Ok, I think that if you take a commission to do a job, you need to check the ego at the door, and if paid for something do it to the best of your ability. Jill Greenburg obviously does not feel that applies to her. After this no one will believe that ANY photographer has any ethics, and so the contracts will be written in such a manner as to not allow the photographer to keep any images, to do anything to any image, and in the long run hurt photographers ability to use images for advertising, promotion, etc. Once again a moron has possibly damaged the profession far more than anyone could expect. Because now Lawyers will get involved and lawsuits will be filed if every image is not immediately turned over to the client. I see rich fields of litigation thanks to this stupid cow.
Also now the lawyers will have only to point to her and be able to sue for any "unflattering" portrait. I spoke with a lawyer acquaintance today, and he was excited at the possibilities for litigation.
Man oh man... I really can't believe they let him get photographed by someone who has been as vocal in their war against Bush. But perhaps Atlantic has an ulterior motive and hoped for something like that to happen.
William Coupon would have been a much better choice in my opinion.
This is from a post on that blog:
Jarrad Kevin said...
I love her work, but...
Did you happen to catch these on her website front page?:
Thanks for posting this. I did a quick search of the forums for the topic, "ethics." Not much there, and no similar situations that I found. I do believe that those who work in the public media must have a well-developed sense of ethics, but I also believe in the 1st amendment rights of free speech/free press. So, how to resolve this dilemma? Just the way you did -- bring it out into the open. Let people see all sides of the issue and come to their own conclusions. It does help that Greenburg is willing to expose her own biases, unlike some others in the media.
John
This isn't the first instance of a photographer manipulating a situation to get a desired look from a politician in a portrait. Karsh revealed his famous scowling portrait of Churchill was the result of walking over and yanking the cigar he was smoking out of his mouth. Annie Leibowitz suggested to the Queen of England she remove her crown for a few shots. Did Annie really want the crown off, or just the restrained regal version of the "are you out of your mind?" reaction to the suggestion?
Greenberg's judgement was poor in resorting to trickery to get an unflattering shot and then gloating about it, but are we to believe Atlantic hired her for the shot based on her reputation for taking flattering portraits of people? Not likely. So its really more a matter of one shot being more unflattering than the other. At least she didn't say mean things and make him cry before snapping the shot and Atlantic had the good judgement not to use it.
If the mainstream media outlets latch onto this story like they did her baby photo controversy - where she was accused of doing mean things to make them cry for her photos - she'll get another 15 min. of fame, but instead of the photo making McCain look bad, the unintended consequence will be to make him look good: the victim of a mean spiteful partisan trick.
Fast forward one week...
Larry King: "Senator McCain, what do you think about that Greenberg photo in the Star this week?"
Senator McCain: "Well Larry, the lighting in that shot is much better than it was in my Hanoi prison cell."
To think the OP's notion that Greenberg's actions will somehow taint how ANY (his emphasis) photographer will be able to market their work and open the door for punitive lawsuits in general is a real stretch, but it does make me wonder if McCain signed a model release with Greenberg which would allow her to sell the image, or whether one would be necessary in such a situation. Absent a model release her lawyer could argue he is a public figure, but his would say that it was a private portrait session for the Magazine.
I'm sure Larry King's panel of experts will sort all that out next week
Grognard wrote:
Because now Lawyers will get involved and lawsuits will be filed if every image is not immediately turned over to the client. I see rich fields of litigation thanks to this stupid cow.
Wow, do you have an agenda to push or something? I'm quite certain this isn't going to lead to any lawsuits or anything like what you're suggesting. Was it unethical? Probably. But you're blowing it way, way out of proportion.
Photographers like Greenberg are hired because of their controversial images, not in spite of them.
...because all of the people four years ago who said she was going to ruin her career making babies cry were right of course. She has accomplished exactly what she set out to do and I'm sure she will continue to do so for many years to come.
She did her job, she submitted a cover shot which the publication approved. They could very easily have asked her to fix the re-touching had they so wished. The mag knew what they were doing.
As far as her being a member of the media/press, she isn't. She is an artist and she does as artists do. If she was an illustrator and had DRAWN these pictures they would have been political cartoons and no one would have cared but instead she used photos because that is her medium. If McCain's people didn't bother to do their homework or put into the contract something to prevent this I don't feel sorry for him.
Found this on a thread on model mayhem "Presumably, McCain would have had to sign some sort of release for the photos to be published, right? The release I use specifically states that the photos cannot be used to embarrass or ridicule the subject, and I find it hard to believe that McCain would sign anything without that particular clause intact." Will this affect other photographers in the future, sure. Considering 99% of the people I have read comment on this seem to think she's a horrible despicable person, I don't think it will matter when they have to sign the 'will not use these photos to slander the subject' clause.
I would love to see her shoot Obama though. I'd imagine it would be amazing.
Has she done anything illegal or against a contract that would have existed between her and the subject ? I don't think so. So she is manipulative. Aren't all photographers, to a certain extent ?
And I think she has been kind of clever to gloat about it. In some sphere it's not the photo that counts (a very banal one by my standards) but the fact that it is talked about. With that angle in mind she has done a geat job.
It is time that people understand with their guts and not just with their brains that photography is a subjective art and that asking a photographer to do his work is submitting to his or her subjectivity. Unless of course there is a contract that states what is desired and a fee paid for that particular job...
Seen from this side of the Atlantic ocean (Belgium - French speaking - sorry for my English), the debate is very interesting because less "hot" and around ethics.
So what ? Jill Greenburg is apparently well know for her anti-bush campaign and she's a recognized photographer. As artist, she has a style, a way of thinking that people doesn't ignore.
If the magazine hire an artist to shoot McCain (it a trade name for a food company here , they have to know that the artists provide an interpretation of the reality, based on her inspiration. They are searching, following my point of view, some agitation around the fact and selling more magazines
If the McCain campaign team doesn't care about legal context of the pictures, they made a big mistake. A campaign is always full of such events, bad surprises. If I understand the way a president of the USA works, it's mainly a team based work, with experts in all domains...
If McCain himself didn't care of the image he can give when posing on formal shooting, what about his awareness when meeting other presidents, talking to journalists on the fly, etc ...
Grognard wrote:
Ok, I think that if you take a commission to do a job, you need to check the ego at the door, and if paid for something do it to the best of your ability. Jill Greenburg obviously does not feel that applies to her. After this no one will believe that ANY photographer has any ethics, and so the contracts will be written in such a manner as to not allow the photographer to keep any images, to do anything to any image, and in the long run hurt photographers ability to use images for advertising, promotion, etc. Once again a moron has possibly damaged the profession far more than anyone could expect. Because now Lawyers will get involved and lawsuits will be filed if every image is not immediately turned over to the client. I see rich fields of litigation thanks to this stupid cow. ...Show more →
I'd have a word with your own lawyer; ask him about libel. He/she might save you a few dollars.
Just sayin'...
Sep 14, 2008 at 03:30 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
fb101 wrote:
Has she done anything illegal or against a contract that would have existed between her and the subject ? I don't think so. So she is manipulative. Aren't all photographers, to a certain extent ?
And I think she has been kind of clever to gloat about it. In some sphere it's not the photo that counts (a very banal one by my standards) but the fact that it is talked about. With that angle in mind she has done a geat job.
It is time that people understand with their guts and not just with their brains that photography is a subjective art and that asking a photographer to do his work is submitting to his or her subjectivity. Unless of course there is a contract that states what is desired and a fee paid for that particular job......Show more →
In an artistic shoot, I'd agree with you, but this appears to have been a professional portrait shoot which implies clear expectations.
This Greenburg showed poor judgment and a lack of ethics.
It's only about a free lance photographer taking a picture of a candidate. This happens everyday and is part of normal risk level for the a.m. candidate....IMHO, André
I'd be Mc Cain, I'd require formal approval before any picture is sold to a newspaper and would have a paper formally signed by the photographer to that effect. If the photographer doesn't want to sign, then no picure is taken. It's as simple as that and I'm surprised that it didn't happen. Now, may be it has, and then that Greenburg could be formally suited for contract breach...
This was not a shot in public. The subject should have the right to rely on understandings regarding the objective of the shoot; especially if he wouldn't do it otherwise. He cooperated based on that understanding.
Fraud has three elements: Misrepresentation, reliance and injury. All three are present here. I'm not an attorney and can't say whether or not this would satisfy legal requirements if anyone even wanted to pursue it. But it does provide a mental ethics test. I suppose some of us have more trouble sleeping at night than others.
And I guess McCain vets his photographers about as well as he does his vice presidential running mates.
Are you privy to McCain's vetting procedures? If so, please elaborate. Or are you just spewing left-wing talking points? If you can't elaborate on his vetting process (and I surmise that you can't), keep your political talking points to yourself.
