Author Topic: Girl on the Affordable Healthcare Home Page (Read 12785 times)

rimglow · « **on:** October 22, 2013, 09:22 »

Anybody have any info on this photo? Is it a stock image? It sure has been seen on the news a lot.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** October 22, 2013, 09:30 »

I can't find it on a stock agency, but certainly it's all over the web.
Interesting unforeseen consequence, that image has been lifted and used on hundreds of websites, so if it was a stock photo, that usage would probably prevent it from being used again in the US. So one RF sale could kill a stock photo dead in (at least) one market.
It may not be an issue in this case, but it is a point to ponder. "The photo that became too well known to sell".

EmberMike · « **Reply #2 on:** October 22, 2013, 10:08 »

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/10/21/tsr-pkg-moos-mystery-obamacare-girl.cnn.html

No answer there, just the same question: Who is she?

Ron · « **Reply #3 on:** October 22, 2013, 10:20 »

Could it be lifted from Flickr or 500px etc?

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** October 22, 2013, 10:29 »

The poor girl is already being ripped to shreds by the 'Obamacare' haters;

http://twitchy.com/2013/10/18/it-aint-easy-being-obamacare-splash-page-stock-photo-girl-pics/

Imagine if that was your own model, perhaps even a family member, that this happened to? One moment it's just a nice informal portrait of a pretty girl __ the next she's hated by half of America.

cthoman · « **Reply #5 on:** October 22, 2013, 10:33 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 22, 2013, 10:29

The poor girl is already being ripped to shreds by the 'Obamacare' haters;

http://twitchy.com/2013/10/18/it-aint-easy-being-obamacare-splash-page-stock-photo-girl-pics/

Imagine if that was your own model, perhaps even a family member, that this happened to? One moment it's just a nice informal portrait of a pretty girl __ the next she's hated by half of America.

It might be more. I've gotten pretty sick of seeing her face.

cthoman · « **Reply #6 on:** October 22, 2013, 13:38 »

Wow! Minuses on that post. I guess nobody else has tried to use the site and been totally frustrated. I know the woman on the homepage isn't responsible, but her smiling at my misery doesn't help matters.

It does seem to be working fairly decently now though. I think I've finish my shopping phase and just need to pick a plan for next year to replace my current one.

bunhill · « **Reply #7 on:** October 22, 2013, 13:54 »

Quote from: cthoman on October 22, 2013, 13:38

Wow! Minuses on that post. I guess nobody else has tried to use the site and been totally frustrated. I know the woman on the homepage isn't responsible, but her smiling at my misery doesn't help matters.

I think that people outside of the argument probably miss the complexities of the issues.

First of all - many people probably do not realise that one of the major issues over the past days has been around how poorly the site was implemented - despite the huge amount of money spent on it. It was not capable of handling the traffic and the people put up to talk about that clearly did not have a clue.

Secondly - there is a tendency to see any criticism of Obamacare as if it were a criticism of universal healthcare in general. In truth many people are critical of Obamacare because they see it as a dreadful compromise which will end up best serving the insurance and pharmaceutical industries - and therefore ultimately the finance sector.

When healthcare is paid for by insurance there is a tendency for the price of pharmaceuticals and treatments in general to increase. Which ultimately pushes up the price of policies. A vicious circle.

Imagine what governments internationally could do in terms of providing universal healthcare if they were to slash their military spending.

gostwyck · « **Reply #8 on:** October 22, 2013, 14:19 »

Quote from: bhr on October 22, 2013, 13:54

Quote from: cthoman on October 22, 2013, 13:38
Wow! Minuses on that post. I guess nobody else has tried to use the site and been totally frustrated. I know the woman on the homepage isn't responsible, but her smiling at my misery doesn't help matters.

I think that people outside of the argument probably miss the complexities of the issues.

First of all - many people probably do not realise that one of the major issues over the past days has been around how poorly the site was implemented - despite the huge amount of money spent on it. It was not capable of handling the traffic and the people put up to talk about that clearly did not have a clue.

Secondly - there is a tendency to see any criticism of Obamacare as if it were a criticism of universal healthcare in general. In truth many people are critical of Obamacare because they see it as a dreadful compromise which will end up best serving the insurance and pharmaceutical industries - and therefore ultimately the finance sector.

When healthcare is paid for by insurance there is a tendency for the price of pharmaceuticals and treatments in general to increase. Which ultimately pushes up the price of policies. A vicious circle.

Imagine what governments internationally could do in terms of providing universal healthcare if they were to slash their military spending.

I'm British but we get a lot of coverage regarding the issue particularly regarding the recent government shutdown, etc.

Does anyone really think that a website could be created to serve the needs of 300M people instantly and expect it to work perfectly from Day 1? Especially when a significantly minority of the country would prefer it to fail and no doubt quite a few will be doing their best to wreck it either physically or by undermining it's credibility. The way they have turned on this unfortunate girl is the proof of that.

topol · « **Reply #9 on:** October 22, 2013, 14:32 »

commissioned shot?

bunhill · « **Reply #10 on:** October 22, 2013, 14:48 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 22, 2013, 14:19

Does anyone really think that a website could be created to serve the needs of 300M people instantly and expect it to work perfectly from Day 1?

It was apparently 1 million visitors in a day which crashed the site. Companies like Apple and Amazon easily handle that sort of traffic when they do new product launches.

This being such a sensitive (and costly) issue which so affects people's lives, the frustration and cynicism is understandable. Look how upset some people here get when a something as trivial as a stock site is down or performing badly.

FWIW I think that the consensus is that requiring registration before browsing was a mistake. A policy decision.

The thing about the girl in the picture -- that's just the pointless mainstream media reporting something which is being said on Twitter -- and then Twitter feeding that back. And so on. Who really cares what CNN says though - they have relatively hardly any viewers these days.

stocked · « **Reply #11 on:** October 22, 2013, 15:02 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 22, 2013, 10:29

The poor girl is already being ripped to shreds by the 'Obamacare' haters;

http://twitchy.com/2013/10/18/it-aint-easy-being-obamacare-splash-page-stock-photo-girl-pics/

Imagine if that was your own model, perhaps even a family member, that this happened to? One moment it's just a nice informal portrait of a pretty girl __ the next she's hated by half of America.

I'm or was mainly a people shooter for most of my photographic career but I feel less and less confident to produce people images for stock because of reasons like that, even a good intended advertisement could turn a models life in a nightmare.......

elvinstar · « **Reply #12 on:** October 22, 2013, 15:06 »

I just thought that the site had issues because they outsourced the coding to iStock's team.

gostwyck · « **Reply #13 on:** October 22, 2013, 15:09 »

Quote from: bhr on October 22, 2013, 14:48

Quote from: gostwyck on October 22, 2013, 14:19
Does anyone really think that a website could be created to serve the needs of 300M people instantly and expect it to work perfectly from Day 1?

It was apparently 1 million visitors in a day which crashed the site. Companies like Apple and Amazon easily handle that sort of traffic when they do new product launches.

I'll bet that Amazon didn't get 1M visitors on their first day of opening in 1995. It is hardly a valid comparison anway. Amazon has annual revenue of over $61B and 97K employees.

The US government has apparently spent $394M with various contractors setting up the website and exchanges;

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/21/technology/obamacare-website-contracts/

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #14 on:** October 22, 2013, 16:11 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 22, 2013, 09:30

I can't find it on a stock agency, but certainly it's all over the web.
Interesting unforeseen consequence, that image has been lifted and used on hundreds of websites, so if it was a stock photo, that usage would probably prevent it from being used again in the US. So one RF sale could kill a stock photo dead in (at least) one market.
It may not be an issue in this case, but it is a point to ponder. "The photo that became too well known to sell".

How do you know it was an RF sale? It might be RM. I've had the Daily Mail run some of my RM images and they are immediately lifted in the Far East and reproduced all over the internet. Getting on the DM website seems to be one of the worst things that can happen to an image (though the pay is reasonable).

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** October 22, 2013, 16:49 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 22, 2013, 16:11

Quote from: ShadySue on October 22, 2013, 09:30
I can't find it on a stock agency, but certainly it's all over the web.
Interesting unforeseen consequence, that image has been lifted and used on hundreds of websites, so if it was a stock photo, that usage would probably prevent it from being used again in the US. So one RF sale could kill a stock photo dead in (at least) one market.
It may not be an issue in this case, but it is a point to ponder. "The photo that became too well known to sell".

How do you know it was an RF sale? It might be RM. I've had the Daily Mail run some of my RM images and they are immediately lifted in the Far East and reproduced all over the internet. Getting on the DM website seems to be one of the worst things that can happen to an image (though the pay is reasonable).

I didn't say it was an RF sale. I said I couldn't find it via Google Reverse images. I highlighted the word 'if'. Indeed, I have had Telegraph RM sales reproduced instantly in Far Eastern sites.
My point was that it's something I haven't seen discussed here before that one use could kill a file stone dead, but of course that's nothing to the possible backlash on the girl. There are a lot of eejits about. I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK, she'd probably get a batch of paps parked day and night outside her home until the Next Big Thing.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #16 on:** October 22, 2013, 18:11 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 22, 2013, 16:49

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 22, 2013, 16:11
Quote from: ShadySue on October 22, 2013, 09:30
I can't find it on a stock agency, but certainly it's all over the web.
Interesting unforeseen consequence, that image has been lifted and used on hundreds of websites, so if it was a stock photo, that usage would probably prevent it from being used again in the US. So one RF sale could kill a stock photo dead in (at least) one market.
It may not be an issue in this case, but it is a point to ponder. "The photo that became too well known to sell".

How do you know it was an RF sale? It might be RM. I've had the Daily Mail run some of my RM images and they are immediately lifted in the Far East and reproduced all over the internet. Getting on the DM website seems to be one of the worst things that can happen to an image (though the pay is reasonable).
I didn't say it was an RF sale. I said I couldn't find it via Google Reverse images. I highlighted the word 'if'. Indeed, I have had Telegraph RM sales reproduced instantly in Far Eastern sites.
My point was that it's something I haven't seen discussed here before that one use could kill a file stone dead, but of course that's nothing to the possible backlash on the girl. There are a lot of eejits about. I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK, she'd probably get a batch of paps parked day and night outside her home until the Next Big Thing.

OK, I guess we're sort of on the same page. A significant part of my meaning was that RF or RM, over-exposure could be deadly. On the other hand, there are iconic pictures that continue to have commercial value despite being endlessly reproduced (without payment) in discussions on the internet. In fact the fame generated by electronic reproductions probably enhances their value - if only for non-net sales.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #17 on:** October 22, 2013, 18:59 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 22, 2013, 18:11

over-exposure could be deadly.

Slightly off topic -- I used a model several years ago, that appeared as one of the first "happy" guys on a Viagra ad, he said that although the exposure (no pun intended) was huge (still no pun intended), he had a hard (oops, but no pun here either) getting work after the commercial went live.

Mantis · « **Reply #18 on:** October 22, 2013, 20:21 »

Quote from: Zeus on October 22, 2013, 18:59

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 22, 2013, 18:11
over-exposure could be deadly.

Slightly off topic -- I used a model several years ago, that appeared as one of the first "happy" guys on a Viagra ad, he said that although the exposure (no pun intended) was huge (still no pun intended), he had a hard (oops, but no pun here either) getting work after the commercial went live.

LMAO.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2013, 05:16 »

http://www.theonion.com/articles/people-in-healthcaregov-stock-photos-now-visibly-p,34307/

topol · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2013, 05:28 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 22, 2013, 16:11

Quote from: ShadySue on October 22, 2013, 09:30
I can't find it on a stock agency, but certainly it's all over the web.
Interesting unforeseen consequence, that image has been lifted and used on hundreds of websites, so if it was a stock photo, that usage would probably prevent it from being used again in the US. So one RF sale could kill a stock photo dead in (at least) one market.
It may not be an issue in this case, but it is a point to ponder. "The photo that became too well known to sell".

How do you know it was an RF sale? It might be RM. I've had the Daily Mail run some of my RM images and they are immediately lifted in the Far East and reproduced all over the internet. Getting on the DM website seems to be one of the worst things that can happen to an image (though the pay is reasonable).

Google most likely doesn't differ when indexing RM or RF images.

Mantis · « **Reply #21 on:** October 24, 2013, 07:40 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 23, 2013, 05:16

http://www.theonion.com/articles/people-in-healthcaregov-stock-photos-now-visibly-p,34307/

That is hilarious!!

mtkang · « **Reply #22 on:** October 24, 2013, 12:29 »

can someone give a quick summary what is it about?

gostwyck · « **Reply #23 on:** October 24, 2013, 13:09 »

Quote from: mtkang on October 24, 2013, 12:29

can someone give a quick summary what is it about?

This is quite a good one;

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-search-for-the-mysterious-obamacare-website-girl

Interestingly the spokesman at 'Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' had this to say;

CMS spokesman Richard Olague then told BuzzFeed via email, “The woman featured on the website signed a release for us to use the photo, but to protect her privacy, we will not share her personal or contact info with anyone.”

That suggests to me that it was a custom shoot, in that he is inferring that CMS had a direct relationship with the model, although he could just mean that it was a model-released shot from an agency.

EmberMike · « **Reply #24 on:** October 25, 2013, 09:35 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 24, 2013, 13:09

This is quite a good one;

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-search-for-the-mysterious-obamacare-website-girl

Sounds like BuzzFeed thinks her name is Adriana, but that's about all we know about her.

gostwyck · « **Reply #25 on:** October 27, 2013, 08:49 »

The search for "Obamacare Girl" continues!

Fox News have even interviewed MSG member Andres in the belief that his sister and model, coincidentally also called Adriana, might be the girl in question;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/27/who-is-that-girl-mysterious-face-healthcaregov/

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** October 27, 2013, 09:03 »

Well, that says more about Fox News than anything else.
Waste time trying to find a poor girl to harass a quote out of, and write non-news ('the hapless girl is not Andres' sister') (which they could have established on a quick shufty through his port) rather than do serious journalism.
I wonder if Andres really said, "unfortunately not", and if so why. Makes no sense, on any level.

rimglow · « **Reply #27 on:** October 28, 2013, 08:45 »

From Huff Post:

The woman who has become the face of Obamacare has completely disappeared.
When Healthcare.gov, launched on Oct. 1, anyone visiting the website was greeted by the face of an unknown woman. As the Obama administration works to fix the glitches that have plagued the health insurance marketplace's website, that woman's picture seems to have been removed.
Multiple media outlets have spent time trying to identify the now-missing woman to no avail.

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** October 28, 2013, 08:54 »

Quote from: rimglow on October 28, 2013, 08:45

From Huff Post:
...
Multiple media outlets have spent time trying to identify the now-missing woman to no avail.

Why are they wasting time on this?
Is there no serious news around right now?
Sorry to read that US media have their priorities tapsleteerie just like too many UK ones.
Poor girl: let it be a warning to all wannabe models.

Ron · « **Reply #29 on:** October 28, 2013, 09:11 »

What does it matter who that is, and what is the importance to the american society? What is this fuzz all about?

EmberMike · « **Reply #30 on:** October 28, 2013, 09:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 27, 2013, 08:49

...Fox News have even interviewed MSG member Andres in the belief that his sister and model, coincidentally also called Adriana, might be the girl in question;

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/27/who-is-that-girl-mysterious-face-healthcaregov/

Oh man, too funny that Andres has been dragged into this.

w7lwi · « **Reply #31 on:** October 28, 2013, 20:22 »

Quote from: rimglow on October 28, 2013, 08:45

From Huff Post:

The woman who has become the face of Obamacare has completely disappeared.

I understand, at her request, that she has been put in the witness protection program.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #32 on:** October 29, 2013, 07:19 »

I feel sorry for her, because of the strange people, including hateful ones, because her image was used on a website. How shallow and ignorant can people be?

But sure, now that someone asked, who is she. I hope she got paid well for becoming famous overnight. Maybe she can market this into something and cash in.

Maybe a Firtos commercial for the Super Bowl or something?

Is Mr. Six still anonymous? This works for marketing as well, if the company can pull it off and pump up the interest at the same time.

(anyone wonder who Mr. Six is / was?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Six We Like To Party!

Quote from: ShadySue on October 28, 2013, 08:54

Quote from: rimglow on October 28, 2013, 08:45
From Huff Post:
...
Multiple media outlets have spent time trying to identify the now-missing woman to no avail.

Why are they wasting time on this?
Is there no serious news around right now?
Sorry to read that US media have their priorities tapsleteerie just like too many UK ones.
Poor girl: let it be a warning to all wannabe models.

LSD72 · « **Reply #33 on:** November 13, 2013, 09:43 »

http://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-obamacares-mystery-woman-says-she-fell-victim-111640839--abc-news-topstories.html

Now there is a name and nationality to the face. Adriana from Columbia. A permanent resident applying for citizenship who was looking for free family photos.

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** November 13, 2013, 09:50 »

I would far rather they named and shamed the IT team.
The failed site has nothing to do with that woman, and she should never have been hounded: an 'easy target' I guess.

leaf · « **Reply #35 on:** November 13, 2013, 10:00 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 13, 2013, 09:50

I would far rather they named and shamed the IT team.
The failed site has nothing to do with that woman, and she should never have been hounded: an 'easy target' I guess.

Quote from: LSD72 on November 13, 2013, 09:43

http://gma.yahoo.com/exclusive-obamacares-mystery-woman-says-she-fell-victim-111640839--abc-news-topstories.html

Now there is a name and nationality to the face. Adriana from Columbia. A permanent resident applying for citizenship who was looking for free family photos.

Ah yes, Columbia - which explains why they were contacting Andres for leads... in addition to her resembling a number of his models.

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** November 13, 2013, 10:09 »

TypoQueen asking: "Is that Colombia?"

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #37 on:** November 13, 2013, 10:16 »

"Seeking free family photographs, Adriana emailed a contact at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for the Affordable Care Act's rollout, about having photos of her and her family taken in exchange for allowing the photos to be used to market the new health care law. She was never paid. "

Because I know that when I want some good family photography done, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid is who I would call.

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** November 13, 2013, 10:20 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on November 13, 2013, 10:16

"Seeking free family photographs, Adriana emailed a contact at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for the Affordable Care Act's rollout, about having photos of her and her family taken in exchange for allowing the photos to be used to market the new health care law. She was never paid. "

Because I know that when I want some good family photography done, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid is who I would call.

She didn't say 'good' and she didn't pay.
There's at least one iStocker who charges models for prints from his stock shoots - astonishingly he's in the UK, but 'darn sarth'.

LSD72 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 13, 2013, 10:21 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on November 13, 2013, 10:16

"Seeking free family photographs, Adriana emailed a contact at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for the Affordable Care Act's rollout, about having photos of her and her family taken in exchange for allowing the photos to be used to market the new health care law. She was never paid. "

Because I know that when I want some good family photography done, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid is who I would call.

Yea, that part did not make sense to me either.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** November 13, 2013, 10:24 »

Quote from: LSD72 on November 13, 2013, 10:21

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on November 13, 2013, 10:16
"Seeking free family photographs, Adriana emailed a contact at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for the Affordable Care Act's rollout, about having photos of her and her family taken in exchange for allowing the photos to be used to market the new health care law. She was never paid. "

Because I know that when I want some good family photography done, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid is who I would call.

Yea, that part did not make sense to me either.

I assumed/inferred, without any evidence, that she'd probably replied to an advert or heard a friend say they work that way or similar.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #41 on:** November 13, 2013, 10:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 13, 2013, 10:20

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on November 13, 2013, 10:16
"Seeking free family photographs, Adriana emailed a contact at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for the Affordable Care Act's rollout, about having photos of her and her family taken in exchange for allowing the photos to be used to market the new health care law. She was never paid. "

Because I know that when I want some good family photography done, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid is who I would call.

She didn't say 'good' and she didn't pay.
There's at least one iStocker who charges models for prints from his stock shoots - astonishingly he's in the UK, but 'darn sarth'.

Point being, of all the things or people you might contact in the world when you want pictures of your family done, the US Center for Medicare would not particularly be at the top of anyone's list, which is why it sounds quite odd.

Bob down the street with a Nikon, sure. The local photo shop, possibly. A camera club, maybe. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid? Ummmmm....

ShadySue · « **Reply #42 on:** November 13, 2013, 10:47 »

^^ that's why I'd assumed there must have been an advert or some other direct contact than her randomly deciding to email them.
Lazy journalists, the sort that would chase up a model rather than those really responsible, don't bother checking if their non-story is coherent.

bunhill · « **Reply #43 on:** November 13, 2013, 11:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 13, 2013, 09:50

I would far rather they named and shamed the IT team.

How do you know that the IT team is responsible ? How do you know that it is not the fault of politicians and their advisors specifying unrealistic goals and time constraints in order to meet political and administrative deadlines ? That's the typical thing with govt run IT projects just about everywhere.

The timescales were imposed top down by govt. The system itself is designed to be a compromise - it's a system which almost nobody chose including Obama who campaigned for the single-payer system (which some say is what many may end up with if they cannot get Obamacare running). Who sets out to design a compromise ?

gostwyck · « **Reply #44 on:** November 13, 2013, 11:11 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on November 13, 2013, 10:16

"Seeking free family photographs, Adriana emailed a contact at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency responsible for the Affordable Care Act's rollout, about having photos of her and her family taken in exchange for allowing the photos to be used to market the new health care law. She was never paid. "

Because I know that when I want some good family photography done, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid is who I would call.

The clue is in the words "a contact". That suggests she knew someone who worked there.

I need a couple of new tyres for my car. If only there was a 'Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' in my area. I'm sure they could sort it out for me, maybe in return for a photo of my car.

ShadySue · « **Reply #45 on:** November 13, 2013, 11:12 »

Quote from: bhr on November 13, 2013, 11:03

Quote from: ShadySue on November 13, 2013, 09:50
I would far rather they named and shamed the IT team.

How do you know that the IT team is responsible ?

I changed it in a later post to "those really responsible".
Same as at iS, there is probably a trail of blame.

OM · « **Reply #46 on:** November 13, 2013, 21:19 »

So, after spending a few hundred million dollars to get the IT for Obamacare up and running (which didn't happen), the company involved didn't actually pay the 'model'? Wonder where all the loot is stashed? They must have cut a lot of corners to' manage' the costs.

EmberMike · « **Reply #47 on:** November 13, 2013, 22:28 »

Quote from: OM on November 13, 2013, 21:19

So, after spending a few hundred million dollars to get the IT for Obamacare up and running (which didn't happen), the company involved didn't actually pay the 'model'? Wonder where all the loot is stashed? They must have cut a lot of corners to' manage' the costs.

Sounds like a familiar old story, doesn't it? Big project, lots of exposure, but sorry, no money for artwork.

Gee, none of us have ever heard that line before...

Spray and Pray · « **Reply #48 on:** November 14, 2013, 16:30 »

CNN update on her story just released-

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/11/13/tsr-pkg-moos-mystery-obamacare-website-girl-revealed.cnn.html

rimglow · « **Reply #49 on:** November 14, 2013, 16:59 »

Soon to be an American icon. Better buy one now. (How creepy are those hands?)

Spray and Pray · « **Reply #50 on:** November 14, 2013, 17:41 »

you need a model release for those shots rimglow lol!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Girl on the Affordable Healthcare Home Page (Read 12785 times)

EmberMike

Ron

stocked

EmberMike

Ron

EmberMike

Uncle Pete

EmberMike

Spray and Pray

Spray and Pray

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors