John McCain's turn as cover model for this month's issue of the Atlantic has raised hackles, eyebrows, and now the necessity for apology from the editor of the magazine, which ran the pic. The editor says he's sending an apology to the Senator after outtake pictures by the photographer Jill Greenberg wound up on her personal website, edited for horrific effect. As of this writing, Greenberg was still featuring the doctored photos on her blog, including one backlit image showing a sinister McCain with the words, "I'll have my girl kill Roe v. Wade" printed atop.
The Atlantic editor's apology for the subsequent fallout says:
When we contract with photographers for portraits, we don't vet them for their politics—instead, we assess their professional track records. We had never worked with Jill Greenberg before (and, obviously, we will not work with her again). Based on the portraits she had done of politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger and her work for publications like Time, Wired, and Portfolio, we expected her, like the other photographers we work with, to behave professionally. Jill Greenberg has obviously not done that. She has, in fact, disgraced herself, and we are appalled by the manipulated images she has created for her Web site of John McCain.
The Atlantic might go further than the strongly worded indictment of the photographer, and sue. Is that the appropriate response?
Fabi
Tibi
Lom Bok
i think that this is a tricky one. when you're looking for a new photographer to work with and you research their portfolio and see who they've worked with - you assume that you're going to get what they've delivered in the past. if she's worked with other great publications and other personalities you assume that they will use discretion and be responsible about things, and that's not the case here i guess. i don't know if they should have' vetted' her more or what - but it's a shame that things like this happen. i'm sure that the mccain camp isn't overly upset about it - frustrated, yes since he doesn't HAVE to agree to be on covers of all magazines, so i'm sure they will be cautious in the future about who they agree to work with.
1I think the photographer punished herself. There's not many reputable outlets that are going to want to hire her now.
2Well, their first clue should have been the fact that her studio is called "Manipulator".
3I agree with Michelin... it's hard enough getting into photography as it is! She's pretty much blown her career at this point, unless some avid McCain hater wants to hire her. Ultimately she lacks tact and is completely unprofessional though. I'm not a McCain supporter, but that's just rude.
4What an unprofessional twat.
5It's too bad there isn't a "both" choice. The photographer certaintly shouldn't have doctored the pictures, but the magazine has an obligation to check everything they put into their pubilcation before it goes on the newstand.
6Ugh, that's horrible! I agree Mich, she's really screwed herself over.
7I guess suing her depends on what was stated on her contract. If she had permission to use the outtakes for her own personal use, then there's not much the Atlantic to do. She does lose credibility in the serious journalistic field, but based on some of her work, she'll have a long career sticking to the Hollywood crowd.
8great... another "mommy! he hurt my FEELINGS!!!" situation us and the media talking heads can argue about for the next news cycle, while our country hangs in the balance. in my opinion, the best thing mccain could have done is come out and say "whatever, she's a photographer - her opinions of me mean nothing, at least the cover shot was good". what's next? political cartoonists will have to depict their subjects accurately otherwise some spokesperson will cry foul and demand an apology?
9yy - Are you saying that photographers can do whatever they want to their pictures, and we shouldn't worry about it at all? Would you feel the same way if she had doctored an Obama photograph?
10I agree DAVE!
11How old is she 15?
I bet she posted them on her Myspace page.
12If it was her personal blog and her pictures yes they should be allowed to do what they want with them. I believe I saw a doctored Obama is the antichrist picture yesterday!
13I think they should have researched her more. When you hire someone to be a photographer, you are asking them to bring their "artistic vision" to the project. All of the pictures on her website look very similar (she loves shiny make-up!). The Arnold picture doesn't look dignified...I think if they would have done more research they would have chosen a different photographer.
I think that her "artistic vision" is pretty immature, and her career would benefit more if she could do a job with out letting personal issues get in the way.
14IS porn adultry?
15Has the McCain camp responded or are they just ignoring it?
And photographers can do anything they want with their images, however, if she had a contract with the Atlantic stating that she didn't have rights to the outtakes, she shouldn't have used them.
16dave, i am actually saying that if the mccain campaign wants to deal with this properly (and maybe put an end to the whining coming from both sides of this pathetic campaign) they should come out and say "oh well, she's clearly an idiot, her opinions mean nothing". if he's elected president the photoshopping is only going to get worse.
17SHE did the monkey portrait book? I love those pictues... she should stick to that.
18I'm personally a bigger fan of Colbert's "Make McCain Exciting" challenge with the green screen...way more funny, and, uh, not done by professionals who will probably have a hard time finding a new job...
19...but her celebrity photos are pretty awesome (just scrolled through her portfolio). That's clearly her strength.
(Stephley...there are some nice McAvoy ones in there...go to the main page and click on "Location Portraiture" and scroll through
)
Ahem, sorry, had to share.
20She's an ARTIST! Why is she being chastised for creating art? They hired her to do a job and she did, what she does on her personal website isn't any business of the publication.
21I think the issue comes from the fact that the Atlantic legally owns the photos Greenberg took. I'm obviously not sure as to the specifics of her contract, but generally when a photographer is hired by a publication the publication owns the photographs, not the photographer.
22Buckley , its unprofessional to change pictures like that, If photogs were all going to just go home and take the pictures and doctor them up, than no one would pose for them or hire that photographer!
She also violated her contract. So that is in the publications interest.
23Since the photos doctored on her blog were from the shoot, how could the Atlantic have found them before contracting with her?
They came out with a strongly worded apology, immediately, and that's about all they can do at this point.
The photographer will suffer the consequences, as she should if she violated her contract.
I don't see anywhere in the post about the McCain camp being up in arms. Is there more info about that somewhere?
The cover looks nice, imo.
24Talk about great publicity... Her site has probably gotten a bazillion hits by now.
25Hmm . . . I think the photographer is to blame, but I don't think she should be sued. But, yes, it was completely unprofessional.
26She obviously acted in an unprofessional manor and this incident will certianly impact her career, but the outtakes are her property and she can do what she wants with them. If she wants to gamble with her career to make a political statement, more power to her.
27Thing is, no one would have even seen these images if they weren't made a big deal of. Seriously, who of us here logs on Jill Greenberg's blog everyday? My guess would be not many. Now they are a story so they will be viewed by thousands of people. If it had been kept quite they would have gotten less exposure.
Well, this is a whole new kettle of wierd...a photographer at that level in her field doing this is certainly interesting.
But anyway...I agree with lilkimbo - firstly its a question of contractual obligation and ownership.
IF the outtakes belong to her, and were posted only on her blog, she has the right to do whatever the hell she wants to with them as long as she doesn't try to insinuate that the images are "real" and "undoctored".
Conversely, if the contract agreement made referenced that any/all outtakes of the session were the property of the magazine, then she should have known better and was out of line.
Seriously, is this now a nation of whiners? Or people that can't read contracts? Or both?
I doubt she will have trouble getting work again. She isn't doing anything particularly unique or earth-shaking.
However her Photoshop skills leave something to be desired. I've seen more realistic blood on Halloween costumes.
28
29As a photographer myself- I can't help but comment.
If Greenberg had the rights to all other photos she took on that day, then she has the right to do whatever she wants with them. Many times artists make very staunch and attention grabbing statements with their art and photos (Warhol, Mapplethorpe, etc.) And I believe that it benefits our culture.
The same doctoring/photoshopping has been done to Obama photos. If The Atlantic wants to apologize, that's their choice. I actually think for sure that this will get Greenberg more work. Sometimes it pays to be a rebel. There are plenty of groups who agree with her stance and would hire her just based on that... And that attention is what she really wanted, IMO.
30I agree, supercharger. I think this all hinges on whether she owned the photos she took that day or the Atlantic owned them.
31Either we're for freedom of expression & speech or we're not. The powers that be can't have their cake and eat it too. Ms. Greenberg did a fine job on the magazine photo spread. What she does on her personal web site that is with in the law is non of our business nor should it be any of our concern. Issues people issues let's stick to the issues of this campaign. Than you.
32I think it all falls down to what the contract she signed states. If she is allowed to use the shots, fine, unprofessional, but fine. If she broke contract, the magazine has every right to sue.
33This is just a form of expression!
I don't think she screwed herself -- if anything I think the press will get people to look at her work (which is brilliant) and it will win her more jobs.
McCain's a public figure -- I've seen much worse in my office.
34* thing
35Well said hypno!!
36Well, that's just embarrassing for all involved.
37an immature form of expression. I hope they sue the pants off her, they already didnt pay her for the job.
38The photographer is to blame. But McCain isn't the one that complained, it was the magazine.
They should just keep their mouths shut unless the campaign says something. THEN they should be directed to the photographer. It's not the mags fault. They didn't run the pictures.
39The photographer always owns her photographs. Then of course there are contracts that specify certain rights to use them or not in certain contexts, but she owns her pictures, and probably the contract didn't mention anything about outtakes.
Good for her. I wouldn't have been able to take a photo of this douche without saying something too.
40Karlotta - Please don't refer to either Presidential nominee as a douche, as it isn't true, and is disrespectful.
41Karlotta, that is definitely not true. I know several professional photographers and the publications they work for always own the photographs. The photographers can only use them in very limited and specific ways.
42LOL. Undave, I can call whoever I want a douche! I think that man is a total douche, and I'm actually refraining from saying worse because this site is CENSORED! What is it with this country that is supposed to represent freedom of speech? I think he's a horrible, horrible person, and I am absolutely in my right to say what I think!
43lilkimbo, I'm a professional photographer.
44everyone and thier emo boyfriend is a professional photog these days.
I agree dont call him names, and this site should be censored I for one am Glad that it is.
45We all agree that it's a free world and you can say whatever you want. But the regular posters around here are trying to keep the debate civil instead of just name calling, because otherwise people get upset and the thread devolves into a yelling match etc. I'm not saying you have to be on board - just trying to explain where UnDave's comment was coming from.
46Thanks Pop. I wasn't able to formulate a response that didn't sound like I was whining. Sometimes words escape me, which isn't a good thing, being a salesman.
47Douche-a jet or current of water, sometimes with a dissolved medicating or cleansing agent, applied to a body part, organ, or cavity for medicinal or hygienic purposes.
How did this become a name to call someone?
I know it isn't a new thing, but this one has
always struck me as odd.
48It is sort of a strange slur to call someone. I mean, if we're going the "something that cleanses a body cavity" route, why not call people "enemas"?
49Man, stop being such an enema!
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.