6 days ago
How did Ellen Tamati's face end up on Hobson's Pledge billboards?
The lobby group has pulled its latest campaign against Māori wards after the woman whose photo it used without her knowledge expressed her distress. But a lawyer says the use of the photo has 'pretty clearly' breached the Fair Trading Act.
Hobson's Pledge has apologised to Te Arawa woman Ellen Tamati and pulled a billboard campaign that featured her image alongside the words 'My mana doesn't need a mandate. Vote no to Māori wards.'
Aukaha News reported this morning that Tamati's face was used without her knowledge for the campaign. An upset Tamati spoke to the outlet about waking up to missed calls from her mokopuna. 'I didn't know what she was talking about, I had no idea. I didn't realise my face was on a billboard. She kept saying to me 'Nan, what's going on?' and I didn't know what to say to her 'cause I don't understand.'
Tamati was adamant she did not give permission for her photo to be used on the Hobson's Pledge billboards, and said she was staunchly opposed to the message they were sending.
'I did not give any permission to use my mug, my moko kauae,' she said, holding back tears. When asked what she would say to those who used her face for their campaign, she was lost for words, eventually saying, 'that's not me… they have taken… that's not me'.
A spokesperson for Lumo Digital Outdoor, the company responsible for the digital billboards, told The Spinoff that Hobson's Pledge had asked the company to remove them – 'not because legally they didn't have a right to use it', but because of the pain the campaign had caused Tamati.
The billboards had been spotted in Rotorua, Hamilton, Whangārei and Christchurch. But how did Ellen Tamati's face end up on them in the first place?
'Editorial use only'
Stock image photography is a thriving business in New Zealand. News outlets around the country need images to illustrate their stories and, without in-house photographers, rely heavily on stock photography platforms to provide suitable photos. All manner of private businesses and government agencies also pay for stock imagery to use in various content.
At Waitangi Day celebrations in 2025, travel photographer Rafael Ben Ari took dozens of photos of landscapes and attendees. He licensed his photos to two stock imagery websites – iStock by Getty and Shutterstock – where they are labelled 'editorial use only', meaning they can only be used by in a newsworthy or human interest context, for example to accompany news reporting (in this instance, most likely be reporting on Waitangi Day), rather than for commercial or promotional purposes.
It is unclear whether or not Tamati was aware that a photo of her was available on these platforms. Being filmed or photographed while in a public space is not in itself a breach of privacy, and few people ever see the photos of themselves appear in these circumstances.
In a statement acknowledging Tamati's distress, a Hobson's Pledge spokesperson said the image was 'legally purchased through a reputable stock photography provider, and all rights to use it in public-facing materials were secured'.
Speaking to The Spinoff, Hobson's Pledge leader Don Brash said that he was under the impression the image, purchased from iStock, was 'fully available for use by whoever bought it'. When asked if he was aware that the image was marked for editorial use only, Brash said no, 'I was not aware of that at all.'
Getty Images, which owns iStock, did not provide comment before publication but its terms and conditions state that images marked for editorial use only may not be used 'for any commercial, promotional, advertorial, endorsement, advertising, gambling/betting/gaming uses, or merchandising purpose'.
Is it legal?
According to intellectual property lawyer Earl Gray, Hobson's Pledge is 'pretty clearly' in breach of the Fair Trading Act. 'This is clearly advertising,' he told The Spinoff, in reference to the 'editorial only' clause. He pointed out that iStock's terms specify that editorial-use-only images are 'not model or property released', meaning Hobson's Pledge could not use the image in a way 'that suggests that the model has endorsed anything they're saying'.
'In this case, Ellen Tamati has clearly not said what they're saying. They're clearly in breach of the iStock terms and and because of that, they're also, I think, pretty clearly in breach of the Fair Trading Act,' said Gray.
Liability could even extend to the billboard company, Lumo, for hosting the ad: 'They've put it up so they've potentially made the reproduction, or published the reproduction. If you're outside of any licence and you use a copyright work, then you're potentially infringing copyright.'
What next?
According to Gray, Tamati or her whānau – or anyone else aggrieved by the campaign's use of her face – could lay a complaint. 'Pretty much anyone can make a complaint about a breach of the Fair Trading Act, and indeed, the Commerce Commission could as well. Given that that person will at least feel damaged in the sense of her reputation amongst her friends, she would have a right to bring a claim for a breach of the Fair Trading Act,' he said.
'I imagine most billboard companies would have terms and conditions that at least require the advertiser to be responsible for ensuring that the advertisement doesn't breach any any laws, including infringing copyright or defamation or breaching the Fair Trading Act.'
Why Ellen Tamati?
The image of Tamati is striking – a close portrait. Brash said her photo was chosen 'because it was an image of a strong Maori woman who was ideal for our purposes'.
At the end of its statement, Hobson's Pledge said, 'regardless of the positive message we were promoting, we do not want anyone to feel distressed by our materials'. Tamati, the short-lived face of a 'vote no to Māori wards' campaign, disagrees.
'Please go and vote for your Māori wards,' she said this morning, 'because we need them.'
