W Korea Uses Demi Moore Photo... With A Different Hip -- So Which One Is Edited?

from the uh-oh dept

So you may recall that last week, the story spread about how Demi Moore's lawyers flipped out and sent ridiculous (laughably so) legal threats to a few blogs that were discussing whether or not Moore's photo on the cover of W magazine had been digitally retouched and, if so, how poor a job the retouching was. Most specifically, there was the point that her hip looked out of place. None of the conversation (which had mostly died out a month before Ms. Moore's lawyers got involved) suggested anything even remotely negative about Ms. Moore herself -- but about the potentially poor editing job on the photo itself.

Of course, once the story was pushed back into the news by Moore's lawyers, a second look at the evidence suggested quite clearly that the image had, in fact, been retouched (not that there's anything wrong with that). And, now, the story gets even more bizarre. Anthony Citrano, one of the bloggers being threatened by Moore's lawyers -- and who has (reasonably) demanded a complete retraction and apology from Moore's lawyers -- got in touch to let us know that the Korea edition of W magazine just happened to have fixed the hip problem on their cover version of the same photo.

As Citrano points out, this leads to one of two possibilities:
  1. Citrano was correct all along that the version with the funky hip a bad image edit or...
  2. By Moore's own lawyer's explanation, W in Korea had defamed Demi Moore by editing her image (which the lawyers insisted needed no editing)
Either way, at least one of those images was apparently edited, and Citrano's still waiting for that apology and retraction...


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 6:27am

    Fat chance Moore and her people will apologize.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    old farts, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 6:28am

    SHES OLD ENOUGH TO BE GRANDMA

    yea like who cares already

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 7:17am

    Re: SHES OLD ENOUGH TO BE GRANDMA

    GILF

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 7:21am

    Re: Re: SHES OLD ENOUGH TO BE GRANDMA

    "GILF"

    Please, you know Bruce Willis tore her up and turned her into a pair of floppy beef curtains....

    Okay...that's the grossest thing I've ever said....

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:04am

    Re: Re: Re: SHES OLD ENOUGH TO BE GRANDMA

    dude that is totaly sexy to most West Koreans

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 8:12am

    Re: Re: Re: SHES OLD ENOUGH TO BE GRANDMA

    On the plus side, I no longer have to worry about what to do for lunch today -- suddenly, I'm not hungry.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    interval, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 9:25am

    I'm still trying to understand how some one can be so self conscience that they would jump into a media sh@tstorm about a photo retouch that looks so... minor. I mean, this is a retouch that is so innocuous that I can't see it. Being no eagle-eye I have spent real quality time out of life analyzing these picture and loops for the big edit everyone is talking about and honestly, I don't see it. Why would anyone in there right mind, on EITHER side, spend time wooting about this nonsense?

     

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

  8.  
    identicon
    ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: SHES OLD ENOUGH TO BE GRANDMA

    "Please, you know Bruce Willis tore her up and turned her into a pair of floppy beef curtains...."

    You can fix that with Photoshop.

    CBMHB

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 10:23am

    Re: Lesson for Demi...

    Demi,

    Your legal counsel lives for one reason only; to make money off of you by "representing" you in legal issues. If you have no legal issues, they make no money. So here's what you do from now on.

    1) If they bring something like this to your attention in the future, ignore them and/or tell them to stop gold digging.

    2) If you are EVER tempted to ask them for their advice on something as STUPID as this, STOP. Count to ten. Slap yourself. Put the phone down. Eat a bon-bon.

    You'll be glad you did.

    (The bon-bon might even help fill out that hip)

    CBMHB

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    The Anti-Mike, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 1:49pm

    Wait...

    why does this matter, anyway? All you are doing is giving exposure to a celeb that doesn't need it.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Someone, Dec 29th, 2009 @ 3:03pm

    Re: Wait...

    Bloggers getting sued & slapped with cease & desists for expressing their opinion - that doesn't matter? What an annoying attitude. Can you be serious? This goes a bit deeper than just a hip, no?

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    The Anti-Mike (profile), Dec 29th, 2009 @ 10:48pm

    Re: Re: Wait...

    It shouldn't matter because the opinion didn't matter to start with. Does it matter if it is photoshopped or not? Why did the original blogger even bother?

    Further, why bother to keep kicking it around here? It is a pointless legal exercise, which the blogger appears to be desperately trying to parlay into some sort of internet 15 minutes of website traffic.

    This is somewhere between navel gazing and a circle jerk.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 30th, 2009 @ 8:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Wait...

    BoingBoing has a good post discussing why they feel this matters, citing a past incident involving Iranian defense photos that were heavily doctored but accepted as genuine by most news outlets.

    Yes, the discussion at hand is only about an image of a celebrity on the cover of a fashion magazine. But the ability to freely discuss the provenance and technical history of a photo, including those with more crucial news value—say, images of detainee abuse, or Iranian missles—is a freedom we believe should be preserved.

    I'm not trying to start another argument with you, by the way. I just think it's a good post on the subject.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Questionsall, Dec 30th, 2009 @ 9:03am

    3xRe: Wait

    Anti-Mike: you're correct to a point. It started as a bit of silly banter. PhotoShop nerds (mea culpa) enjoy pointing out dreadful work, especially stuff that gets published in a major glossy or is part of major brand's campaign. Sure, it's arrogant and nit-picky, but awfully fun. Where Moore messed up, and where this became "newsworthy" was her hypersenstive cease-and-desist letter. Mr. Cintrano hardly has encouraged this coverage, and would rather it go away.

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Dec 30th, 2009 @ 10:04am

    Re: 3xRe: Wait

    I'm not even sure I think it is arrogant and nitpicky. Designers who work for major (or even minor) publications have an audience, and when you have an audience you can be held accountable to them.

    Here's my attempt at an analogy: let's say the person writing up the interview with Moore had used the standard ellipsis omission to shorten one of her quotes ("blah blah blah ... blah blah") - but in doing so had accidentally created a grammar or usage error: the kind that your average W reader might not notice, but that other writers and avid language fans would. You can be sure that in that case the magazine would be flooded with letters pointing out the error, and though it might feel a little bit like nitpicking, it's also important to keep the publication from getting complacent.

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    sprearson81 (profile), Jun 9th, 2012 @ 6:40am

    All this chatter for that?

     

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


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