It is quite powerful and provokes the reader to think. It was also quite confusing - just like most things in this modern world. Everything is nuanced and layered, and takes a bigger brain than mine to comprehend.
One of the first things I thought of was how strangely art has evolved over the years. The artist Richard Prince had an exhibition where he blew up pictures of celebrities from Instagram - and he didn't even take those pictures or recreated them in an artistic way. All he did was leave a comment on the pictures and print them in really massive sizes to display as 'art'. Emily had to buy her own picture for 80,000 USD.
This really makes me question capitalism and art. Also, why does it feel like something only a white person would do? Really strange.
Now let's get to the serious issues. The article was penned by Emily about feeling a distinct lack of agency when it comes to her body and, more specifically, the photographs of her body. In different specific incidents, she highlighted the confusion and pain she went through when people took over how they used her images for unintended purposes.
I had to sit back and question all the preconceived notions I had about celebrity and their rights to their pictures. When I first read about Emily being sued because she posted a picture of hers, on Instagram, taken by a photographer, I didn't stop to think about it for more than the one minute it took for me to decide I was thoroughly confused. So, Emily - the subject - posted her own picture - taken by someone else - on her own Instagram for non-commercial reasons- gets sued by said photographer because it is HIS picture that SHE is using?? WHAT MODERN SHITBALL IS THIS? She was sued for 150,000 USD.
I'm not sure if other readers got any clarity at the end of the piece.
There's another painful experience of having her private pictures leaked. This led her to pay up 10,000 USD for another picture of hers rather than risk another nightmare of having other private photos leaked to the public.
Emily also wrote about her experience as a young model, working to be financially independent and confident in her body. She writes with honesty about wanting to be better, to be the best model for the photographer. She hadn't been told that particular photoshoot was a lingerie shoot but she didn't have a problem with it. She was later shot naked by the photographer. This made me pause. I wonder how many young models are exploited like this- not given complete information about the work they're hired to do, then slowly (kind of coerced into) asked to pose nude. This Jonathan Leder turned out to be a bigger creep later on as he tried to take advantage of the fact that she was drunk. He resurfaced years later as he prints books containing Emily's polaroid shots from that photoshoot. The original photoshoot was for a magazine but she did not consent to him using her pictures for his own books. She tried to stop him but he got away and published three books of her photographs as well as several reprints and an exhibition.
How does a male photographer assume he has the right to commercially use images of a model who did not consent to them being used for purposes other than originally intended? Oh, he did bring out a consent form that was supposedly signed by Emily's agent. However, the agent denies signing anything so.........
Ironically, she didn't get paid anything for her work that fateful day but instead her legal bills, trying to stop Leder, amounted to almost 8000 USD.
I don't think I can nor do I want to look at celebrity pictures the same way again. I believe we should all be mindful of how we use the pictures available publicly. Paparazzi shots can be incredibly intrusive, as we all know. It rests in the hands of the consumer. I hope to exercise more restraint and be mindful of celebrity images. Because they are only human beings, abeit in the public eye.
No comments:
Post a Comment