I think it’s used exclusively in the context of politics; Tip O’Neill made the phrase common currency in Washington, but it never made it beyond the Beltway (all for the best, I believe).

Kills! On! Film! Turn ‘em to vapor! Kills! On! Film!

In this case, the work depends almost entirely upon the use of the individuals’ likenesses, without any particular political, social or artistic message being intended or conveyed. However, it’s almost impossible to imagine either politician filing a lawsuit over this: although technically actionable, it’s an occupational hazard that comes with entering the political scrum — and, compared to the Obama monkey dolls we saw a few months ago, this is beanbag. Only a very few politicians — like Schwarzenegger suing an Ohio company over a bobblehead doll — would try to litigate this.

@SarahPalin: GET TO THE CHOPPA!

That’s not very accurate. People on the internet really seem to confuse subjects like First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. copyright law, and state property laws.

As a matter of copyright, you can use someone else’s name and likeness, since that’s not necessarily copyrightable subject matter (it’s not a “writing,” after all).

Most states protect a person’s name and likeness as a matter of property law. And it doesn’t matter if you’re a “public figure” or not. In many states, a company can’t take your name or likeness and use it to sell a product without getting your permission, as a matter of either statutory or common law. This is distinct from whether they could use your name or likeness in, say, a news story (fine under both copyright and property and defamation law, so long as it’s not deliberately inaccurate).

@Heliocentric :
Parody is generally a copyright law concept, and thus applies to “writings.” You’re not free to take Roger Federer’s name and likeness, for example, make a funny video game out of it, sell it for money, and claim that it’s a “parody” and thus legal under a state’s property and/or privacy laws. You could, however, make a parody of a song somebody wrote, and potentially call it fair use and thus not actionable as a matter of copyright law.

P.S. – it’s generally pretty obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about as soon as you start waving the term “free speech” (not to mention “bitches”) around.