| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2008 10:40:58 AM · #251 |
| Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing, even when something we don't agree with is said. If she broke some contractual clause then she will pay, otherwise she should be free to make political statements with her work. I do find it funny since, as Scalvert alluded to, McCains camp has used numerous artist's songs against their knowledge or will. I don't agree with the message of the photos but think they are clever and that one is pretty spooky, I would have given it a 9 or ten in a challenge for halloween:) |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 10:41:43 AM · #252 |
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. 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. |
My problem with these photos is that she did them as a professional assignment. It would be different had she found a personal opportunity to photograph McCain and used the results to create portraits that expressed her political agenda. (Of course, we don't know specifically what she was asked to produce.) |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 10:54:54 AM · #253 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
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. 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. |
My problem with these photos is that she did them as a professional assignment. It would be different had she found a personal opportunity to photograph McCain and used the results to create portraits that expressed her political agenda. (Of course, we don't know specifically what she was asked to produce.) |
So?
Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 11:09:22 AM · #254 |
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. 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. |
A kernel of truth??? HA! |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 11:10:51 AM · #255 |
The pressure of wide criticism of Greenberg, for potential misuse of pictures made for contract for her employer - The Atlantic Monthly, ie. making caricature, was not without risk, she has been apparently chastised by non payment. The question of whether Greenberg has a right to use images made from the Atlantic/McCain photo session, does not seem to be clear, may well end up in some kind of arbitration.
At this point it does not matter, and unfortunately, a view of the caricatures seem much less interesting or passionate than any 1860's HARPER'S WEEKLY cartoon of Lincoln. Sadly this stupid side track has over shadowed the rather good Atlantic article & discussion The Wars of John McCain by Jeffrey Goldberg regarding McCain's militaristic outlook & background. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 11:11:04 AM · #256 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
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. 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. |
My problem with these photos is that she did them as a professional assignment. It would be different had she found a personal opportunity to photograph McCain and used the results to create portraits that expressed her political agenda. (Of course, we don't know specifically what she was asked to produce.) |
So?
Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever. |
Not without a model release... and I'm sure the model release specified their intended destination.
Just took photos at a party for a client. I'm not allowed to use them except perhaps as work-samples. It would be highly unprofessional of me to do so, especially in a manner than embarassed the client. Common sense. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 11:45:35 AM · #257 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
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. 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. |
My problem with these photos is that she did them as a professional assignment. It would be different had she found a personal opportunity to photograph McCain and used the results to create portraits that expressed her political agenda. (Of course, we don't know specifically what she was asked to produce.) |
So?
Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever. |
Not without a model release... and I'm sure the model release specified their intended destination.
Just took photos at a party for a client. I'm not allowed to use them except perhaps as work-samples. It would be highly unprofessional of me to do so, especially in a manner than embarassed the client. Common sense. |
Wrong again, (as usual).
McCain is not a model. He's a public figure. Also, model releases are intended for commercial usage, which this clearly is not. Now, if she were to try to use McCain's image to sell, say, Oreo cookies, then, you'd be correct.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 11:50:42 AM · #258 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
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. 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. |
My problem with these photos is that she did them as a professional assignment. It would be different had she found a personal opportunity to photograph McCain and used the results to create portraits that expressed her political agenda. (Of course, we don't know specifically what she was asked to produce.) |
So?
Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever. |
Not without a model release... and I'm sure the model release specified their intended destination.
Just took photos at a party for a client. I'm not allowed to use them except perhaps as work-samples. It would be highly unprofessional of me to do so, especially in a manner than embarassed the client. Common sense. |
Wrong again, (as usual).
McCain is not a model. He's a public figure. Also, model releases are intended for commercial usage, which this clearly is not. Now, if she were to try to use McCain's image to sell, say, Oreo cookies, then, you'd be correct. |
My question is this -- Would she have even had access to McCain had she not been hired by theAtlantic?
Would it be different if she had acquired the shots, say at a speech, or something, and done this? |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 11:58:06 AM · #259 |
Originally posted by karmat:
My question is this -- Would she have even had access to McCain had she not been hired by theAtlantic?
Would it be different if she had acquired the shots, say at a speech, or something, and done this? |
In my opinion, that is the heart of the problem--she was paid to do a portrait by a third party, allowing her access she would not otherwise have had. She has a right to express her beliefs, but should not use privileges to do so. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 11:59:31 AM · #260 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
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. 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. |
My problem with these photos is that she did them as a professional assignment. It would be different had she found a personal opportunity to photograph McCain and used the results to create portraits that expressed her political agenda. (Of course, we don't know specifically what she was asked to produce.) |
So?
Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever. |
Not without a model release... and I'm sure the model release specified their intended destination.
Just took photos at a party for a client. I'm not allowed to use them except perhaps as work-samples. It would be highly unprofessional of me to do so, especially in a manner than embarassed the client. Common sense. |
Wrong again, (as usual).
McCain is not a model. He's a public figure. Also, model releases are intended for commercial usage, which this clearly is not. Now, if she were to try to use McCain's image to sell, say, Oreo cookies, then, you'd be correct. |
My question is this -- Would she have even had access to McCain had she not been hired by theAtlantic?
Would it be different if she had acquired the shots, say at a speech, or something, and done this? |
Probably not and had she gotten the images she used at a speech or whatnot, the magazine would not have been caught in the middle (assuming they weren't complicit in the first place) and she would not have had the control over the lighting that is essential to her work.
I heard somewhere that she negotiated for use of the images before the election. That will be the key; what was in the agreement betwenn Greenberg and The Atlantic.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 11:59:46 AM · #261 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Not without a model release... and I'm sure the model release specified their intended destination. |
Repeat: as a "public figure" McCain does not need to sign a release for his image to be used for non-commercial (endorsement of a product) purposes.
People re-purpose photos of celebrities for the purpose of commentary or satire all the time -- Freaking News is an entire site devoted to the genre ...
Palin Photos
Bill Gates Photos
George Carlin Photos
Obama/Clinton Photos
Rev. Wright vs. Obama Photos |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 12:08:00 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
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. 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. |
My problem with these photos is that she did them as a professional assignment. It would be different had she found a personal opportunity to photograph McCain and used the results to create portraits that expressed her political agenda. (Of course, we don't know specifically what she was asked to produce.) |
So?
Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever. |
Not without a model release... and I'm sure the model release specified their intended destination.
Just took photos at a party for a client. I'm not allowed to use them except perhaps as work-samples. It would be highly unprofessional of me to do so, especially in a manner than embarassed the client. Common sense. |
Wrong again, (as usual).
McCain is not a model. He's a public figure. Also, model releases are intended for commercial usage, which this clearly is not. Now, if she were to try to use McCain's image to sell, say, Oreo cookies, then, you'd be correct. |
Read what I was replying to. Your own comment "Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever"
You stand corrected. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 12:08:36 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So?
Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever. |
Not without a model release... and I'm sure the model release specified their intended destination.
Just took photos at a party for a client. I'm not allowed to use them except perhaps as work-samples. It would be highly unprofessional of me to do so, especially in a manner than embarassed the client. Common sense. |
Wrong again, (as usual).
McCain is not a model. He's a public figure. Also, model releases are intended for commercial usage, which this clearly is not. Now, if she were to try to use McCain's image to sell, say, Oreo cookies, then, you'd be correct. |
Feisty again, (as usual).
Spaz - you said: "Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever."
Hawkeye was correct in responding to that, in part, that a model release would be needed for "stock" use (editorial excluded). As for the "whatever" part...
All legal points aside, as a "Professional Photographer" what she did seems to be in poor taste if not unethical. I wonder if she's a member of Professional Photographers of America (PPA)? If so, it would be interesting to know what their stance on this situtation is. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 12:20:35 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
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. 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. |
My problem with these photos is that she did them as a professional assignment. It would be different had she found a personal opportunity to photograph McCain and used the results to create portraits that expressed her political agenda. (Of course, we don't know specifically what she was asked to produce.) |
So?
Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever. |
Not without a model release... and I'm sure the model release specified their intended destination.
Just took photos at a party for a client. I'm not allowed to use them except perhaps as work-samples. It would be highly unprofessional of me to do so, especially in a manner than embarassed the client. Common sense. |
Wrong again, (as usual).
McCain is not a model. He's a public figure. Also, model releases are intended for commercial usage, which this clearly is not. Now, if she were to try to use McCain's image to sell, say, Oreo cookies, then, you'd be correct. |
Read what I was replying to. Your own comment "Photographers re-use outtakes all the time, as stock, art prints or whatever"
You stand corrected. |
Once again, you prove my point.
Neither usage I mentioned would absolutely require a model release. Stock might, but the value of McCain's image is primarily editorial, not commercial. I'm sure that once he loses in November, he can go do a Bob Dole and be a pitchman for Viagra or some other product. For that, I'm sure he will need to sign a release.
Again for the exceptionally slow: Model releases are for commercial usage. Commercial usage meaning the endorsing of a product. If you need to, print it out and read it over and over until it sinks in. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 12:22:58 PM · #265 |
Greenberg a member of the PPA? What she is is so beyond the regular pro photographer. She resides in the upper realms of the photography world...she is an elite celebrity photographer. She is also an artist...whether we like what she does or not.
and this is from the PDN article:
"Greenberg is hoping to license that image to some other magazine (she negotiated a two-week embargo with The Atlantic so she could re-license images from the shoot before the election)."
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 12:27:03 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
All legal points aside, as a "Professional Photographer" what she did seems to be in poor taste if not unethical. I wonder if she's a member of Professional Photographers of America (PPA)? If so, it would be interesting to know what their stance on this situtation is. |
The PPA?
That's just funny.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 12:30:08 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Not without a model release... and I'm sure the model release specified their intended destination. |
Repeat: as a "public figure" McCain does not need to sign a release for his image to be used for non-commercial (endorsement of a product) purposes.
People re-purpose photos of celebrities for the purpose of commentary or satire all the time -- Freaking News is an entire site devoted to the genre ...
Palin Photos
Bill Gates Photos
George Carlin Photos
Obama/Clinton Photos
Rev. Wright vs. Obama Photos |
But do they get the original photos from a paid assignment and then use them personally? |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 12:43:30 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
All legal points aside, as a "Professional Photographer" what she did seems to be in poor taste if not unethical. I wonder if she's a member of Professional Photographers of America (PPA)? If so, it would be interesting to know what their stance on this situtation is. |
The PPA?
That's just funny. |
:-D I was hoping that might lighten the mood around here a tad. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 12:48:27 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
But do they get the original photos from a paid assignment and then use them personally? |
Worse -- these folks probably swipe them from somewhere on the internet ... but I was only addressing the need of a release from McCain to use the images -- any other question is entirely dependent on her contractual relationship with the magazine, and it appears that this use did not breach that contract; since she specifically negotiated re-use provisions in the first place, it would be exceptionally naive to then ignore them ... |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 12:56:29 PM · #270 |
| Interestingly, This got some media airplay this AM on one of the so-called news shows... it was *very* poorly presented. There was no sign that anyone involved with airing the story had a clue what actually went on. It will be interesting to see where this goes in the general media. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:13:21 PM · #271 |
hehehe - this whole thing was funny as heck for me yesterday...
Had to take mrs ross & middle ross to the Dr., so took the laptop to work on pics while waiting. Guess how many:
(1) Televisions were on FOX news, in the lobby?
(2) Strange looks I got?
(3) Comments were given on what I was doing?
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 01:13:42 PM · #272 |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 04:07:15 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I don't really get why this thread is continuing. Everyone is arguing, but you're all on the same side of the argument. |
You must be new on the internets, right???
LOL |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 04:34:29 PM · #274 |
When the latest Atlantic showed up in the mailbox the other day I was like, "that looks like a Greenberg portrait".
(that shade of blue for the background and the lighting gave it away) and was surprised that she would shoot McCain (or be chosen to shoot him).
Now I see the light!
This is hilarious.
Duped someone trying to dupe the American public once again.
Rock on.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 04:53:52 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Again for the exceptionally slow: Model releases are for commercial usage. Commercial usage meaning the endorsing of a product. If you need to, print it out and read it over and over until it sinks in. |
Is this the "official" definition, because I have been in situations in the past where if there was any financial "gain," even if it was just self-promotion, was considered commercial. |
|
