/11 workers who could receive aid under the federal James Zadroga Act.
Keiley, who moonlights as an actor and model, posed for the photo a year ago and netted $350.
He said he's now considering a lawsuit.
"It creates the image that he's claiming to have been at a tragic event when he was not," said his lawyer, Keith Sullivan.
"More offensive is [the claim] that he's trying to collect money from this fund, which he absolutely has no intention of doing."
Worby Groner directed all calls to the ad agency, Barker/DZP.
A rep insisted the agency was well within its rights to use the image because Keiley signed a release.
Statement from Barker/DZP Regarding Ad
"He really signed his rights away," said Kim Tracey, an account director at the agency. "[The release] allows for use in ads, promotional usage, really anything you want."
But John Feal, a tireless advocate for Ground Zero rescue workers, said that even a decade after 9/11, the images of that day are provocative.
"Maybe the ad agency should change the way they practice their business," he said.
Additional reporting by Jamie Schram and Cathy Burke
Copyright 2011 N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
March 28, 2011
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
To play devil's advocate here, it is possible to have friends know what you may do on your off days, but not necessarily their family. Same with going to the firm and explaining things, could have done that first and got the "you signed your rights" type of reply and so forth.
In the end the firm is depicting this person in a lie, by stating he was there, despite the small print. Majority of people really read the small print, nor wish to look at the big picture. (heck just look at how comments are made on this site alone). Yeah, sure embarrassment can play a part, but the fact remains he is being honest with the fact he wasn't there. Besides from the bolded quote you address from the article also comes down to other firefighters as well, than just this guy's friend's family.
What I mean is that the FDNY has over (or close to) 10,000 firefighters. Now you have a picture of one of their own in a flyer depicting a lie. It doesn't take much for assumptions to fly and so forth that this guy is looking to just cash in despite never being there. I can view this as say someone from the military being depicted in an ad for servicemembers and showing say the Medal of Honor or even say a SEAL pin photoshopped on them. Yes, there will be many taking an issue with such a photo, despite what the small print says.
The guy states he was originally holding a helmet and suspected this was for a fire prevention ad or similar, so it can be possible this wasn't for the law firm itself. It could be a agency that contracted, it can be fair to say he wouldn't have posed if he knew this was the ad to be.
In the end what you have is a lie being perpetuated and the said person being honest that he wasn't there. His side job aside and legal disclaimers, you still have a member of the FDNY representing a flyer that is stating a lie.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
John,
Most likely he posed for a stock photo shoot, although the intent could have been a poster for the law firm, regardless, when you do those things you have no idea what that picture will be used for, it can be used by anybody that wants to buy the rights to that particular photo. Let's face it, $350 to pose for one shot? I'm sure at the time he didn't really care, and as for his supposition that it "might" be for fire prevention, did that occur to him then, or only since the flyers came out?
Would this be an issue if he was still a cop? The reality is, he willingly posed for the shoot, signed off on any rights to the picture and he gladly cashed the check. Live and learn.
Just because it happened to be used by a law firm suing for Zadroga claims it's become an issue. What if the model was and remained an unknown? Still a problem?
I guess this harks back to a recent discussion here at FFN about being careful what you do off duty. Furthermore, the article only states that he was hired by FDNY in 2004, what it DOESN'T state is WHEN the photo in question was shot. If he was already on FDNY when he posed then that alone could ring some bells in terms of doing something that may not reflect well on the department.
What if he posed for an ad about Sexually Transmitted Diseases? Would he then demand that that campaign be pulled because it's causing embarrassment to him in his personal and work life, that he has to explain to family, friends and coworkers that he really doesn't have an STD. What if, while on an EMS run someone recognizes him from the ad campaign and screams that they don't want to be touched by him because he has an STD?
"In the end what you have is a lie being perpetuated..."
No you don't, you have an ad campaign. The disclaimer is there, most likely required either by law or to protect the law firm against claims such as this. Look at car ads, both on TV and in print. They all have the requisite 'small print' disclaimers. And what about TV ads for medicine and treatments with an "actor" portraying a doctor or nurse? There's always a disclaimer, but if you don't see it the ads strongly suggest that the 'spokesperson' is a medical expert.
Even the mention that the law firm was getting 1/3 of the settlement, which granted sounds outrageous and, in this particular case one would hope that all or most of that money goes to the claimants but...1/3 of an award is pretty typical when a law firm represents you for a personal injury case. I'm not defending lawyers or this law firm in particular but in an article about a FF who's side job has embarrassed him, what relevance is there to mentioning the law firm and their fees? Seems to me that in itself was pretty slanted reporting, attempting to discredit the law firm by 'suggesting' that they are already sleezy in their attempt to take a 1/3 settlement fee. Kind of a lie right there, don't ya think?
I guess the moral of this story is, be careful what you do in your personal life because it may come back to haunt you.
-
-
Keiley, who moonlights as an actor and model, posed for the photo a year ago and netted $350
Looks like he was already on the FDNY when the pic was taken.
I understand what you are saying here and this does go back to being careful what one does while off duty, however, the fact does remain the ad is misleading by making the statement the person was there when he wasn't. It is fine if this was really an actor/model who doesn't happen to be a member of the FDNY, but when such an image is used and claims you were at the WTC on 9/11 when you weren't does raise the question. The fact of the matter is the person has been honest that he wasn't there.
When I was serving in the Navy the CNO (Adm Boorda) committed suicide because he had a valor pin on one of his ribbons. Before he was to do an interview about it he killed himself. The reasons told was he couldn't live with the shame of misrepresnting etc.
So now you have a person here that happens to moonlight as a model, no big deal. However, he is being depicted as making the claim seen in the ad. He is coming forth to say that he wasn't there. When you are on the job and such claims are made, it can lead to an issue of questioning one's honor and honesty. That is what I see here, that he is coming forth to make it clear that he was not at the WTC as depicted.
-
-
He may be a model, but he is also a member of the FDNY, which does make this issue more relevant. He is being depicted in an ad as telling a lie, so he has addressed the ad by being honest that he was not at the WTC on 9/11.
The reason this is more significant being a member of the FDNY than some other model dressed up as a FF, is because it does lead to honor and honesty. The FDNY is comprised of many firefighters, but I'm quite sure rumors fly quickly in the FDNY as even my dept. Point is the guy's face is on this ad claiming he was at the WTC, someone could easily say that is so and so from the Bronx Truck whatever, then it leads into the allegations like he is cashing in or telling lies because he is depicted as being there when he wasn't.
The point is there have been people who have looked to cash in from 9/11 in whatever way and people saying they were there when they were not. Now you have a guy, who happens to work for the FDNY, making such a claim via this ad. He is coming forth that he wasn't there and not looking to cash in.
The issue of honesty and honor can be big, just like the military example I provided. In fact there are people who put on some military uniform, maybe a SEAL pin etc and act as though they served, yet there have been numerous examples of such folks getting busted.
It would be compounded with an actual member depicted in such a lie, say wearing the Medal of Honor, even if it was for an ad for veteran's issues. Despite small print, it is easy to come to the conclusion such a person actually had the MOH. (Although such an issue would be much easier to debunk, just an example). One would expect some honesty and integrity to come forth and say this is NOT what they were asked to pose for or to at least say I did not earn the MOH, this is photoshopped etc.
That is the point, it doesn't matter that the guy is a model and if his pic was used for hemorrhoid cream, etc, the issue is he happens to be a member of the very dept that lost 343 FF's on 9/11, a dept that takes honor and honesty seriously, and he is depicted as saying he was there. That really is it, he is showing he has the honesty and honor to ensure people know he wasn't there and that the photo he posed for was not the same pic that ended up here.
-
-
Not really, more of a case of honesty and honor. The image he posed for was not the image used, the photo he posed for he was holding a helmet, not a picture of the WTC.
Had it been a non-FF model, there wouldn't be an issue, however because he happens to be on the FDNY, such a claim does question his honor and integrity and he is being upfront and honest that he was not there.
Seller's remorse would be that you actually know what the picture was going for and regret after the fact. Here, the photo he posed for was not the same one that was made public via this advertisement.
-
-
John,
I get what you're saying but...it was an ad, he was a model, he sold his soul (or at least a small part of it) for $350.
I get the honor bit, truly, but I think you may be slipping ever so slightly towards that mind set that firefighters are divinely appointed. That being so, of course you don't want to tarnish anything so divine. Except of course, that firefighters aren't divinely appointed.
We all understand the loss of firefighters (NYPD, Transit Authority, FDNY Medics and a few others) and understand how it impacted FDNY. But in the end we have to stop idealizing firefighters. We're all just people, no better no worse than anyone else, regardless what some may think.
And yes, I agree with KGod, I think it might be a bit of seller's remorse. And it is irrelevant whether or not he knew what or how the picture would be used, he knew going into the photo shoot that he would be selling all interest in his image (and coming out, $350 richer).
You talk about what others in FDNY might think, the rumor mill churning that he's a phony, or worse a mutt, but tell me that in a department of over 10,000 men and women that rumors about other firefighters don't run rampant. Of course they do. Rumors about this one sleeping with that one, this one's sexual preferences, that one cheating on a spouse, another kissing brass ass.
It's all there, this would have been only one more rumor and, given the nature of it, squashed from the chief down to the probie.
I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt and say that he's embarrassed about it, but that's about as far as I would go. Ultimately, what he's trying to do is unring a bell. Next time, be careful where your clapper goes.
-
-
I get the honor bit, truly, but I think you may be slipping ever so slightly towards that mind set that firefighters are divinely appointed.
No, please don't confuse my support for this FF to insinuate that the profession is in any way divine nor there is some superman cape involved. The guy here was doing another job by posing for the pic and what resulted was not the same thing he posed for...IE the helmet being replaced with a picture of the WTC. The bigger aspect is the claim that he was there. Now would there be the same issue involved if this was the same pic, but instead of saying "I was there", it said "Looking out for those who worked at the WTC"? Not as catchy, but you get the gist.
To me, that is the issue at hand here, he is debunking the claim that is made in the advertisement. Would there be "seller's remorse" if he was depicted in a pic as Kali suggested for alcoholism, etc? Hard to say for sure, but we do know he is a member of the FDNY and he is saying he was NOT there as claimed. I think that is really the issue at hand, that a claim is made he was there when he wasn't, not so much the pic.
There could be other questions at stake, like perhaps the firm saying they wanted a pic of a FF, the ad agency thinking "hey we do have an actual FF" and what have you.
This does put himself in a bad light with the agency who hired him and could jeopardize his moonlighting job, but it does also lead to some ethical issues on the part of such a firm. The person posing also should have the right to know what they are posing for and I think that is more the issue. Had he known this is what the pic would be for, he could have backed out and someone else not affiliated with the FDNY to pose. I could understand if he actually known what the pic was to be used for and did the pic anyway, there could be "seller's remorse", but the pic was doctored and a false claim made.
As for rumors and what else, sure they can spread like wildfire, but the fact does remains, most issues are not as public as something like this. I'm quite sure 9/11 is a very touchy subject within the FDNY and there is a difference of a non-FDNY model posing in such an ad and one who happens to work for the FDNY with such a claim made. One can be more easily shrugged off as opposed to the latter.
Essentially that is what the guy is doing, publically making it known he was not at the WTC as depicted. After he did say this, I believe the ads were pulled anyway.
Yes, there is an issue of knowing and being careful what one does or says outside of the primary workplace, because things can come back to haunt later. However, just because an agreement was signed, doesn't mean that someone can not debunk a claim and must live by whatever the ad says. This issue probably jeopardizes his future with his side job though.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
