Comments on: Greenberg

By: It’s Time for the Manipulator | Avisualsociety

It’s Time for the Manipulator | Avisualsociety — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:47:13 +0000

[...] A Photo Editor of course wrote a great bit of commentary and generated lots of comments, Conscientious had a very thoughtful and critical analysis of the situation and on the flip-side Leslie Burns mounted a defense. [...]

By: Juan Jose Gutierrez

Juan Jose Gutierrez — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:56:34 +0000

Lame excuses for a lame action… She has discredited photographers from now on. It is shameful. If she was comissioned to photograph her subject as evil, no problem… But she wasn´t, she got a free ticket, paid for a publication, to make her “art” advance her political agenda. Shameful.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:33:54 +0000

I have to chip in, I agree with Leslie and support Jill. PDN was clearly swarmed by the right wing machine, those commenters didn’t have a clue about photography, that scared me. I’m really shocked at the photo industry’s attitude to this, but it adds to my feelings that America is just a thoroughly right-wing country.

By: Dan Sherwood

Dan Sherwood — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:26:52 +0000

I concur with Darrell Eager’s comments about how Arnold Newman approached the task of photographing a Nazi war criminal. Artist’s are one group of citizens that shouldn’t cave into the whims of evil-doers.

C’mon let’s call a spade a spade! or should I say let’s illustrate a spade like a spade.

She did go the extra step and leave off the pointy little tail and horns.

By: info

info — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:04:54 +0000

Memomachine:
Except that is not the way copyright and image ownership works. No matter who contracts with the photographer, the copyright and ownership of images belong to the photographer. The exceptions to that rule are only IF the photographer is an employee (as in gets taxes withheld, etc.) of someone else OR the photographer signs a contract (Work Made for Hire) prior to shooting OR executes a legal transfer of copyright (that has to be in writing) after creating the images.
-Leslie

By: memomachine

memomachine — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:59:45 +0000

Hmmmm.

As a non-photographer I’d have to say there are a few simple solutions:

1. The subject contracts the photographer, not the publication.

2. The subject owns ALL results of the shoot, not the photographer.

3. Don’t like it? Tough.

*shrug* this is the logical result.

By: Angelo Photography

Angelo Photography — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:56:32 +0000

Kudos to Leslie for stickin to her guns….Listen, we all make mistakes and we should all forgive and be forgiven. As artists, we all have the right to create and we all have the right to freedom of expression. This is how most of us become who we are…because we have the gift of freedom and we all get to show the world our unique vision. Not all of us share the same vision. This is why we all create different imagery and art. As artists we have that right. If that right is taken away from us we no longer are free to create. Censorship is the next step. It would be unfortunate, God forbid, that we as photographers and artists live in a society where we are not allowed to display our art freely. Ethics and morals aside…that is HER website and she has the freedom to put whatever imagery she wants on public display. It is not against the law, unless there is a legal agreement or contract signed beforehand, she has done nothing illegal. She pushed the boundaries, but this is nothing new. She is a successful and accomplished photographer. She CHOSE to do this. She knows that there are consequences to her actions, but that is her CHOICE. She is very aware of her client base. She knows that there are clients she may or may not lose. She is ok with that. We all have freedom of speech. It doesn’t do any good to point the finger at her. Whether she is right or wrong, we have no right to judge her. She happens to be an artist that has strong political beliefs. She just happens to be one of the few that has chosen to voice them.

By: James Aronovsky

James Aronovsky — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:28:19 +0000

Leslie, this really is fascinating issue. On the one hand, Greenberg provided the magazine their cover shot which they used. She then went on to get a little creative (or crazy) once she had the “insurance” shot in the can. Well, that is exactly how I approach an assignment – shoot it the way the client wants, and then shoot it the way I want.

On the other hand, when I shoot for myself, I am trying to create some art or maybe a portfolio piece without having any real agenda. Greenberg clearly had planned this in advance. Had she grabbed a shot of McCain at an election rally, then it’s fair game and she can be the artist and activist she fancies herself to be. But she used the good offices of the Atlantic to get access for a portrait session she might not otherwise have gotten. She burned her client by making them look bad by using her ill-gotten access to promote her own personal agenda. She then crowed to all who would listen about her duplicitous accomplishment. These are not the actions of a person worthy of respect.

On the subject of photographers’ reactions to bashing a colleague, it may be that many are just as angry as they would be if someone signed a WFH – it just serves to undermine our profession. I find it quite interesting that many of Jill’s defenders on the PDN site rationalize that because John McCain is such a monster of the war-mongering Republican gang, that any amount of professional misconduct is appropriate as long as it can villify him. Just imagine the right-wing Republican counterpart of Jill Greenberg photographing Obama.

By: Gary Crabbe / Enlightened Images

Gary Crabbe / Enlightened Images — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:25:06 +0000

Leslie:

Looks like you managed to shove a stick in the hornet’s nest here as well. I’d be willing to bet that she planned to exploit this opportunity, probably as early the initial call telling her who she’d be shooting. Exploiting an opportunity just because editorial rate are low – Come’on – you think she accepts ‘standard’ editorial rates? And exploiting an opportunity to better your own business does not make one ‘clean’ (read: Enron) She made a calculated move as she has before, and she’s shown previously she’s OK with having some dirt on her reputation. “Clean”? I don’t think so. Maybe nit entirely unethical to some, but she sure doesn’t skate off into the sunset dressed as the vestal virgin either.

By: Marc Carter

Marc Carter — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:51:46 +0000

>>>
IMO, it does not matter whether Ms. Greenberg showed respect in order to call on people to treat her with respect…

Well you can’t have it both ways. She deserves respect but doesn’t need to show the same to others. Get real

Marc Carter