Skip to comments.The Atlantic should have Googled Jill Greenberg before hiring her
Posted on 09/15/2008 8:06:08 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
I dont feel sorry for The Atlantic magazine.
They are quite upset after discovering that Jill Greenberg, the left-wing photographer they hired to take photos of John McCain, is a deranged lunatic who manipulated pictures of the candidate to put him in a bad light and then posted hateful photoshops of the images on her personal website and gloated about it to the Photo District News website.
Sample of her unhinged defacing of McCains pics, which looks like something straight out of a Democratic Underground thread: (See article for photos)
Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg, whose cover story was tainted by Greenbergs work, writes: Greenberg doctored photographs of McCain she took during her Atlantic-arranged shoot, which took place last month in Las Vegas. She has posted these doctored photographs on her website, which you can go find yourself, if you must. Suffice it to say that her art is juvenile, and on occasion repulsive. This is not the issue, of course; the issue is that she betrayed this magazine, and disgraced her profession.
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
Sorry Michelle, but who says they didn’t?
Who says they didn’t want exactly what they got?
What I don’t understand is, if she was contracted by the magazine to take photos, and the magazine had the subject (McCain) appear for the shoot, then why don’t the photos belong to the magazine?
Nice work, Jill. What a low life.
Goldberg’s complaints ring hollow to me.
It sounds more like they’re sorry her childishness got bad reviews, rather than good.
McCain will speak to any issue.
That the left is unhinged and acting badly only helps McCain/Palin.
I don’t fault McCain for interviewing with this magazine.
Not only the magazine but other professional photographers are slamming Greenberg.
I saw it online during the weekend but perhaps it was on Newsbusters. It’s worth reading.
This has backfired big time.
As the Left start to realize that they are History’s losers, all sorts of hatred, pettiness and spite will spew out. It helps fill up the emptiness of their lives.
Megan Kelly was hammering the editor of Atlantic about this very issue an hour before Michelle wrote this article.
So today we talk about the McCain pictures in Atlantic.
When do we get to talk about what Barak Obama wants to do when he is President?
How about Obama’s association with David Geffen and George Soros. If Obama is elected President will George Soros become Emperator?
This is all distraction. McCain needs to force Obama to talk about the issues.
You’re right. The Atlantic got EXACTLY what they wanted when they hired this woman.
It depends on the contract. Generally speaking, if a publisher doesn't make a specific contractual request to own the copyright, a free-lance photographer owns the copyright to their own work, and sells the rights to use the work for a specified use and a specified number of reproductions. The magazine would own the photos only if the photographer were on staff.
The crazier and more unhinged the media becomes, the better McCain’s chances. A large and increasing number of people no longer trust the Mainstream Media. They Distort, They Deride. But they are no longer able to control and spin the news in a manner acceptable to their Democrat puppet-masters, because fewer people are staying around to watch their performance when there are much more enlightening shows available elsewhere.
Nice gig, then. Get paid to take photos, have the subject delivered to you on a platter, and keep the photos to sell later.
Agreed. She's the journalistic equivalent of a suicide bomber; expected to take one for the team and go out with a bang.
I LIKE the picture of Senator McCain on the cover of Atlantic Monthly. It makes him look tough and an islamofacist’s worst nightmare. The bimbette may have thought she was harming McCain, but I think the joke is on her.
...like re-runs of Andy Griffith...
WARMONGERER?....She's also an idiot dumbass, apparently.....
Or that it was discovered?
Or that it was discovered AND published?
Or that it was discovered AND published AND embarrassed the Atlantic Magazine?
Where’s a photo of this Jill Greenberg sack o shit? I want to see what she looks like
She’s a model for deranged moonbats worldwide
Correct and this is the photo everyone will see.
Not the altered photos
Just when you thought these commie artistes couldn't sink any lower. Totally devoid of ethics. She hurt her cause all in all, so good
Thanks for posting. Hooray Michelle! Interesting thread. Thanks to every poster.
Hey, don’t dis old Andy. He knew how to keep things running smoothly down there in Mayberry, how to keep Aunt Bea happy and Barney out of trouble. If many people in our news media today suddenly had to find another line of work, they’d be lost.
What are they whinig about? don’t they have editorial control over what they put in their own damn magazine?
they could have rejected the work, couldn’t they?
In cases like this all photographs belong to the photographer - period. There is an implied copyright the moment that shutter clicks. The photographer then 'loans' the pictures to the magazine for publishing.
Now if the photographer works for the magazine, or a newspaper (on the payroll) that's different as he's acting as an agent of them.
In the olden days we had 'Model Release Forms', but in reality they were just a formality/courtesy. I think I still have some in one of my old camera bags, they're polly all yellow and brittle by now.
Yes. They could have rejected the photos. Apparently they liked what they saw. (the pigs)
Sorry Andy, didn’t realize it was you...
For a little thrill LiveSearch or google images of “Jill Greenberg”.
LOL. I’m a bit too young to be him, but obviously old enough to remember 1st run black-and-white shows on TV...
The joke is on her:
The Atlantic gets a cover that makes McCain look like the kind of tough old codger who can snap your neck without setting down his scotch neat, and McCain gets the benefit of the backlash against her petty little drawings.
It works out okay.
The Atlantic runs a cover that . . .
Yep. Think of the photo exhibits you see by famous photographers like Annie Leibowitz or Steven Meisel. The only way a free-lancer can keep going is to have full rights to his or her own portfolio of work, and be able to show it to prospective clients. Free-lance artists have to generate their own income stream, pay their own benefits, manage their business and still do the artistic work that makes them worth their fees.
That's why artistic integrity is important, and why even other photographers are slamming Jill Greenberg. Their livelihoods depend on good will and trust that the images will not be used to defame the people they photograph. Artists often live hand-to-mouth, and work hard to keep good relations with clients and potential clients. It is appalling to dread that the expense of lawyers and ironclad contracts would have to enter every photo transaction to keep things like this from happening again. She is a traitor to the profession.
Maybe her problem is that no one would ..err..”google” her..
Maybe her problem is that no one would ..err..”google” her..
Jill Greenberg is just an enabler for the Atlantic. The Atlantic isn’t the least bit sorry about her pictures.
No, that photo is not retouched. Kind of like Hillary’s picture.
>Not only the magazine but other professional photographers are slamming Greenberg.<
As they should. When a politician or anyone who is in the public eye sits for a photographer, they are trusting that individual. Greenberg boasts she was able to get those shots, in essence photographically raping McCain, because he and his staff were too unsophisticated not to know she was tweaking her lights. In other words, McCain was too unsophisticated in trusting a person posing as a professional. What a bitch.
In the future, there will most likely be pressure and suspicion put on all professional photographers because Greenberg is an immature, unprofessional, downright nasty leftist.
She might have bitten off a little more than she can chew. From Fox new article. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/15/atlantic-monthly-editor-to-offer-apology-to-mccain-for-photogs-doctored-pics/
I want to say this properly, not have it misunderstood -- the part that makes this whole thing so stoopid is that it was totally unnecessary to use bad lighting, trickery to make McCain look old, harsh if you will. He's not a young man, he's not as photogenic as he once was, SO? Those of us who will be voting for him will do so based on substance and character, not on superficiality. What he stands for, not what he looks like.
She tried to make him look hard and evil ... anyone who is a thinking, reasoning person can see the distortion, the phoniness of that picture. As with the campaign ad mocking McCain's disability due to war injury, these photos are targeted toward voters who are in the 0bama camp anyway, all they do is offend, tick off people for whom they WANT votes, ie., older voters. Good move, that.
And 0bama says he's qualified to be president because he has experience running this campaign. Oh, this helps, this is making the case for you, Barry. [/sarc]
Did it but no pictures of her
Did it but no pictures of her
I agree. When this is all said and done, how are we going to get payback on her?
Now would you describe any of those images of her work as 'flattering' or even neutral?
The Atlantic simply had to know what to expect from her.
Either that, or they are too stupid to be allows in public by themselves.
If I was the magazines photo editor I would have ordered a reshoot and/or found another photographer.