Point Out A Potential Photoshopping Of A Demi Moore Picture, And She Has Her Lawyers Send Out The Nastygrams

from the yeah,-that'll-help dept

Sometimes you just shake your head and wonder. It's truly amazing that people don't realize what will happen when they send out ridiculous legal nastygrams. Take, for example, the situation from a few months back where the company Ralph Lauren got itself into a lot more hot water by sending a bogus DMCA takedown, rather than just 'fessing up to the fact that it photoshopped a model's image (badly). But in sending the DMCA takedown, Ralph Lauren called a hell of a lot more attention to a situation that most people would have forgotten otherwise.

Apparently Demi Moore and her lawyers missed that whole story. Back in November some folks noticed what appeared to be a photoshopping of Demi Moore's left hip on the cover of W magazine. There was some debate over it, but either way, people moved on and it was forgotten. Not so fast! While there was some discussion about it -- and Moore herself chimed in on Twitter to claim that the photo was not altered -- she's now had her lawyers threaten at least two publications over the original story. Their claim is that the posts are defamatory. Even if there was no retouching of the photo, it's hard to see what is possibly "defamatory" in the story. Digital retouching happens all the time, and claiming that a photo was retouched, if anything, would implicate the photographers or graphic artists at W, not Moore. There's simply nothing even close to defamatory in regards to Moore herself.

Either way, the really bizarre part is why sic the legal dogs on this? Any lawyer should know that this has zero chance of actually working and a very high likelihood of simply calling a lot more attention to the question of whether or not the image was altered. And, in fact, the guy who apparently first noticed the supposed retouching -- and a recipient of the legal nastygram -- has responded by presenting some pretty compelling evidence that the image was, in fact, retouched. At the same time, he also reiterates that even if this is true, there's nothing wrong with that and certainly nothing defamatory about it. So what was the purpose of the legal nastygram?

And, in the end, what makes Demi Moore look worse? The fact that some cover shoot photo of her may have been slightly altered... or the fact that lawyers on her behalf sent out ridiculous legal nastygrams against those discussing this story?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 10:12am

    Did someone say "lawyer?"

    "Either way, the really bizarre part is why sic the legal dogs on this? Any lawyer should know ..."

    That he doesn't get paid for doing nothing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    davebarnes (profile), Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 10:15am

    It is not Photshopped

    Demi Moore has had so much plastic surgery that her left hip is deformed and smaller than her right one.
    So, not Photoshopped, but a malformed model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Matt (profile), Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 10:19am

    Really? I mean... REALLY?

    I will never get the 10 minutes I just spent reading this blurb and the underlying documents back. To whom do I send the bill?

    That Demi Moore would get tussled over this is laughable. That we would care is embarrassing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Andrew F (profile), Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 10:24am

    Defamation Claim

    The defamation claim appears to be based on the premise that the author is insinuating that Demi Moore requested the alteration be done herself (and is therefore a vainglorious diva).

    Not sure how you resolve insinuations in court.

    Also, since Demi Moore is a public figure, the courts might hold this defamation claim to a higher standard -- e.g. not only does she have to prove the guy was wrong but she has to prove he knowingly made a false statement or did it with "reckless disregard" for the truth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 10:42am

    The funny thing about this whole incident is that it finally died down and everyone had forgotten about it. Why reopen an old and forgotten wound?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 11:15am

      Re:

      Might be going by the "No press is the only bad press" idea. Very disturbing how often that is true though.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    pushforth, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 10:44am

    what about ashton?

    This is especially surprising due to the fact that her husband, Ashton Kutcher, is not only keen on how the internet works, is an avid proponent of such technology.

    Could it be that maybe this is all understood, and it was used to garner her MORE publicity? Bad publicity is still publicity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 11:11am

      Re: what about ashton?

      I think you hit the nail on the head. The attention dwindled and this was a good way to get it back.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    vyvyan, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 10:49am

    Jack was Right!

    Yeah! "With only half a$$, you can't handle the truth."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Guest, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 11:04am

    Photoshopped?

    It doesn't even looked photoshopped under close inspection. When looking at the image as a whole, the eye plays a trick on the mind, but if you notice, her hip actually does line up with her thigh. I think its just a trick of the lighting plus the scarf thingy whatever-ma-bob it is wrapped around her hip/leg.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Dec 23rd, 2009 @ 8:40am

      Re: Photoshopped?

      If it were more of a side view I could agree, but I don't think so. You can see that the scarf thingy is following the shape of her leg for some distance as you go up, and then if you look from that point to where you see her hip, there's just no way her leg does that. Or if it does, it's a serious deformity, and she should have it corrected.

      Look at her other leg for contrast - a smooth curve all the way up and out to her hip bone. I know she's slightly leaning right, but that doesn't explain it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 11:04am

    There's also the theory that the image was totally 'headshopped' here:

    http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/41404898.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    John Duncan Yoyo (profile), Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 11:11am

    I hope they photoshopped that hip. It looks deformed in the picture. I doubt anyone let alone DM would ask for what looks like a bit of leg to be put in place of her hip.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    charlie potatoes, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 11:39am

    Who?

    Who the hell is Demi Moore? Ashton Whosits is a vague memory from an old tv show. Let's move on, people, nothing to see here ... Where's My Car, Dude? ... Where's My Career, Dude?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    interval, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 11:43am

    Ok, admittedly, I'm as sharp as a case of butter, but I'm missing what exactly was photo shopped. If Demi's thigh was altered, I'll be damned if I can tell exactly how. I'll also be damned if I can figure out what her problem is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NullOp, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 12:59pm

    Moore

    There is not a single woman in this world that can't stand a little "Photoshopping" in one way or another! Demi is no exception. Having the schysters send out nastygrams on such a non-issue certainly takes Demi down a notch or two in my eyes. And she *was* one of the classic ladies of lasting beauty. Too bad....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    triloibug, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 1:10pm

    You'd think they would be smarter than this with all of Aston's online culture know-how.

    Guess not, should have been a lawyer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 2:42pm

    For the blind

    If you cannot see what is photoshopped, there are a few vids on the link that show the W cover compared with the "original" Demi provided. There are blantant differences between them, which that alone absolutely discredits any claims from her or people being purposefully obtuse to the contrary.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ben, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 4:35pm

    She's probably worried that her master, Obama, will see it and be displeased. After all, she did pledge to be his servant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Derek, Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 7:38pm

    This will never see a courtroom

    Exhibit A in this case will be the original full-resolution raw file.

    We don't know who drove this bus over the cliff, maybe it was a publicist or someone else besides Moore, but speaking as a photographer I'm very doubtful she'd want the camera's unretouched output made public.

    Some celebrities even have contractual requirements around how the raw files are handled, to the point that they demand a specific Photoshop artist.

    The claim that the image wasn't altered is the funniest part of this story. "Photoshopping" arguments are often narrowly defined and self-serving -- some will claim it means cut-and-pasting body parts, others will claim it means a tiny exposure tweak.

    In reality, if this image WASN'T retouched it would have been a news item.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Daemon_ZOGG (profile), Dec 22nd, 2009 @ 8:59pm

    "Moore herself chimed in on Twitter to claim that the photo was not altered"

    So what she's trying to say, along with her bogus attack lawyers, is that she really IS as fat and evil as Naomi Campbell... Right? RIGHT!! I knew it! HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!!

    ;p

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    lrobbo (profile), May 30th, 2012 @ 1:04pm

    Nice work on her for making herself look like a total fool

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This