There's plenty of assassinating and plundering on the way, it would appear, but none of that bothers PETA. Nope, it's the fake killing of fake whales that has the group back in full statement-issuing pique. Here's what it had to say about the deadly digital whaling:

Whaling—that is, shooting whales with harpoons and leaving them to struggle for an hour or more before they die or are hacked apart while they are still alive—may seem like something out of the history books, but this bloody industry still goes on today in the face of international condemnation, and it's disgraceful for any game to glorify it. PETA encourages video game companies to create games that celebrate animals—not games that promote hurting and killing them.

"History is our playground in Assassin's Creed," Ubisoft said in a statement to the publication. "Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag is a work of fiction that depicts the real events during the Golden Era of Pirates. We do not condone illegal whaling, just as we don't condone a pirate lifestyle of poor hygiene, plundering, hijacking ships, and over-the-legal-limit drunken debauchery."

"And even if the game does glorify whaling — as it certainly glorifies the life of a pirate — I don't think it will lead to a generation of gamers who head to the Caribbean to hunt down humpbacks. Just as I don't think anyone who played the previous Assassin's Creed games have found employment as a murderer for hire."

Much like animals in the real world, Pokémon are treated as unfeeling objects and used for such things as human entertainment and as subjects in experiments. The way that Pokémon are stuffed into pokéballs is similar to how circuses chain elephants inside railroad cars and let them out only to perform confusing and often painful tricks that were taught using sharp steel-tipped bullhooks and electric shock prods …if PETA existed in Unova, our motto would be: Pokémon are not ours to use or abuse. They exist for their own reasons. We believe that this is the message that should be sent to children.

PETA seems to have missed the single biggest theme of the Pokémon series: That Pokémon should be treated humanely and live as our equals. The games are loaded with an endless stream of characters who go on and on about true friendship between man and Pokémon. It’s so saccharine and so completely the opposite of what PETA suggests that it boggles the mind.

As in the Michele Obama case, the White House complained, but everybody seems to agree that Obama won't sue, not just because presidents don't trifle with such litigation, but because Obama has no legal leg to stand on. He is a public figure and the ad is truthful -- Obama did, in fact, wear its jacket standing near the Great Wall...

That is not to say that PETA and Weatherproof ran no risk when they started these ad campaigns. When receiving questions from reporters, the White House could have released statements from her denouncing PETA for extremist opposition to the use of animals in medical testing ("she thinks it is better to test on animals first instead of using poor people and prisoners"). Similarly, the White House could have told reporters, oh yes, he did wear the jacket but later decided that it is a cheap and inferior product. But instead, the White House seems to be playing along, at least with PETA, by agreeing that Obama really does share PETA's position on furs.

What is interesting here is the assumption that it is (mis)appropriation when a political group does it and when a clothing company does it, but not when the media do it. But isn't is obvious that magazines were putting the Obamas on the cover to sell magazines? Givhan's article admits that -- she says, "no small part of the allure has been the sort of personal magnetism that connects with consumers as they bide their time in checkout lanes," and quotes PETA's preseident explaining, "It's hard not to look at her and feel good."

This, too, is a use of the Obamas' selling power to sell the products of companies' who have never received consent from the Obamas. In fact, political groups and companies as well as the media are constantly trying to associate themselves with a variety of famous personages, no matter what some "right of publicity" cases may say. It is high time to consider how far the right of publicity needs to be cut back, or whether it causes more trouble than it is worth.