Sarsfield wrote:
Typical liberal 'hater'. They're mantra is that if you can't disagree with someone's politics logically and with reason, attack their person with anything and everything you've got. Hypocrites to the core - the whole stinking cesspool lot of them.
Again, the phenomenon you describe is as much a feature of the right as the left. Indeed, ideological extremism of any stripe breeds both closed mindedness and an inability to think critically about an opposing (or agreeable) argument.
That said, the shark's teeth and "warmonger" stuff isn't just unprofessional... it's flat out juvenile. Honestly. I thought the low-placed light made the 'ol "Maverick" look quite nice, but the addition of the stupid graphics were way beyond the pale.
Sarsfield wrote:
Typical liberal 'hater'. They're mantra is that if you can't disagree with someone's politics logically and with reason, attack their person with anything and everything you've got. Hypocrites to the core - the whole stinking cesspool lot of them.
Wow. If I judged conservatives as a group based on your reply there, I'd come to the same conclusion about them.
I have to admit that this is one of the most entertaining threads that I've seen around here in a long time. I mean to even question anyone's ethics in a POLITICAL context? How long has it been since ethics and any political campaign have even come within sight of one another?
We could start with JG, but where would we stop? You're worried what people might think? We're about 30 years to late for that one. You're worried about a photograph when your retirement account just tanked? Why don't you call out Wall Street's ethics?
Worried about photography's good name? What about the paparazzi? Everyone thinks we're terrorists or pedophiles.
You guys (and I'm talking about both sides here,) sound incredibly naive. This thread is more about politics than photography and you all know it.
Cheers and thanks for the interesting read.
Ethics and politics are mutually exclusive. Like military intelligence. Fun read but lets be serious,
you realize she's laughing all the way to the bank...don't you
Is it me or have some posts in this thread been deleted since yesterday? I'm guessing the moderator is trying to keep the nasty politics out of this site and forum. I'm okay with that.
Sarsfield wrote:
Typical liberal 'hater'. They're mantra is that if you can't disagree with someone's politics logically and with reason, attack their person with anything and everything you've got. Hypocrites to the core - the whole stinking cesspool lot of them.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Ethics and politics are mutually exclusive. Like military intelligence. Fun read but lets be serious,
you realize she's laughing all the way to the bank...don't you
I don't understand how The Atlantic can say they are satisfied with the image she gave them, enough to run it on their cover, and only after there is a backlash they now refuse to pay her?
I think that stands to be a bad precedent for photographers as much as what she did. If you deliver a product that the client is happy with, they can later on decide to refuse payment but use the photos anyway...
Carlton Beener wrote:
I don't understand how The Atlantic can say they are satisfied with the image she gave them, enough to run it on their cover, and only after there is a backlash they now refuse to pay her?
I think that stands to be a bad precedent for photographers as much as what she did. If you deliver a product that the client is happy with, they can later on decide to refuse payment but use the photos anyway...
Any client can refuse payment if (notice I said if) they can prove (notice I said prove) a breech of contract. Without knowing the actual wording of the contract, it is difficult to determine if Greenberg did in fact breech it.
However, if The Atlantic can prove Greenbergs actions after the fact cost the magazine financially with images acquired under their auspices, as in lost subscriptions, newsstand sales and loss of advertising revenues, they may be well within their right to seek damages. Heck, people sue for a lot less reason.
In the light of Greenberg's public statements, it shouldn't be difficult for an attorney to present a case in the magazine's favor.
Unfortunately, she was dropped by two agencies, another picked her up immediately. She also was selling the crying baby prints at $5K per, faster than she could print them. I'll doubt she'll suffer greatly as there are enough like-minded clients available for her to survive. Unfortunate that the rest of may come under scrutiny for our personal politics when clients make a choice of who to hire.
She also was selling the crying baby prints at $5K per, faster than she could print them.
You mean Jill Greenberg is a greedy capitalist? A neocon! Well that figures.
That makes her the wealthiest 1% of Americans. I just hope she is paying her fair share of income taxes, and not deducting anything (cameras, travel, etc.) in order for her to "share" her wealth. Raise her taxes so she can redistribute her wealth.
As one candidate put it, "That’s how we’ll ensure that 'economic justice' is being served."
butchM wrote:
Unfortunately, she was dropped by two agencies, another picked her up immediately. She also was selling the crying baby prints at $5K per, faster than she could print them. I'll doubt she'll suffer greatly as there are enough like-minded clients available for her to survive. Unfortunate that the rest of may come under scrutiny for our personal politics when clients make a choice of who to hire.
I think that what was unfortunate was that she got picked up by another agency. Her methods give a bad name to the rest of us photographers. I am ashamed to even say that she is a photographer. What a waste of equipment and lighting.
How long has it been since ethics and any political campaign have even come within sight of one another?