Agency Representatives Threaten Gawker For Showing Jennifer Aniston Photos [Allegedly] Sans Photoshop [Updated]

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Update: Clarified a bit in the middle to note that it appears that it was the agency, not Aniston's representatives directly who are making this threat to Gawker.

You may recall late last year the legal threats that came down after some designers started discussing the possibility that a Demi Moore photo on the cover of W magazine may have been Photoshopped in an odd way. The lawyers came out and threatened those who were talking about it, leading the story to get much more attention (as per usual).

However, it appears that some Hollywood types still haven't quite figured this out. Apparently Jennifer Aniston's the representatives of photo agency are threatening to sue Gawker because the site dared to post an image that it claims is a pre-Photoshopped photo of Aniston, which the agency people insist are doctored. Either way, Gawker is standing up for its fair use rights, and as this is the story, it seems entirely newsworthy to publish the image in question:
Once again, it looks like an attempt to hide something has only served to turn that into the story itself. You would think that people would recognize this already, so it's a bit surprising that they don't.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 10:12am

    Huh...

    No wonder Ross cheated....

     

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

  2.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 10:29am

    Re: Huh...

    They were on a break! ;)

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    cc (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 10:31am

    Tbh, the photo on the left looks as photoshopped as the one on the right.

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 10:39am

    They don't appear to be the same photo ('shopping notwithstanding). The left looks like one of the probably hundreds a pro photog might take but not use.

    Is anyone surprised that mag pics are photoshopped anymore?

    At least she looks human, unlike those sickening Ralph Lauren ads a few months back.

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 10:43am

    Photo on ht left looks like someone added a layer of hobo dirt to Jennifer's face.

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    maclizard (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 10:52am

    Case in point

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    maclizard (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 10:54am

    Re: Case in point

    I saw this on Gawker and skipped right over it, however, as mentioned in the story, it has now gotten my attention.

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 10:59am

    Re:

    Or did a photoshop meld with a catcher's mitt....

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:03am

    Re:

    It's possible that the one on the left is photoshopped, but I guarantee the one on the right is. No magazine cover that's come out since the invention of photo manipulation has ever come out not manipulated.

    Have you ever seen her on those celebrate watch shows? The one on the left is what she looks like. It's also bad lighting and a bad angle. The photographer probably wouldn't have even bothered photoshopping that one and picked another of the hundreds he took.

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Unknown, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:07am

    Looking at the hair and how it's on the head it looks like the photo might be one of the set of photos but not really the 'chosen one' to modify.

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:21am

    Just do some noise analysis(i.e. get Gimp and crank the noise up to see if different patterns appear) on the photos people!

    The easiest forensic analysis there is.

    http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/tampering.html

     

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

  12.  
    icon
    Conflicted Artist (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:23am

    They're not the same image.

    They're clearly not the same image. There are too many details that are different-- her hair, the wrinkles in her sweater, the position of her hand-- for one to have been generated from the other. They are two different images from the same shoot.

    The cover shot is more charming because her smile looks warm and genuine. You don't need photoshop to do that. They've cleaned up her complexion and warmed up the tone of the image, because they are professionals and their jobs are to make women look good.

    I don't know what's more ridiculous: the threat of a lawsuit, or Gawker's representation that there is anything unusual about a magazine production artist doing his or her job.

    There's nothing to see here. Move along.

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    R. Miles (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:24am

    Re: Huh...

    Just wait until your helmet turns 40. ;)

     

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

  14.  
    icon
    drewmerc (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:31am

    i saw the set of 5 pics the other day (damn ccleaner)
    no idea where but anyways all i thought was i still would

     

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

  15.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:35am

    Re: They're not the same image.

    No, they are not the same picture, who said they were? The two are side by side just to compare the supposedly undoctored picture with one that is official. The two are obviously from the same set, but the one on the right was chosen to go threw the process for the exact reason you said, "because her smile looks warm and genuine". The one on the right started out better then the one on the left so the one on the right was used and the one on the left was chucked in the bin (but seems to have missed).

    You will never find a doctored version of the one on the left. No photographer who wants to keep his job would use the one on the left. It's just a bad picture, the lighting's wrong, the angle is wrong, her expression is absolutely wrong.

    There was nothing to see here (everyone has bad pictures) but Jennifer Aniston's representatives made something to see here.

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    CommonSense (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:41am

    Re:

    TBH, I'd still take her home either way.

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Greg Laden, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:43am

    who is this?

    What, is she, like, an actress or something?

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    DCX2, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re:

    The lighting *is* absolutely horrible. Her face is hiding in the shadow created by her hair. And the eyebrows make her look embarrassed or confused. Her posture is too self-protective and closed.

    You could drop your camera on the ground and take a better picture than the one on the left...

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 11:56am

    Re: Re: They're not the same image.

    Are you sure with some retouching there I can think of a lot of lolcat's captions for that photo(on the left).

    "OMG! not again!"

    "Please! can I haz some hot coffee"

    "Purease let me in"

     

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

  20.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 12:05pm

    Re: who is this?

    Rachael from 'Friends'

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 12:21pm

    She was on Jon Stewart last week and looks nothing like the left picture.

     

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

  22.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

    Re:

    "She was on Jon Stewart last week"

    Wow. I didn't realize Jon got that kind of action....

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    Del, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 12:35pm

    Jennifer

    I think Jennifer has had the hardest time in life and career post "Friends." I think she is under the illusion she has not aged and that she is a leading actress. Neither is correct.

     

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

  24.  
    icon
    chris (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 12:36pm

    Re:

    it's a shop - i can tell from the pixels and having seen a lot of shops in my time.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

    Re: Meh, they're just people.

    Good lighting can do wonders for anyone. And anyone can be caught mid-movement (facial or body) and look like something from under a bridge.

    Ever watch The Soup? They do it all the time, capturing (often hilarious) stills from the video clips they skewer.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    lolo, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 2:38pm

    SUE!!!

    ITS ABOUT TIME THEY START SUING.I hope they sue every magazine and website out there that prints boggest lies.

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 2:44pm

    You are the boggest idiot!

    I, for one, am glad I am not the boggest idiot. You certainly seem to be, though.

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    organicap, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 4:07pm

    Actually...

    The Gawker article says the agency that holds the rights to that image issued a cease and desist order (copyright infringement) not Aniston's folks. The image is offered for publication w/o any objection from Ms. Aniston. You've created a work of fiction.

     

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

  29.  
    identicon
    Bebe, Aug 24th, 2010 @ 4:36pm

    Hhhmmm...

    I think they photoshop the one on the left, to make her look too old. Look at that forehead, it has a deep wrinkle. The shape of the face is not even right, and her chin look a lot longer. If you see her in the live interviews, she looks more younger than the one on the pic.

     

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

  30.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 24th, 2010 @ 10:18pm

    Re: Actually...

    The Gawker article says the agency that holds the rights to that image issued a cease and desist order (copyright infringement) not Aniston's folks. The image is offered for publication w/o any objection from Ms. Aniston. You've created a work of fiction.

    Wow. I like how you jump all the way to "created a work of fiction." How about it was not clear from the original, but now that you've cleared it up, we've edited the post to clarify.

    Why do people always jump to the worst conclusions?

     

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

  31.  
    icon
    drm made me into a pirate? (profile), Aug 25th, 2010 @ 1:52am

    reality is inconvenient

    It is mean to be honest therefore it must be illegal.

    Fuck free speech

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2010 @ 9:04am

    Jennifer is a very nice person in real life. It's a shame that people would release this type of photo to make a suggestion that isn't true. She looks much, much better than this photo, in person, and it's clear that the left photo is only unflattering because of it's poor angle, lighting and composition. The most beautiful models in the world take bad photos some times.

    While I don't agree with "Slimming" a model with Photoshop, I really don't see the big deal about making adjustments with lighting, coloring, getting rid of blemishes and wrinkles in clothing. Photographers have been manipulating and airbrushing photos since photography began.

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Gene Cavanaugh, Aug 25th, 2010 @ 3:03pm

    Jennifer Aniston

    It got her mentioned in your blog, where otherwise (hopefully) she would not have been. Pity she was.

     

    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