No, no agenda, I just know how lawyers think. Besides thats the opinion on another forum where this is being discussed. I don't care what her political feelings are, perhaps I am old school where when you are hired to do a job, your personal ethics make you do the best job possible. Perhaps to you that's not the case based on your personal ethics, I don't know you and therefore have no idea of what you think about doing a good job. I work around lawyers, I hear them talk, I know what they look for, and in this day of litigation, its a rich field.
CRFTony wrote:
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.
Mike Ganz wrote:
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.
come on it was a joke. pretty much like you would hear on the late night talk shows. Ok maybe the late late night talk shows.
Unfortunately, there are so many photographers who resort to controversial tactics in order to gain their own 15 minutes of fame. Sadly, there will be many who repeat her name in blogs and other media publications thereby making her a household name. She will reap the benifits of her stupid act when she is hired by several clients because she is a "known" photographer.
As for her act of deceit, I am not a fan of McCain or his party. However, had I been contracted to shoot a portrait of him I would have done so with the best of my abilities and not dared to make him look bad in any way. He was the client. Greenberg was the hired photographer. She should have done what she was paid to do. She was paid to make a good image of him, not a bad one. Period.
I really hope that someone on the McCain campaign steps up to the plate and sues Greenburg. She misrepresented him, it was not a freedom of speech issue. She needs to be dragged into court and made to pay punitive damages to McCain.
You called a professional photographer a moron on a photography forum frequented by professional photographers. That is potentially libelous and whilst you may well be right, it's not the sensible thing to do in this litigious society we find ourselves in.
snegron wrote:
As for her act of deceit, I am not a fan of McCain or his party. However, had I been contracted to shoot a portrait of him I would have done so with the best of my abilities and not dared to make him look bad in any way. He was the client. Greenberg was the hired photographer. She should have done what she was paid to do. She was paid to make a good image of him, not a bad one. Period.
McCain wasn't the client. The magazine commissioned the images. And I'm sure they are ecstatic about the publicity this is getting.
Again, people hire Jill Greenberg because of her controversial images, not in spite of them.
You called a professional photographer a moron on a photography forum frequented by professional photographers. That is potentially libelous and whilst you may well be right, it's not the sensible thing to do in this litigious society we find ourselves in.
In order for the OP's comments to be libelous, the affected party has to prove damages. The only thing that can potentially damage the "affected party" was the horrible photograph she took. The OP's comments are opinions, which in turn, are protected by freedom of speech.
CRFTony wrote:
McCain wasn't the client. The magazine commissioned the images. And I'm sure they are ecstatic about the publicity this is getting.
Again, people hire Jill Greenberg because of her controversial images, not in spite of them.
No matter how you paint it, it is mirsepresentation. McCain agreed to a photoshoot. He is seeking to enhance his image. He was under the impression that his self image would be enhanced as well as his message or political agenda. The magazine, maybe working on their own hidden agenda, decided to comission Greenberg. McCain would not commit political suicide by knowingly posing for an image that makes him look evil. Either the mazine should be held liable for mirepresentation or if Green berg acted solo, then Greenberg should be held liable.
This is the problem with the US today. People want to sue over every ridiculous reason possible. Should OJ Simpson have sued when Time (or was it Life) altered his mugshot to make it appear darker and more threatening?
When he was alive, Richard Avedon was one of the most sought after portraits artists in the world and I don't think anyone would ever say he tried to "enhance" his subjects and present them in their best light. And he photographed countless world leaders and celebrities.
snegron wrote:
In order for the OP's comments to be libelous, the affected party has to prove damages. The only thing that can potentially damage the "affected party" was the horrible photograph she took. The OP's comments are opinions, which in turn, are protected by freedom of speech.
No, saying you think it is a horrible picture like you have said is an opinion, calling someone a moron is potentially libelous because it can damage the photographers reputation.
I've photographed leading politicians many times, indeed before the last general election here in the UK, I conducted a seminar to educate all the senior political aides of one of the national parties, on how to manage the media and avoid situations where they'd be made to look foolish.
It amazed me then how naive they all were about film, video and photography and quite frankly, I'm amazed that an experienced campaigner like McCain would be caught out so easily.
CRFTony wrote:
This is the problem with the US today. People want to sue over every ridiculous reason possible. Should OJ Simpson have sued when Time (or was it Life) altered his mugshot to make it appear darker and more threatening?
When he was alive, Richard Avedon was one of the most sought after portraits artists in the world and I don't think anyone would ever say he tried to "enhance" his subjects and present them in their best light. And he photographed countless world leaders and celebrities.
No, I believe that the problem in the U.S. today is the amount of people out to make a quick dollar by taking advantage of others.
Based on your line of thought then, if I were hired by a wedding planner to photograph a wedding and it so happens that I did not like the bride, then it would be perfectly ok for me to purposely take a few negative-looking images of the bride so I can sell them to "Bridezilla's".
Also, OJ's picture was a mugshot, not a paid portrait. OJ was not running for public office, McCain is.
Doogie wrote:
Go to her website, select "Names" and go to the shots of McCain....it gets a lot worse.
Thanks for the info, but despite the fact that I am not a McCain follower, I refuse to give this "photographer" any more undue attention. It would just feed into her ego and I don't really care to be part of the "shock-value" hype that she has tried to create.
In addition, I won't purchase any media where she publishes her work. It is my personal way of showing my distaste for her actions.
snegron wrote:
No, I believe that the problem in the U.S. today is the amount of people out to make a quick dollar by taking advantage of others.
Based on your line of thought then, if I were hired by a wedding planner to photograph a wedding and it so happens that I did not like the bride, then it would be perfectly ok for me to purposely take a few negative-looking images of the bride so I can sell them to "Bridezilla's".
Also, OJ's picture was a mugshot, not a paid portrait. OJ was not running for public office, McCain is....Show more →
Wedding planners don't hire photographers. That analogy is terribly flawed.
Again, look at Avedon's work. Look at his portraits of Eisenhower or even Marilyn Monroe. Look at his "In the American West". He didn't glamorize people and suggesting that people should sue photographers over unflattering portraits is wildly reckless and irresponsible.
The only company that has an issue with Greenberg is the magazine that hired her to take the photos. Not McCain. And certainly not any of us.
Hmmm, she is a celebrity of sorts and in the public eye, such statements of personal opinion are not held to be libel anymore than her statements that McCain's handlers are not particularly bright. His opinion and he is entitled to such like it or not.
snegron wrote:
Based on your line of thought then, if I were hired by a wedding planner to photograph a wedding and it so happens that I did not like the bride, then it would be perfectly ok for me to purposely take a few negative-looking images of the bride so I can sell them to "Bridezilla's".
If someone hires a photographer to shoot a wedding knowing they have bad blood with the bride, what should they expect to happen?
Lets take this situation and instead of being John McCain, lets say it was Saddam Hussein when he was alive, or Kim Jong Il, or Hitler. If thats too extreme for you lets say Charles Manson, or Ted Kzynski. I would think a lot more people would be raising their hands to say that yes, if they had the chance to shoot their portrait, it might not be quite so flattering. From what I know of Jill Greenbergs political views I would not be surprised if she held McCain in a very bad light so to speak. What if a Magazine hired you to make Hitler look heroic. It's great to say you would shoot 100% ethically but would you really. Could you really put your heart and soul into that? Wouldn't you love to get the chance to do the same thing Greenberg did.
Bottom line is the magazine asked for a shot of him looking heroic. She delivered that shot as best she felt comfortable and the magazine (whatever their motives) accepted and printed it. As far as the rest of the shots the worst I would call her is an opportunist.
snegron wrote:
No matter how you paint it, it is mirsepresentation. McCain agreed to a photoshoot. He is seeking to enhance his image. He was under the impression that his self image would be enhanced as well as his message or political agenda. The magazine, maybe working on their own hidden agenda, decided to comission Greenberg. McCain would not commit political suicide by knowingly posing for an image that makes him look evil. Either the mazine should be held liable for mirepresentation or if Green berg acted solo, then Greenberg should be held liable.
Had anyone in McCain's campaign ever read The Atlantic? Or bothered to look up Greenberg? Both are political opposites of McCain, to say the least. It was his own poor judgement agreeing to sit for the portrait, and complete lack of any smarts about controlling his image that he was supposedly trying to enhance. He apparently would commit political suicide, and not even realize it.
The Atlantic has no hidden agenda. They are unabashedly liberal. I don't believe there was any misrepresentation or unethical behavior. If you want to be President, and you can't even control a portrait photographer, then I'm grateful to Greenberg for pointing this out.
Sep 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
fb101 wrote:
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...
I have to agree with your second paragraph. It is what I would do and did do with regards to my wedding.
As for your first paragraph, I disagree. She may be a freelance photographer but she was hired by the magazine for a specific purpose and used the good name of the magazine to get access she ordinarily would not have had. I quote from the article:
When The Atlantic called Jill Greenberg, a committed Democrat, to shoot a portrait of John McCain for its October cover, she rubbed her hands with glee.
She delivered the image the magazine asked for—a shot that makes the Republican presidential nominee look heroic.
To take advantage of this situation for personal gain or harm to another is deceptive and unprofessional. If I was the Atlantic or any other organization I would write Breenberg off as unprofessional and NEVER use her again. Of course, the magazine should also have it in their contract to protect their subject as well if they want to maintain their credibility.
?? This makes no sense at all.