Jake Gyllenhaal Threatening Websites For 'Defamation By Photoshop'?

from the that-won't-end-well... dept

And here we go again. Apparently a few websites had posted some photos that allegedly showed actor Jake Gyllenhaal stretching in his underwear. Supposedly, the image is faked. However, that hasn't stopped Gyllenhaal's lawyers from trying a somewhat novel approach to it, demanding websites take it down, because the image (among other things) could be seen as defamation: How is that possibly "defamation"? As Eriq Gardner notes in his writeup (the one linked above), if the image really is Photoshopped, then he isn't stretching, so that's perhaps something "false." But it really does seem like his lawyers are very much stretching. It's hard to see how this causes any "harm" to Gyllenhaal. In fact, it would seem that having lawyers send out silly takedown notices like this does more harm to his reputation than the photo in question.

Thankfully, it appears that some sites aren't backing down, with at least one noting that the takedown itself now makes the photo newsworthy: "We're keeping the photo up, since it hasn't been proven fake and because their letter bumped it from 'funny and cute' to 'actually newsworthy.'" That site, Queerty, also explains why this isn't defamation:

Oh, really? Defaming him? Well, we don't like defaming anyone. You might even say that we are gays and lesbians allied against defamation.

But what exactly is the defamation here? Is is that people might think, wrongly, that Jake wears underpants? Or that his reputation is sullied by the idea that he allowed someone to photograph him without pants on? Or that he stayed in what looks like a cheap motel?

Simply calling something defamation doesn't make it so, as Howard Stern learned in 2009 when he tried -- and failed -- to sue someone for suggesting that he's gay. Is that what's going on here?

Jake's a public figure, and we can talk about him if we want to. We can even speculate about what he looks like in his underwear. We can't -- and won’t -- claim that this picture of him is definitely authentic, since we just don't know.

I wonder if these claims of "defamation by photoshop" will start to become more common. Perhaps it would be good to get some court rulings on the books that show this is a ridiculous claim.

Filed Under: defamation, jake gyllenhaal, photoshop

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

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

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.

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

BP Photoshopping Goes From Bad To Ridiculously Bad

from the oh-come-on dept

With BP finally admitting it Photoshopped an image showing its "oil spill response center," it appears that people are finding all sorts of ridiculously bad photoshops done by BP in describing its response to the oil spill. Take, for example, the photo below: It doesn't take long to realize that the helicopter cockpit you're looking at is not actually in the air at all. In the upper lefthand corner, above the pilot's head, you can see an air traffic control tower. Oops. And, at the link above, they also zoom in on some of the panel instrumentation, suggesting that the door and ramp are open and the parking brake is engaged. Oh, and that document in the pilot's hand? Pre-flight checklist.

Perhaps BP is practicing in an effort to Photoshop the oil out of the gulf... However, somehow, I get the feeling it would leave some... artifacts.

Filed Under: fraud, images, photoshop
Companies: bp

Whether You're BP Or A Petty Criminal, Photoshopping Yourself To Look Sympathetic Probably Isn't Wise

from the just-a-tip dept

Slashdot pointed us to this fun story about a scam artist who tried to get leniency from a judge by showing him photos of charity work he had done. The only problem? He Photoshopped himself into the photos and also forged letters from those charitable organizations. Not surprisingly, the judge didn't take too kindly to it, and gave him 285 months in prison -- 50 more than the sentencing guidelines allow -- because of the attempt to defraud the court.

Of course, I was thinking of doing a post on just that, when Karl Bode pointed me to the news that BP has also been caught messing around with Photoshopped images. Apparently, the images that BP has released of its oil spill "command center" are really, really, poorly Photoshopped. After being called on it, BP denied it, then sorta admitted it, but won't explain the details. Then, to make matters worse, it got caught with another Photoshopped image.

So, whether you're a petty criminal, or a giant multi-billion dollar multi-national, perhaps you should layoff the Photoshop when trying to make yourself look sympathetic.

Filed Under: fraud, images, photoshop
Companies: bp

Ralph Lauren Admits It Needs Photoshop Help... Doesn't Say Much About DMCA Help

from the could-go-a-bit-further,-you-know... dept

Following last week's hubbub over Ralph Lauren and its lawyers sending bogus DMCA takedowns to sites who posted a Ralph Lauren ad that appeared to show an inhumanly skinny model, the company has put out a statement confessing that the ad was terrible:

"For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."

That's nice and all... but it doesn't address the question of sending bogus takedown notices to both the Photoshop Disasters' webhost and Boing Boing's webhost. The fact that the company later admits that its photoshopping was done poorly actually makes the situation seem even worse -- as the company, rather than admit that at first, used a bogus legal proceeding to take down legitimate criticism -- criticism that the company itself is now admitting was perfectly legitimate.

Filed Under: dmca, photoshop, takedown
Companies: ralph lauren

French Politician Proposes Warning Labels On Any Photoshopped Ad Or Marketing Label

from the no-digital-slimming-down dept

Mr. LemurBoy points out that some French politicians are pushing a law that would require a label on any marketing or advertising image that was photoshopped, airbrushed or edited in some manner. The idea, of course, is that they don't want ad campaigns to portray things in a manner that is not quite truthful. But shouldn't there just be a simpler rule against deceptive advertising (one I imagine must already exist)? If it's just a little edit to make the photo more reasonable, why should it require some special disclosure?

Filed Under: france, photoshop, warning labels

Will The Freemium Model Work For Photoshop?

from the may-be-a-tough-call dept

Adobe made some news today by launching a free web-based low-end version of Adobe Photoshop. The idea is that Adobe hopes this will convince people to upgrade to the for-fee desktop software packages or (potentially) higher end online offerings from Adobe. This should be an interesting experiment for a variety of reasons. First, it definitely makes sense for Adobe to head down this path -- because if it didn't others would pop up and do the same (in fact there already are a few web-based Photoshop clones out there). So, joining this space earlier, rather than later, gives Adobe a chance to help define it, rather than be defined by it.

Adobe also has an advantage in the fact that it dominates this market. Even with free offerings like The Gimp out there, many graphic designers and photographers swear by the Photoshop interface and tools. The question, though, is how well this offering will be adopted. There are already some concerns about performance, which can matter a great deal when doing image editing. Furthermore, if this free online offering is there to serve as a way to push people to sign up for paid offerings, there will be pressures on the development team not to make the product as good as can be -- and that will keep open a wide opportunity for others to come in and provide a better product. No matter what, it's nice to see yet another large traditional client-side software provider experimenting with web-based offerings. Finally, simply porting a desktop software to the web isn't all that appealing. Services like Writely took off not because they were word processing clones (or free) but because they offered something useful that was different. In the case of Writely, it was the ability to do real-time collaboration over a document. So as long as Adobe focuses on creating those useful things that are different than what can be done on the desktop client, this could have some potential. But merely moving a feature-lacking version of a desktop client to the web probably isn't enough.

Filed Under: desktop software, freemium, online software, photoshop
Companies: adobe