Point Out A Potential Photoshopping Of A Demi Moore Picture, And She Has Her Lawyers Send Out The Nastygrams

from the yeah,-that'll-help dept

Tue, Dec 22nd 2009 9:47am — Mike Masnick

Sometimes you just shake your head and wonder. It's truly amazing that people don't realize what will happen when they send out ridiculous legal nastygrams. Take, for example, the situation from a few months back where the company Ralph Lauren got itself into a lot more hot water by sending a bogus DMCA takedown, rather than just 'fessing up to the fact that it photoshopped a model's image (badly). But in sending the DMCA takedown, Ralph Lauren called a hell of a lot more attention to a situation that most people would have forgotten otherwise.

Apparently Demi Moore and her lawyers missed that whole story. Back in November some folks noticed what appeared to be a photoshopping of Demi Moore's left hip on the cover of W magazine. There was some debate over it, but either way, people moved on and it was forgotten. Not so fast! While there was some discussion about it -- and Moore herself chimed in on Twitter to claim that the photo was not altered -- she's now had her lawyers threaten at least two publications over the original story. Their claim is that the posts are defamatory. Even if there was no retouching of the photo, it's hard to see what is possibly "defamatory" in the story. Digital retouching happens all the time, and claiming that a photo was retouched, if anything, would implicate the photographers or graphic artists at W, not Moore. There's simply nothing even close to defamatory in regards to Moore herself.

Either way, the really bizarre part is why sic the legal dogs on this? Any lawyer should know that this has zero chance of actually working and a very high likelihood of simply calling a lot more attention to the question of whether or not the image was altered. And, in fact, the guy who apparently first noticed the supposed retouching -- and a recipient of the legal nastygram -- has responded by presenting some pretty compelling evidence that the image was, in fact, retouched. At the same time, he also reiterates that even if this is true, there's nothing wrong with that and certainly nothing defamatory about it. So what was the purpose of the legal nastygram?

And, in the end, what makes Demi Moore look worse? The fact that some cover shoot photo of her may have been slightly altered... or the fact that lawyers on her behalf sent out ridiculous legal nastygrams against those discussing this story?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: demi moore, photoshopping, streisand effect

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 10:12am

Did someone say "lawyer?"
"Either way, the really bizarre part is why sic the legal dogs on this? Any lawyer should know ..."

That he doesn't get paid for doing nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
davebarnes (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 10:15am

It is not Photshopped
Demi Moore has had so much plastic surgery that her left hip is deformed and smaller than her right one.
So, not Photoshopped, but a malformed model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 10:19am

Really? I mean... REALLY?
I will never get the 10 minutes I just spent reading this blurb and the underlying documents back. To whom do I send the bill?

That Demi Moore would get tussled over this is laughable. That we would care is embarrassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 10:40am
  
  Re: Really? I mean... REALLY?
  "That we would care is embarrassing."
  
  It's not the deformed model that we care about; it's the loaded gun she's waving around.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew F (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 10:24am

Defamation Claim
The defamation claim appears to be based on the premise that the author is insinuating that Demi Moore requested the alteration be done herself (and is therefore a vainglorious diva).

Not sure how you resolve insinuations in court.

Also, since Demi Moore is a public figure, the courts might hold this defamation claim to a higher standard -- e.g. not only does she have to prove the guy was wrong but she has to prove he knowingly made a false statement or did it with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2014 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re: Defamation Claim
  Demi didn't ask for this, Ralph Lauren did, as having an unphotoshopped demi moore on the cover would result in far more vomiting that even the bulimia-promoting Lauren is comfortable with
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 10:42am

The funny thing about this whole incident is that it finally died down and everyone had forgotten about it. Why reopen an old and forgotten wound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2009 @ 11:15am
  
  Re:
  Might be going by the "No press is the only bad press" idea. Very disturbing how often that is true though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
pushforth, 22 Dec 2009 @ 10:44am

what about ashton?
This is especially surprising due to the fact that her husband, Ashton Kutcher, is not only keen on how the internet works, is an avid proponent of such technology.

Could it be that maybe this is all understood, and it was used to garner her MORE publicity? Bad publicity is still publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2009 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: what about ashton?
  I think you hit the nail on the head. The attention dwindled and this was a good way to get it back.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
vyvyan, 22 Dec 2009 @ 10:49am

Jack was Right!
Yeah! "With only half a$$, you can't handle the truth."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guest, 22 Dec 2009 @ 11:04am

Photoshopped?
It doesn't even looked photoshopped under close inspection. When looking at the image as a whole, the eye plays a trick on the mind, but if you notice, her hip actually does line up with her thigh. I think its just a trick of the lighting plus the scarf thingy whatever-ma-bob it is wrapped around her hip/leg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 23 Dec 2009 @ 8:40am
  
  Re: Photoshopped?
  If it were more of a side view I could agree, but I don't think so. You can see that the scarf thingy is following the shape of her leg for some distance as you go up, and then if you look from that point to where you see her hip, there's just no way her leg does that. Or if it does, it's a serious deformity, and she should have it corrected.
  
  Look at her other leg for contrast - a smooth curve all the way up and out to her hip bone. I know she's slightly leaning right, but that doesn't explain it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2009 @ 11:04am

There's also the theory that the image was totally 'headshopped' here:

http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/41404898.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Duncan Yoyo (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 11:11am

I hope they photoshopped that hip. It looks deformed in the picture. I doubt anyone let alone DM would ask for what looks like a bit of leg to be put in place of her hip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charlie potatoes, 22 Dec 2009 @ 11:39am

Who?
Who the hell is Demi Moore? Ashton Whosits is a vague memory from an old tv show. Let's move on, people, nothing to see here ... Where's My Car, Dude? ... Where's My Career, Dude?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interval, 22 Dec 2009 @ 11:43am

Ok, admittedly, I'm as sharp as a case of butter, but I'm missing what exactly was photo shopped. If Demi's thigh was altered, I'll be damned if I can tell exactly how. I'll also be damned if I can figure out what her problem is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 22 Dec 2009 @ 12:59pm

Moore
There is not a single woman in this world that can't stand a little "Photoshopping" in one way or another! Demi is no exception. Having the schysters send out nastygrams on such a non-issue certainly takes Demi down a notch or two in my eyes. And she *was* one of the classic ladies of lasting beauty. Too bad....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
triloibug, 22 Dec 2009 @ 1:10pm

You'd think they would be smarter than this with all of Aston's online culture know-how.

Guess not, should have been a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2009 @ 2:42pm

For the blind
If you cannot see what is photoshopped, there are a few vids on the link that show the W cover compared with the "original" Demi provided. There are blantant differences between them, which that alone absolutely discredits any claims from her or people being purposefully obtuse to the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben, 22 Dec 2009 @ 4:35pm

She's probably worried that her master, Obama, will see it and be displeased. After all, she did pledge to be his servant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek, 22 Dec 2009 @ 7:38pm

This will never see a courtroom
Exhibit A in this case will be the original full-resolution raw file.

We don't know who drove this bus over the cliff, maybe it was a publicist or someone else besides Moore, but speaking as a photographer I'm very doubtful she'd want the camera's unretouched output made public.

Some celebrities even have contractual requirements around how the raw files are handled, to the point that they demand a specific Photoshop artist.

The claim that the image wasn't altered is the funniest part of this story. "Photoshopping" arguments are often narrowly defined and self-serving -- some will claim it means cut-and-pasting body parts, others will claim it means a tiny exposure tweak.

In reality, if this image WASN'T retouched it would have been a news item.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 22 Dec 2009 @ 8:59pm

"Moore herself chimed in on Twitter to claim that the photo was not altered"
So what she's trying to say, along with her bogus attack lawyers, is that she really IS as fat and evil as Naomi Campbell... Right? RIGHT!! I knew it! HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!!

;p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lrobbo (profile), 30 May 2012 @ 1:04pm

Nice work on her for making herself look like a total fool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2014 @ 12:17pm

at this point demi moore is so old and decrepit that it would be quicker and cheaper to invent cloning technology and grow a demi clone than to photoshop the original
[ link to this | view in chronology ]