Thread: News Week photo of Sarah Palin--Sexist or not?

Originally Posted by Slon

Did they actually steal the photograph or did they find it online and download/copy it?

Downloading it or copying it, without permission of the photographer or, depending on what usage right were obtained, by the running magazine, is the equivilant of stealing. The law doesn't really make a distinction.

I've posted photos here before, but I've never given anyone here permission to use them for anything. If someone were to copy the photo I could, in theory, go after the person for copyright infringement. I've done this a few times with bands who have MySpace and/or Facebook pages. Ordinarily, a stern request is all it takes. My attorney has gotten involved in some other instances, though...

Originally Posted by Oreo

...Oddly enough--the liberal women on The View actually agree. Maybe--because some liberal women have finally realised this could easily happen to them.

They should be so lucky...

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Its a bit odd, unless they were intending to suggest she's "running" for president or something like that.

At least she looks hot. They could have had a picture where she had a noodle hanging out of her mouth or something. I actually agreed with her critique of it on the Oprah show although I wouldn't necessarily call it 'sexist'. I could see newsweek having a male politician on the cover in his gym clothes or something.

Considering some of the Time and Newsweek covers of Republicans in the past, I am surprised they don't have her with horns, fangs and green lights playing on her face.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

This should answer your question:

Palin photographer breached contract with sale to Newsweek -- DailyFinance

That's interesting; I hadn't heard that.

Runner's World should go after the photographer. They should sue him for breach of contract, and they should sue him for every penny that Newsweek paid him. Even if the photo was purchased from a stock agency, it's the responsibility to inform the stock agency of any limitations on the use of the photo which, in this case, there certainly seems to be...

Originally Posted by Slon

Could you explain why this is sexist and how it makes or breaks (or confirms) whether or not News Week is a "TABLOID" magazine?

Well, I suppose it is sexist. But Palin is very good looking and it's an attractive photo so I don't think that's the issue.

On your other point: Newsweek has degenerated into a middlebrow tabloid - real garbage - and this is just another example.

The cover story and the title are blatantly, absurdly partisan. But they apparently think it will sell copies.

I doubt it.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

It's a stupid picture. I just can't believe that we can't find a more compelling candidate that Sarah Palin. WTF? Are we going to be talking about the same lame cast of retreads again - and Sarah Palin?

I give Newsweek credit for not showing us Hillary in shorts. That would just be cruel..to us.

...and to her.

The issue of Palin's looks can't be separated from her campaign. The use of the picture is foolish, in my opinion, because it turns the Newsweek story into another negative puff piece.

But that is par for the course for Newsweek and Time. And that is not Palin's fault.

But is Palin a celebrity? A politician? A role model for some conservative women? A good looking woman who appeals to conservative men - a woman who looks and speaks and acts like a better looking version of dozens of women we see every day?

She is all of the above.

Originally Posted by Steve

That's interesting; I hadn't heard that.

Runner's World should go after the photographer. They should sue him for breach of contract, and they should sue him for every penny that Newsweek paid him. Even if the photo was purchased from a stock agency, it's the responsibility to inform the stock agency of any limitations on the use of the photo which, in this case, there certainly seems to be...

I agree that Runner's World should sue the photographer and I hope that others will think twice before doing business with him.

Originally Posted by Oreo

If that's the case then why does News Week even do a story on her? It's obvious the media is in all out attack mode over her new book. Ask yourself why?

There is only one reason that makes any sense. They are scared to death of Sarah Palin.

I think you make good points here.

But I would add that she really does look good there. So in a way she wins. It is Newsweek that does not come off well.

That keeps happening. She is aggravating (and she knows it ) but the attacks on her keep backfiring. Her critics ignore the real issues where she is weak, and attempt to humiliate her. But she has the last laugh each time.

It is actually fascinating.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

This should answer your question:



Palin photographer breached contract with sale to Newsweek -- DailyFinance

Then I guess Newsweek didn't even violate copyright law, much less stolen anything?

Originally Posted by Steve

Downloading it or copying it, without permission of the photographer or, depending on what usage right were obtained, by the running magazine, is the equivilant of stealing. The law doesn't really make a distinction.

The law may not (although it actually does), but reasonable people do. Copyright infringement is copying without depriving another of the acquired property (since the acquired property is physically created by the one who "acquires" it), whereas real theft is acquisition of physical property without reproduction, which deprives the owner of that physical property.

I've posted photos here before, but I've never given anyone here permission to use them for anything. If someone were to copy the photo I could, in theory, go after the person for copyright infringement. I've done this a few times with bands who have MySpace and/or Facebook pages. Ordinarily, a stern request is all it takes. My attorney has gotten involved in some other instances, though...

Originally Posted by Tim

Well, I suppose it is sexist. But Palin is very good looking and it's an attractive photo so I don't think that's the issue.

Why do you "suppose" it is sexist? What circumstances must exist for this to be sexist?

On your other point: Newsweek has degenerated into a middlebrow tabloid - real garbage - and this is just another example.

The cover story and the title are blatantly, absurdly partisan. But they apparently think it will sell copies.

I doubt it.

Could you expand on that? The title appears to be anti-Palin, but how does that make it garbage?

Originally Posted by Slon

...Could you expand on that? The title appears to be anti-Palin, but how does that make it garbage?

Newsweek was once an intelligent, well written, balanced and interesting magazine.

Now they have dropped even the pretense of seriousness, and instead of creating a serious cover story that asks questions, they create a stupid cover that looks like a left-over from People magazine: a combination of a picture of Palin in shorts combined with the announcement that she is a 'problem' and a dumb headline that is just a pun.

That is garbage.

Originally Posted by Tim

Newsweek was once an intelligent, well written, balanced and interesting magazine.

Now they have dropped even the pretense of seriousness, and instead of creating a serious cover story that asks questions, they create a stupid cover that looks like a left-over from People magazine: a combination of a picture of Palin in shorts combined with the announcement that she is a 'problem' and a dumb headline that is just a pun.

That is garbage.

So you don't think the cover was professionally designed because they bought an existing photo instead of taking their own? Well, don't judge a book by it's cover, I guess. Is the actual story really that bad?

Originally Posted by Steve

Downloading it or copying it, without permission of the photographer or, depending on what usage right were obtained, by the running magazine, is the equivilant of stealing. The law doesn't really make a distinction.

I've posted photos here before, but I've never given anyone here permission to use them for anything. If someone were to copy the photo I could, in theory, go after the person for copyright infringement. I've done this a few times with bands who have MySpace and/or Facebook pages. Ordinarily, a stern request is all it takes. My attorney has gotten involved in some other instances, though...

In your case, not knowing precisely all the photos and usages and using my initial hunch, it very well may be copyright infringement what happened to you because it seems by your account here that they were lifting your photos without paying for them and using them for solely their own commercial benefit in their promo sites without paying you.

Setting aside the photographer's possible breaches and assuming just for the sake of discussion that it was lifted, on the whole subject, it's still a very complicated scene as to what is actually a copyright infringement and what constitutes 'fair use.' In this case, they were using the photo's content to make an entirely different point in a different subject relating to her with the subject line plastered all over it and 'fair use' would become the test:

Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Slon

Then I guess Newsweek didn't even violate copyright law, much less stolen anything?

Purchasing the photo from the photographer, in and of itself, does not absolve newsweek of copyright violation...

The law may not (although it actually does), but reasonable people do. Copyright infringement is copying without depriving another of the acquired property (since the acquired property is physically created by the one who "acquires" it), whereas real theft is acquisition of physical property without reproduction, which deprives the owner of that physical property.[/quote]

I'm not asking you to agree with the law, Slon, I'm just telling you what it is. I don't really care if you agree with it or not...