| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2008 05:26:53 PM · #226 |
Isn't the basic problem here that she was hired to do work for the magazine and as such is an extension of the magazine? She violated their trust and the trust of the subject of the photography. Seems like she didn't have to take the business (and has probably lost a lot of business because of this).
Take the politics out of it and look at the actions taken in a non-political way (if that is possible). If a company hires a photographer then I would expect that 1) all photographs taken are actually owned by the company so that if 2) the photographer then takes "extra" photographs and manipulates them in a fasion that is unflattering to either the hiring company or the subject matter that there would be legal recourse and a breach of contract.
I'm not a professional photographer so I would like to hear from those in this community who are what their take is on this. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 05:38:44 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by dleach:
[..]all photographs taken are actually owned by the company[..] |
She is freelance - I don't know the contents of her contract but she would almost certainly own all the images and license one or several back for the story - not doubt with something of a non publish within x timeframe on the non chosen ones in the set. There is a staff type of deal where the co. owns the images but not the case here.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 07:02:10 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by dleach:
Seems like she didn't have to take the business (and has probably lost a lot of business because of this).
|
She won't loose any business. If anything she will probably get even more. Seriously, go have a look at her entire portfolio...her images can be seem in so many places. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 09:42:28 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by dleach:
Isn't the basic problem here that she was hired to do work for the magazine and as such is an extension of the magazine? She violated their trust and the trust of the subject of the photography. Seems like she didn't have to take the business (and has probably lost a lot of business because of this).
Take the politics out of it and look at the actions taken in a non-political way (if that is possible). If a company hires a photographer then I would expect that 1) all photographs taken are actually owned by the company so that if 2) the photographer then takes "extra" photographs and manipulates them in a fasion that is unflattering to either the hiring company or the subject matter that there would be legal recourse and a breach of contract.
I'm not a professional photographer so I would like to hear from those in this community who are what their take is on this. |
I'm also not a pro photographer, but I know enough about IP law to know it largely depends on the contract (and perhaps McCain's release). So, we can't really know if she breached her contract without knowing precicely what the agreements were. It's possible that she retained the rights to photos not used by the Atlantic, in which case I'd bet she's in the clear. Even if McCain complained based on what was in the release she could even have a good case to make that those doctored photos are protected political speech.
Again, I'm not a pro photographer or an IP lawyer, so perhaps I'm missing something here. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 09:59:34 PM · #230 |
I suspect she's savvy enough to have very carefully covered her ass, legally. Unfortunately, just because something's legal doesn't mean it's necessarily right...
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 22:00:46. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 10:40:58 PM · #231 |
| Jill Greenberg - Genius or Fool? |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 10:53:51 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I suspect she's savvy enough to have very carefully covered her ass, legally. Unfortunately, just because something's legal doesn't mean it's necessarily right... |
Typically, liberals aren't that smart. They just have the courts in their pocket. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:10:42 PM · #233 |
I'd be surprised if anyone truly thought this McCain debacle was anything but reprehensible. Regardless of her personal politics, she has done her client a grave disservice that goes beyond just not doing a good job and travels into the realm of deliberately putting her client into a horrible position. It's a shame, really. Not only is this likely to backfire, she'll probably lose the trust of future potential clients.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:11:33 PM · #234 |
Originally posted by JMart:
... I know enough about IP law to know it largely depends on the contract (and perhaps McCain's release). |
As a "public figure" McCain's image can be used for non-commercial purposes without a release. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:14:25 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by JMart:
... I know enough about IP law to know it largely depends on the contract (and perhaps McCain's release). |
As a "public figure" McCain's image can be used for non-commercial purposes without a release. |
This is really only beside the point, which is questioning her work practice with her clients. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 07:44:01 AM · #236 |
Originally posted by robs:
Does not sound like they think it was a ruined (use your word) shoot. You are discussing the images the mag did not use. |
Actually I think the photographer was discussing the selected photo when she indicated she'd purposely left it uncorrected. Of course the mag doesn't consider the photo ruined. They're probably scared of the same thing Jill is worried about: an audit! I'd like to know McCain's response to to this tempest in a teapot. I have no use for the man. Not because he's a republican, but because he's proven himself a hot head that can not control himself.
Just as Hillary's foot found her mouth during the primaries, I believe McCain's will find his during the general election. :) |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 07:50:21 AM · #237 |
Originally posted by JMart:
... I know enough about IP law to know it largely depends on the contract (and perhaps McCain's release). |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As a "public figure" McCain's image can be used for non-commercial purposes without a release. |
Somehow I don't think that those truly reprehensible depictions would slide in under that ruling.
It really smacks of outright slander/defamation of character IMNSHO.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 07:50:48 AM · #238 |
Originally posted by L2:
I'd be surprised if anyone truly thought this McCain debacle was anything but reprehensible. Regardless of her personal politics, she has done her client a grave disservice that goes beyond just not doing a good job and travels into the realm of deliberately putting her client into a horrible position. It's a shame, really. Not only is this likely to backfire, she'll probably lose the trust of future potential clients. |
One can hope.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 08:10:14 AM · #239 |
Only word I can use for this is unprofessional. She gives us all a black eye. Imagine other professionals doing this sort of thing. Imagine a doctor making you sick because he doesn't like your politics. Imagine a contracter building you an inferior product because you don't agree with her politically.
Is it now fair to question us photographers about our political beliefs, our personal feelings about the subject we are shooting, and using that information to decide if they should hire us?
Unprofessional behaivor affects us all. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 08:30:12 AM · #240 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by JMart:
... I know enough about IP law to know it largely depends on the contract (and perhaps McCain's release). |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As a "public figure" McCain's image can be used for non-commercial purposes without a release. |
Somehow I don't think that those truly reprehensible depictions would slide in under that ruling.
It really smacks of outright slander/defamation of character IMNSHO. |
No way should this be prosecuted as slander or defamation of character. Regardless of how you feel about these images, they are in a political context. Any reference to John McCain as a monster, for example, clearly has to do with policy decisions he has made and actions he has taken from a position of political power. It is essential that political figures are allowed to be caricatured, mocked, insulted and ridiculed.
I don't really get why this thread is continuing. Everyone is arguing, but you're all on the same side of the argument. Yeah, it does seem like pretty childish behavior, but at the same time I am generally more relieved than anything else when someone breaks through the tightly controlled loop between media and power, generating the carefully constructed messages we are intended to hear. Yes, she betrayed a trust, but another trust is betrayed when politicians are contractually and professionally portrayed as Heroes.
I just wish she'd done something more imaginative, more... you know... artistic. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 09:03:30 AM · #241 |
Ok...
2006...
Jill Greenberg takes candy from kids to make them cry and photographs it. In my opinion kids of that age are a bit fussy anyway. I strongly doubt taking a lollipop away from a baby is any more traumatic to the child than when a parent removes an inappropriate object from the child, say something sharp. The child will cry regardless of the intent. So no I don't think this in the span of some photo sessions to likely be harmful to the child any more than needing to be changed in the middle of the night.
As for the desire to photograph children crying or upset being unusual or wrong. The day holds up the night and the night day. Nothing exists in all of creation without a counterpart, an opposite, each being required for either to exist. White paint on a white canvas says nothing, as would black on black, but black on white can give you landscapes.
Life is a series of ups and downs. The wise learn from the downs and get stronger and reach ever higher. The foolish seek to ignore the downs and pretend they will never happen.
I certainly do not find images of crying children pleasant nor homeless people, nor pictures of poverty and turmoil, of things rotting away and falling apart. However such things exist, they will exist whether or not one believes in them or accepts them. For almost every person with food, there will be a person with less, and a person with more. This is life, this is the box we all live in.
So while I do not "like" such images, I believe they have a need to be taken, to be photographed and documented and shown to people. People should not ignore life, even if it isn't cheerful.
The images may be sad but they are also alive, they evoke emotion and thought in viewers. They want to be seen, want to have an impact on the world.
As for Jill's photos, according to the great Wikipedia they were done as part of a political protest against Bush and Fundamental Christianity. She wanted to display the pain and torment the children might express if they knew just how much they were being harmed. For who cannot sympathize with a sad child?
2008...
This is more mixed, however in simplicity... BUYER BEWARE! Looking into her past and the above photos and reasons for them it should have been clear to the buyer that she is strongly opposed to Bush policy and to war and to Christianity. So it should be no shock to McCain that she used him as an opportunity to further spread a political message. Sheep should not go to wolves for protection, this does not make the wolf evil nor unprofessional, it is by its very nature an enemy of the sheep, a predator. She is nonetheless the same. A sheep walked into her studio...
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 09:07:50 AM · #242 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Ok...
2006...
Jill Greenberg takes candy from kids to make them cry and photographs it. In my opinion kids of that age are a bit fussy anyway. I strongly doubt taking a lollipop away from a baby is any more traumatic to the child than when a parent removes an inappropriate object from the child, say something sharp. The child will cry regardless of the intent. So no I don't think this in the span of some photo sessions to likely be harmful to the child any more than needing to be changed in the middle of the night.
As for the desire to photograph children crying or upset being unusual or wrong. The day holds up the night and the night day. Nothing exists in all of creation without a counterpart, an opposite, each being required for either to exist. White paint on a white canvas says nothing, as would black on black, but black on white can give you landscapes.
Life is a series of ups and downs. The wise learn from the downs and get stronger and reach ever higher. The foolish seek to ignore the downs and pretend they will never happen.
I certainly do not find images of crying children pleasant nor homeless people, nor pictures of poverty and turmoil, of things rotting away and falling apart. However such things exist, they will exist whether or not one believes in them or accepts them. For almost every person with food, there will be a person with less, and a person with more. This is life, this is the box we all live in.
So while I do not "like" such images, I believe they have a need to be taken, to be photographed and documented and shown to people. People should not ignore life, even if it isn't cheerful.
The images may be sad but they are also alive, they evoke emotion and thought in viewers. They want to be seen, want to have an impact on the world.
As for Jill's photos, according to the great Wikipedia they were done as part of a political protest against Bush and Fundamental Christianity. She wanted to display the pain and torment the children might express if they knew just how much they were being harmed. For who cannot sympathize with a sad child?
2008...
This is more mixed, however in simplicity... BUYER BEWARE! Looking into her past and the above photos and reasons for them it should have been clear to the buyer that she is strongly opposed to Bush policy and to war and to Christianity. So it should be no shock to McCain that she used him as an opportunity to further spread a political message. Sheep should not go to wolves for protection, this does not make the wolf evil nor unprofessional, it is by its very nature an enemy of the sheep, a predator. She is nonetheless the same. A sheep walked into her studio... |
All of which makes her an ass. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 09:24:50 AM · #243 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
All of which makes her an ass. |
Could you summarize that for me? You obviously made a lot of points, I want to make sure I don't miss any. Thanks a bunch!
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 09:26:48 AM · #244 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
All of which makes her an ass. |
Could you summarize that for me? You obviously made a lot of points, I want to make sure I don't miss any. Thanks a bunch! |
:)
Jill Greenberg = ass |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 09:46:27 AM · #245 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
All of which makes her an ass. |
Could you summarize that for me? You obviously made a lot of points, I want to make sure I don't miss any. Thanks a bunch! |
Sounds like Hawkeye got it right to me. She's not worth wasting much more time than that in summarizing her.
Oops! Here's a smiley to keep it civil. :-) |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 10:00:15 AM · #246 |
| The pictures are the equivalent of drawing a mustache and horns on a picture of a teacher you didn't like in high school. The difference is that these are presented publically instead of being locked away in your yearbook. There is a kernel of truth to them and they are funny in a base and juvenile way. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 10:08:38 AM · #247 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The pictures are the equivalent of drawing a mustache and horns on a picture of a teacher you didn't like in high school. ... There is a kernel of truth to them and they are funny in a base and juvenile way. |
I suppose that's true to some degree (quite juvenile for sure) and would apply to just about everyone at some point in their life. The Obama version is due out any day now. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 10:11:56 AM · #248 |
if it bothers you so much - stop looking at it
you can't change it / but you can ignore it
by fussing over it, it keeps coming back
let it go ..
whatever "it" . is |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 10:15:06 AM · #249 |
Scandal! Outrage! The artwork was seemingly purchased in good faith but, unbeknownst to the depicted subjects, it would be turned against them as a political message without their consent or approval. Disgusting! We're talking about "Barracuda" right?
Message edited by author 2008-09-16 10:27:03. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 10:22:29 AM · #250 |
| The countdown to forum relocation begins...'Rant', here we come! :-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 12:50:56 AM EDT.
