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. ApparentlyJennifer 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.
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






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Huh...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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 ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Case in point
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Case in point
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The easiest forensic analysis there is.
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/tampering.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
They're not the same image.
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 ]
Re: Huh...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
no idea where but anyways all i thought was i still would
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: They're not the same image.
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 ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
who is this?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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 ]
Re: Re: They're not the same image.
"OMG! not again!"
"Please! can I haz some hot coffee"
"Purease let me in"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: who is this?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Wow. I didn't realize Jon got that kind of action....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Jennifer
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Meh, they're just people.
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 ]
SUE!!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You are the boggest idiot!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Actually...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hhhmmm...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Actually...
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 ]
reality is inconvenient
Fuck free speech
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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 ]
Jennifer Aniston
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment