<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;jezebel&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:24:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Agency Representatives Threaten Gawker For Showing Jennifer Aniston Photos [Allegedly] Sans Photoshop [Updated]</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/03305610754.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/03305610754.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>Update</b>: <i>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</i>.
<br><br>
You may recall late last year the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091221/1701497452.shtml">legal threats</a> 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 <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080229/143915387.shtml">usual</a>).
<br><br>
However, it appears that some Hollywood types still haven't quite figured this out.  Apparently <strike>Jennifer Aniston's</strike> the representatives of photo agency are <a href="http://jezebel.com/5618024/this-is-how-your-jen-aniston-sausage-gets-made" target="_blank">threatening to sue Gawker</a> 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:
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/4922615679/" title="500x_0820anistoncompare by floorsixtyfour, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4922615679_cbabe82cc2.jpg" width="500" height="333" border=0 /></a>
</center>
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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/03305610754.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/03305610754.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/03305610754.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-won't-end-well</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100824/03305610754</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>