leibovitz nicking pics???

I'd dearly love for this to be true - bloody 'celeb'-photographers...pfft
 
What the hell does any jobbing photographer need a $24M loan for anyway?
I know D3x's are pricey, but c'mon...

Should have moved to cheaper digs years ago and got on with doing some more work...
 
Arkady said:
What the hell does any jobbing photographer need a $24M loan for anyway?
I know D3x's are pricey, but c'mon...

Should have moved to cheaper digs years ago and got on with doing some more work...
Click to expand...


She began moving in rarified circles and want a piece of the lifestyle...
 
Arkady said:
What the hell does any jobbing photographer need a $24M loan for anyway?
I know D3x's are pricey, but c'mon...

Should have moved to cheaper digs years ago and got on with doing some more work...
Click to expand...

$2m turnover a year, but she had an entourage of 9 and was living the celeb lifestyle. Didn't she turn two of her Greenwich village townhouses into one, get sued for $15 by her neighbour so she bought his property?
 
Byker28i said:
$2m turnover a year, but she had an entourage of 9 and was living the celeb lifestyle. Didn't she turn two of her Greenwich village townhouses into one, get sued for $15 by her neighbour so she bought his property?
Click to expand...

She was sued for $15? :thinking:
 
Oh dear isn't it sad when the rich and famous take a fall just like those of us in the real world.
 
I am in the opposite camp. Yes, she has made some bad financial decisions - who knows the driving force behind them. Maybe she was given some "good" advice by a financial advisor.....who could see further down thre road.

Whatever the financial difficulties, they do not detract from her work.

There are two sides to this. Leibovitz the celebrated photographer, and she can make a good picture.
Leibovitz the hapless soul who has fallen foul of financial dealings.....like the RBS Chairman and a load of other so called financial whizzkids who you and I had to bail out, so they could give themselves more big bonuses 6 months later.

I actually feel sorry for her. I bet she got caught up in a big whirlwind, moving in the circles she did. Very few who hit the limelight can deal with it. Think of the pop/rock stars footballers, film stars etc who have hit "the big time" and cannot cope with the constant publicity and peer pressure to always move upward and onward.....the list is quite long and follows a very similar path. Think of the 60s/70s pop stars who got stitched up by their "managers" and record companies.

Annie Leibovitz was a photographer, many creatives find it difficult to cope with order and keeping bookwork up to date. Their mind is programmed to create. If you get a good, honest manager/bookeeper whatever, you are OK. How many of these background support workers see the opportunity to rip off their employer?

I think there is more to this than meets the eye, we are just not privy to the whole truth.
I don't like the copyright infringement thing though. She, or whoever decided to run with the photographs, deserves all they get.
 
Lensflare said:
...Annie Leibovitz was a photographer...
Click to expand...
emphasis added...

Quite...a reputation built on who she photographed - not the inherent quality of the images...
Just like Testino - whose images are utterly unremarkable in every way apart from the subject matter...
 
Arkady said:
emphasis added...

Quite...a reputation built on who she photographed - not the inherent quality of the images...
Just like Testino - whose images are utterly unremarkable in every way apart from the subject matter...
Click to expand...

There are quite a lot of people who really rate her work, I'd like to add quickly that I'm not one of them, but then....:shrug:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
There are quite a lot of people who really rate her work, I'd like to add quickly that I'm not one of them, but then....:shrug:
Click to expand...

Her stuff is good...but is it that good...really...?

I mean it's exposed correctly, focussed properly, well-developed and nicely printed (though in the past a lot of her printing was rumoured to be done by Gene Nocon)...
But is it great...?

I think there's a world of difference between being an established 'celebrity' photographer and being simply a great photographer...

I've seen work by photographers on this forum that blows her stuff into the weeds...
 
Lensflare said:
I am in the opposite camp. Yes, she has made some bad financial decisions - who knows the driving force behind them. Maybe she was given some "good" advice by a financial advisor.....who could see further down thre road.

Whatever the financial difficulties, they do not detract from her work.

There are two sides to this. Leibovitz the celebrated photographer, and she can make a good picture.
Leibovitz the hapless soul who has fallen foul of financial dealings.....like the RBS Chairman and a load of other so called financial whizzkids who you and I had to bail out, so they could give themselves more big bonuses 6 months later.

I actually feel sorry for her. I bet she got caught up in a big whirlwind, moving in the circles she did. Very few who hit the limelight can deal with it. Think of the pop/rock stars footballers, film stars etc who have hit "the big time" and cannot cope with the constant publicity and peer pressure to always move upward and onward.....the list is quite long and follows a very similar path. Think of the 60s/70s pop stars who got stitched up by their "managers" and record companies.

Annie Leibovitz was a photographer, many creatives find it difficult to cope with order and keeping bookwork up to date. Their mind is programmed to create. If you get a good, honest manager/bookeeper whatever, you are OK. How many of these background support workers see the opportunity to rip off their employer?

I think there is more to this than meets the eye, we are just not privy to the whole truth.
I don't like the copyright infringement thing though. She, or whoever decided to run with the photographs, deserves all they get.
Click to expand...

Difficulty in keeping the bookwork up to date is one thing, I think I'd notice if I was 24 million out in the accounts somewhere, and I'm pretty sure so would my accountant :)
 
Perhaps she's not too clue'd up on copyright law and thought that as she was employing the photographer to take those pics she could do with them as she pleases. Ignorance is no excuse either way.
 
Nobody's that thick...and a photographer of her reputation has lawyers to sort that for her as part of her bloody entourage...maybe that's what the loan was for...lol
 
if thats what she done of course - without mening to stick up for her (to much) she should be allowed to put her side on the copyright issue, it may be a former employee making things up?
 
Some of her work is good.

As to sympathy I just think she has been stupid, she has got greedy and wanted more, like so many rich and famous. It will be interesting to see the results of the copyright case!! So no sympathy from me, just jealous she had the contacts and the money in the first place.
 
Even employed photographers have intellectual rights over their images...I'm having a similar argument at the moment with some idiot at Northwood who's claiming I've breached Crown Copyright by posting images on Facebook...
According to the rules we all signed-up to with IPRC, we can use our own images for self-publicity as long as they've been previously released to the press (and so become 'open-source') and we don't try to make money from it (as we're already paid a salary)...
MoD has all rights to use and dissemination up until we leave the Military - after that we can do with them as we please...

Expect to see a few coffee-table books from Afghanistan in the next 10 years or so when the current crop of corporal-photographers leaves the Army.

She should Know better - and if she doesn't then someone should have told her - she's in business - it's not the bloomin sixties any more...
 
Arkady said:
She should Know better - and if she doesn't then someone should have told her - she's in business - it's not the bloomin sixties any more...
Click to expand...

Who, Leibovitz or the idiot at Northwood?:thumbs:
 
Kev M said:
Who, Leibovitz or the idiot at Northwood?:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Liebowitz...

The Idiots at Northwood are born stupid...
I once had an argument with a Colonel there who wanted me court-martialled for breaching OPSEC...
According to him I'd photographed a map of Kandahar airfield and released it without authority (I hadn't - my Boss OK'd it)...
When I asked what photo he was talking about (I'm careful about taking photos in briefings etc where there are maps about), he told me it was of a pilot in a helicopter.
I had to scratch my head, but eventually came up with an image of a US Army Blackhawk pilot with the CAA schematic of Kandahar Airport in his knee-pocket...
The same image that used to come up when you Google'd 'Kandahar Airport'...

My Colonel just laughed and told the other guy to do his homework next time...:cuckoo:
 
I don't really believe that there can be any excuse for the fact that she used someone else's picture, and accredited it to herself. You are right, we don't know the full story, but this appears to be what was intimated in the article. Even if she thought that she had 'paid' to use the picture, it still sounds like the picture was accredited as her work, not the actual person who took the picture.

The second story, there are two problems here.
1) If you are in a position to take out a loan for $24 million, chances are, you don't do the books yourself (unless you are an accountant). If you do not appoint a book-keeper, or if you fire the book-keeper, then you are a fool. Plain and Simple. There is no excuse that you might be arty-farty type and not good with numbers, any idiot should see that it makes sense, if you are no good with figures then you get someone who is to help. And come on, if you are taking a loan out for $24million, you cannot say that you cannot afford a book-keeper.

2) There is a problem with lending in america. Whilst I was there I discussed it with several people as to why it was going this way. It seems that most people get a mortgage (which is basically a loan secured on a property, which this partially is), and then only pay off the interest. Meaning that if there are problems with income, then they have no assets left. People do this in order to purchase their houses. So why did she require a loan which covers the value of several houses PLUS extra requiring her other assets to be put up as collateral?
Where has this extra money gone? Has she really spent more money on the house renovation that she has added to the value? Again, only an idiot would have done this, and although maybe builders are not the most likely to say, this isn't going to add value, but any interior designer, should, as part of their brief, add value to the place
 
If this is true it then raises the question of how many of her pictures were actually taken by her.
 
swanseamale47 said:
If this is true it then raises the question of how many of her pictures were actually taken by her.
Click to expand...

Quite, just think how much value that kind of rumour would knock off her portfolio value.

Hmm, isn't the loan secured against that value.

Wooops.


I have to admit to not having seen a lot of her work (knowingly), however I suspect that like many artists/celebrities, their items are work X amount, purely because people believe they are worth X amount, not always due to any inherent quality there might be in their work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top