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.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: gawker

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Agency Representatives Threaten Gawker For Showing Jennifer Aniston Photos [Allegedly] Sans Photoshop [Updated]”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Conflicted Artist (profile) says:

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.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...