Agency Representatives Threaten Gawker For Showing Jennifer Aniston Photos [Allegedly] Sans Photoshop [Updated]

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Tue, Aug 24th 2010 10:24am — Mike Masnick

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.

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: copyright, fair use, jennifer aniston, jezebel, photoshop, threats
Companies: gawker

33 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 10:12am

Huh...
No wonder Ross cheated....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cc (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 10:29am
  
  Re: Huh...
  They were on a break! ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- R. Miles (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:24am
  
  Re: Huh...
  Just wait until your helmet turns 40. ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 10:31am

Tbh, the photo on the left looks as photoshopped as the one on the right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:03am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DCX2, 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    The lighting *is* absolutely horrible. Her face is hiding in the shadow created by her hair. And the eyebrows make her look embarrassed or confused. Her posture is too self-protective and closed.
    
    You could drop your camera on the ground and take a better picture than the one on the left...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CommonSense (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:41am
  
  Re:
  TBH, I'd still take her home either way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re:
  it's a shop - i can tell from the pixels and having seen a lot of shops in my time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2010 @ 10:39am

They don't appear to be the same photo ('shopping notwithstanding). The left looks like one of the probably hundreds a pro photog might take but not use.

Is anyone surprised that mag pics are photoshopped anymore?

At least she looks human, unlike those sickening Ralph Lauren ads a few months back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2010 @ 10:43am

Photo on ht left looks like someone added a layer of hobo dirt to Jennifer's face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 10:59am
  
  Re:
  Or did a photoshop meld with a catcher's mitt....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
maclizard (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 10:52am

Case in point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- maclizard (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 10:54am
  
  Re: Case in point
  I saw this on Gawker and skipped right over it, however, as mentioned in the story, it has now gotten my attention.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unknown, 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:07am

Looking at the hair and how it's on the head it looks like the photo might be one of the set of photos but not really the 'chosen one' to modify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:21am

Just do some noise analysis(i.e. get Gimp and crank the noise up to see if different patterns appear) on the photos people!

The easiest forensic analysis there is.

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/tampering.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conflicted Artist (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:23am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:35am
  
  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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:56am
    
    Re: Re: They're not the same image.
    Are you sure with some retouching there I can think of a lot of lolcat's captions for that photo(on the left).
    
    "OMG! not again!"
    
    "Please! can I haz some hot coffee"
    
    "Purease let me in"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
drewmerc (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:31am

i saw the set of 5 pics the other day (damn ccleaner)
no idea where but anyways all i thought was i still would
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg Laden, 24 Aug 2010 @ 11:43am

who is this?
What, is she, like, an actress or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re: who is this?
  Rachael from 'Friends'
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2010 @ 12:21pm

She was on Jon Stewart last week and looks nothing like the left picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re:
  "She was on Jon Stewart last week"
  
  Wow. I didn't realize Jon got that kind of action....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2010 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re: Meh, they're just people.
  Good lighting can do wonders for anyone. And anyone can be caught mid-movement (facial or body) and look like something from under a bridge.
  
  Ever watch The Soup? They do it all the time, capturing (often hilarious) stills from the video clips they skewer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Del, 24 Aug 2010 @ 12:35pm

Jennifer
I think Jennifer has had the hardest time in life and career post "Friends." I think she is under the illusion she has not aged and that she is a leading actress. Neither is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lolo, 24 Aug 2010 @ 2:38pm

SUE!!!
ITS ABOUT TIME THEY START SUING.I hope they sue every magazine and website out there that prints boggest lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 2:44pm
  
  You are the boggest idiot!
  I, for one, am glad I am not the boggest idiot. You certainly seem to be, though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
organicap, 24 Aug 2010 @ 4:07pm

Actually...
The Gawker article says the agency that holds the rights to that image issued a cease and desist order (copyright infringement) not Aniston's folks. The image is offered for publication w/o any objection from Ms. Aniston. You've created a work of fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Aug 2010 @ 10:18pm
  
  Re: Actually...
  The Gawker article says the agency that holds the rights to that image issued a cease and desist order (copyright infringement) not Aniston's folks. The image is offered for publication w/o any objection from Ms. Aniston. You've created a work of fiction.
  
  Wow. I like how you jump all the way to "created a work of fiction." How about it was not clear from the original, but now that you've cleared it up, we've edited the post to clarify.
  
  Why do people always jump to the worst conclusions?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bebe, 24 Aug 2010 @ 4:36pm

Hhhmmm...
I think they photoshop the one on the left, to make her look too old. Look at that forehead, it has a deep wrinkle. The shape of the face is not even right, and her chin look a lot longer. If you see her in the live interviews, she looks more younger than the one on the pic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drm made me into a pirate? (profile), 25 Aug 2010 @ 1:52am

reality is inconvenient
It is mean to be honest therefore it must be illegal.

Fuck free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Aug 2010 @ 9:04am

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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 25 Aug 2010 @ 3:03pm

Jennifer Aniston
It got her mentioned in your blog, where otherwise (hopefully) she would not have been. Pity she was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]