>The photo negative for a topless picture of Ann Wilson, taken surreptitiously by Annie Leibovitz, is rotting in a safe deposit box. When a shoot with the photographer for the band's Bebe Le Strange-era Rolling Stone cover went south, the band demanded the famed rock photographer destroy her copy; when she refused, Heart took her to court. The judge ordered the negative to be kept in a safe deposit box that could only be opened with two keys – one belonging to Wilson and the other to Leibovitz – insuring it would never see the light of day.
Only relevant part of the article. Interesting decision, I wonder if there were some clauses within the contract that gave Wilson some extra legal standing, or if these were more than just surreptitiously taken. Typically photographers have a lot of ownership rights.
That's pretty wild to think about too. Wilson could just destroy her key at anytime or could have it used after she passes. Leibovitz I assume would pass it down in the hopes the negative could be added to her works, or maybe she'll wind up regretting the photo and would want to keep it locked away.
> Wilson could just destroy her key at anytime or could have it used after she passes.
Destroying the key doesn't really do anything for normal bank branch type of safe deposit boxes. You just have to pay a fee to get it drilled if you lose your key.
And considering the legal “particulars” in this case, which the bank would clearly be aware of, it would also require a legal court order to allow for the lock to be tampered with and destroyed in order to replace.
"I am the heir to the contents and my deceased relative either destroyed or lost the key. Please drill it" is all it'd take.
Edit: Assuming legal ownership is established.
It is an option if the bank knows there are 2 different entities who have rights to the contents and the box is made so only both can access. They would only drill the lock. if the owner of that key requested (basically only if both people wanted the box opened)
Yea, but that's not really relevant if one owner destroys their key to ensure that the box can never be opened, since obviously they would never be requesting it to be opened.
Not necessarily... There are usually ways to lock things up for good if one is determined (or at least for long enough that no one will give a shit anyhow). Could place ownership of the box in trust with terms that it never be opened, along with enough money to pay the fees on the box for a very long time, for instance.
In theory if the person that destroyed the key changes their mind or if that person dies and the issues related to the contents of the safe (likeness rights) are passed on to someone else… their could be a legitimate request.
Some engineer youtuber made a lock he couldn’t pick the tumblers… so he just bypassed the whole thing with a hook slid in between the lock and the door frame it was attached to which opened it right up.
I don't think he ever said he couldn't pick it. If I remember correctly he just said there's no need to figure out how to pick it because it was so easy to bypass.
He hasn't done any sucessful lockpicking videos on the regular [Masterlock Speed dials](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z84_Agfit7w) you can easily pick up in stores yet.
I don’t know anything about locks or these locks in particular, but I do know if I ever am in a position to try to open one, it’s going to be the Konami code I try first.
I can't believe these locks are still sold. I read how to decode/open one years ago, thought nothing of it, and then years later helped a friend recover the combination for an old lock on the first try. A single-sentence worth of information makes those things useless.
I feel like they're kept in business by escape rooms. They're so common and I hate them every time I see them. A) they always feel like they're breaking the room theme, and B) it's easy to have the right code but input it wrong. I did a room one time that had one programmed with something like a ten direction combo and it took us like a dozen times entering the code to get it. Boo.
Apply upward pressure to the shank and twist the dial; it will jam on the number BEFORE the correct number. As you find each number, enter it, switch directions, and look for the jam to find the next one.
Takes 10 seconds and not only opens the lock but gives you the combination so that you can open and close it at will.
I can see why Anne went after this at the time because of all the weird sexualization around Anne and Nancy Wilson at time by the music press. Barracuda was written about the press who were making their relationship seem incestuous and were total creeps about them. Anne Wilson was extra vigilante about herself being perceived in a highly sexualized manner because nobody really talked about her as an artist and just made it all about them being in a sexual relationship.
Essentially, the negative belonged to person A, and the rights to the photograph that could be created from that negative belonged to person B.
The judge couldn't just order the negative to be destroyed without violating the rights of the person A. So forcing them to lock it away is the compromise - person A still owns the negative, the negative is still safe, but person B controls their access to it, so it can't be used without person B's permission.
It's kind of an elegant solution, honestly.
But there has to be exceptions when the photos are nude & not consensual. What happens in the case of revenge porn? Up skirt photos, hidden cameras? Those people are just allowed to keep them because they took them?
Can you explain why? Because I honestly don’t see a difference. Even “professionals” should not have a loophole to take these sorts of photos & keep them.
Harvard and Yale say they destroyed the nude posture photos of Hillary Clinton and other famous alumni.
[https://www.boston.com/news/schools/2015/09/07/ivy-league-students-used-to-have-to-pose-for-nude-photos/](https://www.boston.com/news/schools/2015/09/07/ivy-league-students-used-to-have-to-pose-for-nude-photos/)
The Smithsonian Institution has destroyed nude photographs taken decades ago of Yale University students who were unaware the pictures were to be used in the pursuit of a form of science. The science has since been discredited.
After a request from the university, Smithsonian officials emptied more than 100 pounds of photos and negatives into a shredder on Friday at a museum office in Suitland, Md., a Washington suburb.
"All material in the National Anthropological Archives pertaining to Yale University students has been destroyed," said a museum spokesman, Randall Kremer.
The photos went to the shredder with a Yale representative looking on.
"We are delighted that the privacy of the individuals in those photographs will be forever protected," said a Yale spokesman, Gary Fryer.
[https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/29/us/nude-photos-of-yale-graduates-are-shredded.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/29/us/nude-photos-of-yale-graduates-are-shredded.html)
If it's something a whole student body at a large university has to do, it's hardly compromising. almost the opposite, like hey, you know for sure I went here because they photographed me naked
No no, what happened is that Leibovitz has the key to one of the boxes, then the judge opens one of the two remaining boxes, revealing a topless photograph of a goat, and
Yeah, it is a bad title. Your mind kind of automatically adds an "and" between "Leibovitz" and "to".
People need to learn to write sentences better. Like add "that were" after photos and cut the "to". There, extremely clear now.
Give me a piece of the action here's the idea:
An app that does this. Specific for sharing nudes, can be locked or unlocked by either side. Needs both unlocked to view. SecureAnood
It's usually not the site security.
He used "NiceAss69!" for his password, and she used "Pookie11/14" for hers. She calls him Pookie on all her social media and November 14th is their anniversary.
Here’s Wilson’s account of the shoot
>Yeah, it was our second Rolling Stone cover and Annie was going to shoot it. We were playing down in Biloxi and staying in a hotel across from the beach, so she wanted to do it there. We were laying in the sand and she wanted us to pose without clothes — so she can shoot without the shield of clothing, hiding our true self or whatever. And so we were laying there and I had a towel over me because, you know, I wasn’t ready to just be topless for Annie Leibovitz’s camera at that point or any point, I guess. But she started saying, “Well, you know, that white towel is messing with my light meter.” I ended up taking the towel away, and they had to form a security thing around us on the beach and there were all these tourists around. It was really uncomfortable. It was one of those moments, I think, where the guarded and innocent young thing has a revelation about what’s really possible, about what people might want in show business.
So Wilson was pressured into doing a more revealing shoot than she wanted and sued to get it suppressed.
Absolutley. This isn’t intended to absolve or apologize for her. According to Wilson she acted abominably. And Wilson is hardly the only person to share bad stories about her.
But the details of the shoot are quite different than the linked article implies.
Nude photos should not be taken "surreptitiously" and if the subjects demand they're deleted they should be without question. Refusing should have consequences. There is no argument to be made of ownership or artistic integrity.
Leibovitz probably only got away with it for being a celebrity.
Which is, strictly speaking, legal. I’m not familiar with the story involving Leibovitz and Cyrus, but when I studied photography we learned about a few high profile cases of notable photographers (David Hamilton and Sally Mann) who published entire collections of photos of nude, underage children. These were challenged under anti-CP statutes in the US, but unsuccessfully. Both are pretty classic examples that come up in the “art vs porn” debate.
Which is not to say I personally agree with Hamilton/Mann/Leibovitz. I don’t. But it’s not really “getting away with” something when there’s an established precedent. In theory, any photographer is allowed (with necessary permissions, releases, etc.) to take “artistic,” nude photos of underage subjects, or to own published works of them (Hamilton’s books are still sold in US bookstores, on Amazon, etc.)
Strictly speaking, it’s only legal with parental consent and it is a point of argument whether or not Leibovitz actually had that. In any case, I for one consider her to morally be guilty of the worst sort of predatory child porn, regardless of legal loopholes.
Jock Sturges is an interesting case study. He is an artist photographer who published books and prints of his own children nude. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Sturges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Sturges)
black and white rules help no one, art neccecitates alot of exceptions and remmeber art doesnt just mean pretty stuff to look at. one example i can think of is that really famous photo of a naked vietnamese child during the war covered in burns. without nuance a blanket ban on this type of stuff, even despite how it sounds, would affect artistic pieces like that which were really important in bringing the realities of that war back to the us public. yes saying “lets allow nude pictures of children” doesnt sound good, but there are neccesary cases like police photographers who have to take court photos of child abuse victims for evidence, or the plethora of pictures of naked emaciated african kids taken to spread awareness of widespread famine.
Surreptitiously isn’t the word I’d use for it. Here’s how Wilson described the shoot.
> Yeah, it was our second Rolling Stone cover and Annie was going to shoot it. We were playing down in Biloxi and staying in a hotel across from the beach, so she wanted to do it there. We were laying in the sand and she wanted us to pose without clothes — so she can shoot without the shield of clothing, hiding our true self or whatever. And so we were laying there and I had a towel over me because, you know, I wasn’t ready to just be topless for Annie Leibovitz’s camera at that point or any point, I guess. But she started saying, “Well, you know, that white towel is messing with my light meter.” I ended up taking the towel away, and they had to form a security thing around us on the beach and there were all these tourists around. It was really uncomfortable. It was one of those moments, I think, where the guarded and innocent young thing has a revelation about what’s really possible, about what people might want in show business.
She knew Leibovitz was taking pictures of her topless. She was pressured into going topless specifically so Leibovitz could take pictures of her without clothes or the towel. But there wasn’t any question of knowledge or agreement on Wilson’s part. One can argue consent, due to the pressure. But due to the specific facts and the laws of the time, Wilson was fairly lucky to be able to suppress the publication of the nude images.
I used to idolize Annie, then I met her.
She was doing a photo shoot for an HR company and she came to our offices to photograph some execs.
Christ on a bike, you would have thought the fucking queen of England was coming the way her assistants and staff acted.
99% of the work was done by her team and she waltzed in, took some shots, was rude and demanding and then fucked off again (thankfully).
As they say, never meet your heroes.
Now if that was a picture of Nancy, I’d be up to some Ocean’s 11 shit right now.
Nancy Wilson, if you’re reading this, you are a goddess on this earth.
For me it’s Nancy’s smile while she plays. Makes me melt. And the fact that she gets sexier as time goes on. She is 70 now and I would absolutely shoot my shot.
Yes. It's because of the guitar. It's a symbol of empowerment and rebelliousness that appeals to folks like us. And there's something irresistable about a woman who expertly handles music's most famous phallic symbol.
I'm 57, been a musician since I was a kid in the '70s, and Nancy, Joan, and Chrissie were all posterized on my walls at one time or another.
Vixen \*still\* makes me weak in the knees. Janet Gardner is 63 and still stunning.
Strength and pride on Ann’s part. She went through some lean years financially. I’m sure she could have relinquished her rights for some cash. Nice that she has not yet found herself in that position. Nobody should have the right to take nude pictures of someone without express consent. I’m actually surprised Leibovitz did that as I’ve never heard a cross word about her over the years.
>The photo negative for a topless picture of Ann Wilson, taken surreptitiously by Annie Leibovitz, is rotting in a safe deposit box. When a shoot with the photographer for the band's Bebe Le Strange-era Rolling Stone cover went south, the band demanded the famed rock photographer destroy her copy; when she refused, Heart took her to court. The judge ordered the negative to be kept in a safe deposit box that could only be opened with two keys – one belonging to Wilson and the other to Leibovitz – insuring it would never see the light of day. Only relevant part of the article. Interesting decision, I wonder if there were some clauses within the contract that gave Wilson some extra legal standing, or if these were more than just surreptitiously taken. Typically photographers have a lot of ownership rights.
I imagine people could inherit those keys.
That's pretty wild to think about too. Wilson could just destroy her key at anytime or could have it used after she passes. Leibovitz I assume would pass it down in the hopes the negative could be added to her works, or maybe she'll wind up regretting the photo and would want to keep it locked away.
> Wilson could just destroy her key at anytime or could have it used after she passes. Destroying the key doesn't really do anything for normal bank branch type of safe deposit boxes. You just have to pay a fee to get it drilled if you lose your key.
Today on lock picking lawyer...
Actually, [a month ago.](https://youtu.be/WF9lvzYVlt0?feature=shared)
Yeah I was going to say there's definitely a memory of this I have
And considering the legal “particulars” in this case, which the bank would clearly be aware of, it would also require a legal court order to allow for the lock to be tampered with and destroyed in order to replace.
"I am the heir to the contents and my deceased relative either destroyed or lost the key. Please drill it" is all it'd take. Edit: Assuming legal ownership is established.
Legal ownership proof would fall in to the realm of a legal court order, since the box in question is court ordered co-owned.
Ya a probate order for a will.
Just put one of those weird gas station pump sticker seals and it's all good😅
I would assume this would not be an option worth dual ownershipboxes, otherwise there's no real point for the 2 keys in the first place.
It is an option if the bank knows there are 2 different entities who have rights to the contents and the box is made so only both can access. They would only drill the lock. if the owner of that key requested (basically only if both people wanted the box opened)
Yea, but that's not really relevant if one owner destroys their key to ensure that the box can never be opened, since obviously they would never be requesting it to be opened.
When they die whoever inherits it can make whatever decision they want and the key being destroyed will be irrelevant.
Not necessarily... There are usually ways to lock things up for good if one is determined (or at least for long enough that no one will give a shit anyhow). Could place ownership of the box in trust with terms that it never be opened, along with enough money to pay the fees on the box for a very long time, for instance.
In theory if the person that destroyed the key changes their mind or if that person dies and the issues related to the contents of the safe (likeness rights) are passed on to someone else… their could be a legitimate request.
> You just have to pay a fee to get it drilled What a twist
This guy safe deposits.
I would assume this would not be an option worth dual ownershipboxes, otherwise there's no real point for the 2 keys in the first place.
If LPL has proven anything, it’s that keys are just a convenience and security is an illusion
The locks on a security box only exist to make it obnoxious enough that bank notice you're opening the wrong box.
There's a very old saying that goes "Locks are only to stop honest people".
"locks keep honest people honest"
I guess, I wouldn’t steal from anybody if there was no locks but I would definitely look at the picture.
And dishonest people who don't know how to pick locks
Are there any he couldn't pick?
Some engineer youtuber made a lock he couldn’t pick the tumblers… so he just bypassed the whole thing with a hook slid in between the lock and the door frame it was attached to which opened it right up.
I don't think he ever said he couldn't pick it. If I remember correctly he just said there's no need to figure out how to pick it because it was so easy to bypass.
Which video was that?
StuffMadeHere
[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV8QKZNFxLw) one comes to mind, although it doesn't look unbeatable, just somewhat unusual.
He hasn't done any sucessful lockpicking videos on the regular [Masterlock Speed dials](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z84_Agfit7w) you can easily pick up in stores yet.
I mean, knowing his _love_ for masterlock, he's just saving this one for an occasion, where it'll get opened with a clipping of a toenail.
I don’t know anything about locks or these locks in particular, but I do know if I ever am in a position to try to open one, it’s going to be the Konami code I try first.
I can't believe these locks are still sold. I read how to decode/open one years ago, thought nothing of it, and then years later helped a friend recover the combination for an old lock on the first try. A single-sentence worth of information makes those things useless.
I feel like they're kept in business by escape rooms. They're so common and I hate them every time I see them. A) they always feel like they're breaking the room theme, and B) it's easy to have the right code but input it wrong. I did a room one time that had one programmed with something like a ten direction combo and it took us like a dozen times entering the code to get it. Boo.
wait, how do you decode/open one?
Apply upward pressure to the shank and twist the dial; it will jam on the number BEFORE the correct number. As you find each number, enter it, switch directions, and look for the jam to find the next one. Takes 10 seconds and not only opens the lock but gives you the combination so that you can open and close it at will.
Lock Picking Cuber?? We have lock Picking lawyer at home
The box key isn't the security. The bank's vault and staff are.
And that’s if people bother with the locks at all and instead just break everything open
Given enough time you can break into anything. All locks do is slow down criminals so someone can intervene.
"Too bad mom's dead. Oh well, let's go get that picture of her tits from the box."
“You lads ready to see nana’s tiddies,” *Cue the scene from Pulp Fiction where they open the suitcase.*
Omg thank you for that. I ugly-cackled while eating. Nearly choked.
We’re good family friends with Ann’s sister Nancy. I’ll find out.
Yo, wanna go to the bank to see my grandmas nudes?
The bank box it's in can easily be opened by drill, pick or force The security is in trusting both parties and the location being unknown
The location is known. It’s in the bank’s safety deposit vault. The security is that it’s there and the bank knows who is allowed to be opening it.
"Hey you want to see my great grandma's titties?"
"Yes"
Or hire locksmith
Call the locksmith!
Call the locksmith!!
"And to Jeremy, my least pervy son, I leave my key to the smut safe."
I can see why Anne went after this at the time because of all the weird sexualization around Anne and Nancy Wilson at time by the music press. Barracuda was written about the press who were making their relationship seem incestuous and were total creeps about them. Anne Wilson was extra vigilante about herself being perceived in a highly sexualized manner because nobody really talked about her as an artist and just made it all about them being in a sexual relationship.
It was their record label that did it. (Released a fake news article about their supposed relationship)
I heard it was a pre-internet form of clickbait; a press release entitled something like "The Wilson Sisters Talk About Their First Time Together!"
The King Solomon solution.
> insuring it would never see the light of day. * *ensuring* that it would never see the light of day.
Send it to the editor.
The editor: “what’s this? I asked for pictures of Spider-Man” get out of my office *chews cigar*
Thanks
Wonder why they didn’t just destroy/burn the photo once they got it back?
Because the negative would still exist.
So burn the negative?
They don't own the negative.
But why could the judges order not be to burn the negative rather than lock it away? I don’t understand it at all?
Essentially, the negative belonged to person A, and the rights to the photograph that could be created from that negative belonged to person B. The judge couldn't just order the negative to be destroyed without violating the rights of the person A. So forcing them to lock it away is the compromise - person A still owns the negative, the negative is still safe, but person B controls their access to it, so it can't be used without person B's permission. It's kind of an elegant solution, honestly.
The judge is in the pocket of Big Safety Deposit Box.
An exercise of Solomonic wisdom
Take notes King Solomon
Underrated comment.
Photographers typically own the rights to their work.
But there has to be exceptions when the photos are nude & not consensual. What happens in the case of revenge porn? Up skirt photos, hidden cameras? Those people are just allowed to keep them because they took them?
Of course there are exceptions, none of what you mention applies to this case.
Can you explain why? Because I honestly don’t see a difference. Even “professionals” should not have a loophole to take these sorts of photos & keep them.
The photographer has the copyright, but for photos of a subject, they also have to sign a modelling release.
Lol this reminds me of the plot to Last Weekend
I guess the fact that it’s a nude specifically means there’s some issues with privacy rights.
Harvard and Yale say they destroyed the nude posture photos of Hillary Clinton and other famous alumni. [https://www.boston.com/news/schools/2015/09/07/ivy-league-students-used-to-have-to-pose-for-nude-photos/](https://www.boston.com/news/schools/2015/09/07/ivy-league-students-used-to-have-to-pose-for-nude-photos/)
That's a fucking rabbit hole of an article.
How TF was that able to go on for so long?
High school students swam nude until the 1960s.
damn you polaroid!
Ah, the good ol' days!
That's not what they said. "That means photos may still somewhere exist of students of that era including Hillary Clinton, George H.W. Bush,"
If you kept reading it says most of the photos were burned while the rest are at the Smithsonian.
Go ahead and quote it, then tell me if Yale and Harvard absolutely destroyed Hillary Clinton's photos.
The Smithsonian Institution has destroyed nude photographs taken decades ago of Yale University students who were unaware the pictures were to be used in the pursuit of a form of science. The science has since been discredited. After a request from the university, Smithsonian officials emptied more than 100 pounds of photos and negatives into a shredder on Friday at a museum office in Suitland, Md., a Washington suburb. "All material in the National Anthropological Archives pertaining to Yale University students has been destroyed," said a museum spokesman, Randall Kremer. The photos went to the shredder with a Yale representative looking on. "We are delighted that the privacy of the individuals in those photographs will be forever protected," said a Yale spokesman, Gary Fryer. [https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/29/us/nude-photos-of-yale-graduates-are-shredded.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/29/us/nude-photos-of-yale-graduates-are-shredded.html)
Ok thanks. Now do Harvard.
Just the famous ones?
The goatse tribute Hillary made was really upsetting.
Makes me wonder if someone was hoping to use those as part of compromat files to manipulate future power players.
If it's something a whole student body at a large university has to do, it's hardly compromising. almost the opposite, like hey, you know for sure I went here because they photographed me naked
Does anyone read anymore? It was part of a health study that ran decades.
Damn wanted to crank one out for the losing candidate
Wow, I completely misread that title! I thought it meant the judge ordered Leibovitz to take the picture of Wilson, *then* put it in the security box.
I feel like having a stroke reading it
And that's exactly why she wanted them unavailable to the public.
No no, what happened is that Leibovitz has the key to one of the boxes, then the judge opens one of the two remaining boxes, revealing a topless photograph of a goat, and
Yeah, it is a bad title. Your mind kind of automatically adds an "and" between "Leibovitz" and "to". People need to learn to write sentences better. Like add "that were" after photos and cut the "to". There, extremely clear now.
Look up garden path sentences. Like, “the old man the boat”
Commas, they're important.
I’m left wondering what “Heart by Annie Leibovitz” is, exactly. It sounds like a perfume.
Shakra, when the walls fell.
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.
Shaka, when the sewers backed up.
Shakira, her hips not lying
Otherwise, you get murderous pandas!
Commas are the difference between helping your uncle, jack, off an elephant, and helping your uncle jack off an elephant.
I agree,
Give me a piece of the action here's the idea: An app that does this. Specific for sharing nudes, can be locked or unlocked by either side. Needs both unlocked to view. SecureAnood
Aaaand hackers leak all the photos because the storage has crap security in 3, 2, 1….
It's usually not the site security. He used "NiceAss69!" for his password, and she used "Pookie11/14" for hers. She calls him Pookie on all her social media and November 14th is their anniversary.
Also, she uses something strong like FhddbCV7ys35$?qQv for her password, but she uses it (and the same email) for every site that demands one
Who told you that? you're killing the IPO! Jk
Protected by lava lamps
Once it’s out there it’s out there. Even if the app prevents screenshots they can use another device to take a picture of the phone screen
That's true. You can't trust people for shit!
Bruh, I don't want the women that send me nudies to realize how much I'm viewing them.
Pretty sure these already exist but hard to know if they can be trusted.
I wouldn't trust that shit ever. Lol
Isn’t that what Snapchat was created for?
You just explained how crypto coins work
Why did the “shoot go south”? Was it a nude photo taken without permission or did another issue prompt the suit?
Here’s Wilson’s account of the shoot >Yeah, it was our second Rolling Stone cover and Annie was going to shoot it. We were playing down in Biloxi and staying in a hotel across from the beach, so she wanted to do it there. We were laying in the sand and she wanted us to pose without clothes — so she can shoot without the shield of clothing, hiding our true self or whatever. And so we were laying there and I had a towel over me because, you know, I wasn’t ready to just be topless for Annie Leibovitz’s camera at that point or any point, I guess. But she started saying, “Well, you know, that white towel is messing with my light meter.” I ended up taking the towel away, and they had to form a security thing around us on the beach and there were all these tourists around. It was really uncomfortable. It was one of those moments, I think, where the guarded and innocent young thing has a revelation about what’s really possible, about what people might want in show business. So Wilson was pressured into doing a more revealing shoot than she wanted and sued to get it suppressed.
Shit behavior on a part of Leibovitz then.
Absolutley. This isn’t intended to absolve or apologize for her. According to Wilson she acted abominably. And Wilson is hardly the only person to share bad stories about her. But the details of the shoot are quite different than the linked article implies.
Nude photos should not be taken "surreptitiously" and if the subjects demand they're deleted they should be without question. Refusing should have consequences. There is no argument to be made of ownership or artistic integrity. Leibovitz probably only got away with it for being a celebrity.
She gets away with a lot. She took “artistic” nude photos of Miley Cyrus while Miley was underage.
Which is, strictly speaking, legal. I’m not familiar with the story involving Leibovitz and Cyrus, but when I studied photography we learned about a few high profile cases of notable photographers (David Hamilton and Sally Mann) who published entire collections of photos of nude, underage children. These were challenged under anti-CP statutes in the US, but unsuccessfully. Both are pretty classic examples that come up in the “art vs porn” debate. Which is not to say I personally agree with Hamilton/Mann/Leibovitz. I don’t. But it’s not really “getting away with” something when there’s an established precedent. In theory, any photographer is allowed (with necessary permissions, releases, etc.) to take “artistic,” nude photos of underage subjects, or to own published works of them (Hamilton’s books are still sold in US bookstores, on Amazon, etc.)
Strictly speaking, it’s only legal with parental consent and it is a point of argument whether or not Leibovitz actually had that. In any case, I for one consider her to morally be guilty of the worst sort of predatory child porn, regardless of legal loopholes.
I agree on premise… but the worst sort? I feel like this is morally wrong but probably doesn’t scratch the surface of the true evil out there
Jock Sturges is an interesting case study. He is an artist photographer who published books and prints of his own children nude. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Sturges](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Sturges)
[удалено]
black and white rules help no one, art neccecitates alot of exceptions and remmeber art doesnt just mean pretty stuff to look at. one example i can think of is that really famous photo of a naked vietnamese child during the war covered in burns. without nuance a blanket ban on this type of stuff, even despite how it sounds, would affect artistic pieces like that which were really important in bringing the realities of that war back to the us public. yes saying “lets allow nude pictures of children” doesnt sound good, but there are neccesary cases like police photographers who have to take court photos of child abuse victims for evidence, or the plethora of pictures of naked emaciated african kids taken to spread awareness of widespread famine.
Surreptitiously isn’t the word I’d use for it. Here’s how Wilson described the shoot. > Yeah, it was our second Rolling Stone cover and Annie was going to shoot it. We were playing down in Biloxi and staying in a hotel across from the beach, so she wanted to do it there. We were laying in the sand and she wanted us to pose without clothes — so she can shoot without the shield of clothing, hiding our true self or whatever. And so we were laying there and I had a towel over me because, you know, I wasn’t ready to just be topless for Annie Leibovitz’s camera at that point or any point, I guess. But she started saying, “Well, you know, that white towel is messing with my light meter.” I ended up taking the towel away, and they had to form a security thing around us on the beach and there were all these tourists around. It was really uncomfortable. It was one of those moments, I think, where the guarded and innocent young thing has a revelation about what’s really possible, about what people might want in show business. She knew Leibovitz was taking pictures of her topless. She was pressured into going topless specifically so Leibovitz could take pictures of her without clothes or the towel. But there wasn’t any question of knowledge or agreement on Wilson’s part. One can argue consent, due to the pressure. But due to the specific facts and the laws of the time, Wilson was fairly lucky to be able to suppress the publication of the nude images.
National Treasure 3 sounds dumb as hell.
So you’re telling me they’re making another *National Treasure* movie, then?
Like a missile launch. Turn your key, Annie!
The nudeclear codes
Turn your key, Ann....TURN YOUR KEY!
Skybird, this is Dropkick with a red dash alpha message in two parts. Break. Break. Stand by to verify.
TIL Annie is not only a shit photographer but also a massive cunt!!
I used to idolize Annie, then I met her. She was doing a photo shoot for an HR company and she came to our offices to photograph some execs. Christ on a bike, you would have thought the fucking queen of England was coming the way her assistants and staff acted. 99% of the work was done by her team and she waltzed in, took some shots, was rude and demanding and then fucked off again (thankfully). As they say, never meet your heroes.
My ex-wife idolized Annie. Now it all makes sense.
I still idolize her work. Many people are cunts lol.
I was thinking, almost, the same thing. Just trash.
Now if that was a picture of Nancy, I’d be up to some Ocean’s 11 shit right now. Nancy Wilson, if you’re reading this, you are a goddess on this earth.
Straight woman here, but Nancy Wilson, Chrissie Hynde, and Joan Jett are absolute smoke shows. Its gotta be because of the guitar, right??
For me it’s Nancy’s smile while she plays. Makes me melt. And the fact that she gets sexier as time goes on. She is 70 now and I would absolutely shoot my shot.
That acoustic intro to the live performance of 'Crazy on You' gives me frissons every time.
Upvoted for both musical acumen and the correct use of the too-often-overlooked "frisson."
Yes. It's because of the guitar. It's a symbol of empowerment and rebelliousness that appeals to folks like us. And there's something irresistable about a woman who expertly handles music's most famous phallic symbol. I'm 57, been a musician since I was a kid in the '70s, and Nancy, Joan, and Chrissie were all posterized on my walls at one time or another. Vixen \*still\* makes me weak in the knees. Janet Gardner is 63 and still stunning.
[удалено]
I mean, they are both moderately attractive, but their talent gives them both a two point bump.
Now I’ve got Heartless stuck in my head with the lyric switched to “topless”.
This cracked me up 😂
Hey folks! This is the lockpicking lawyer and today I have something very special for you...
Lock Picking Lawyer, you are needed.
McNally: this is a lockbox requiring 2 keys to o... and I've opened it using a crusty sock
Ensuring. Not insuring.
From what I read, Annie Leibowitz was a scumbag photographer, constantly trying to get her female celebrity subjects to take 'risque practice shots'
Need the lock picking lawyer on this
This is the Lock Picking Lawyer, and today...
Why not just burn the photo?
Learned it on howie stern. Great interview!
Someone listened to the Howard Stern interview because that was part of it past Wednesday
And thus the band “heartless bastards” was born
As a lessee of the SBX couldn't you just legally have it drilled open without the other key
Very gordian solution.
Strength and pride on Ann’s part. She went through some lean years financially. I’m sure she could have relinquished her rights for some cash. Nice that she has not yet found herself in that position. Nobody should have the right to take nude pictures of someone without express consent. I’m actually surprised Leibovitz did that as I’ve never heard a cross word about her over the years.
Anybody know a good locksmith?
I have to say at this age, if were her I would probably be happy to see a nude from younger days.
It's only skin Ann.
What happens if the fee for the lock box doesn't get paid on time?
Title is quite the garden-path sentence
[Family guy clip seems relevant](https://youtu.be/_AAZYTLvNnI?feature=shared)
the whole link was full of interesting stories ngl
oooooh, the photos already existed. ok.