PDA

View Full Version : Rant on Playboy



Pages : [1] 2

Richard_Head
02-18-2006, 02:15 PM
They put Jessica Alba on their most recent cover with the headline "Sex Star of the Year" and then include only 2 pictures of her, neither of which is of her nude. Bastards>:(!

yoda57us
02-18-2006, 05:08 PM
They are getting desperate over there.

doc-catfish
02-18-2006, 06:35 PM
I've not been too impressed with the way Playboy has been going over the last few years. The pictorials are becoming too artsy fartsy, even in the Newstand Specials which have gone from $7 to $9 a copy. PB is basically becoming Esquire or GQ with nude pictures.

I don't even recognize half the celebrities anymore probably because the celebrities I'd like to see nude can get the same publicity doing a non-nude shoot for Maxim or FHM. I've stopped buying the DVD's too.

Who knows, maybe half their readership is female now. :shrug:

Casual Observer
02-18-2006, 07:48 PM
Ever since their editor came over from Maxim four years ago, that magazine has gone to shit. It used to be all about class, sophistication, and everything that was cool--now it's all sophomoric frat-house bullshit and toilet humor.

I got rid of my collection not long ago. It's a shame what happened.

Sh0t
02-18-2006, 08:03 PM
playboy was never good

mr_punk
02-19-2006, 10:08 AM
PB has been pulling this kind of promotional stunt for years. Hef's subscribers should take flush his viagra prescription down the toilet and give his three blonde biatches swirlies.

SeppeSai
02-19-2006, 06:00 PM
I bought my copy last night just for the tee-hee value of seeing Jess on the cover. The inside shot of her is priceless and makes up for the price of the mag by itself.

As for the mag proper, I haven't read PB in a long time. I used to read it every month, but not now.

SportsWriter2
02-19-2006, 07:26 PM
I moved on to free 20-second Internet video clips years ago.

killingjoke
03-03-2006, 05:24 PM
hail to the internet.

mr_punk
03-03-2006, 07:49 PM
it looks like alba is trying to shake down PB over the magazine cover. good for her.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0228062alba1.html

evan_essence
03-08-2006, 08:02 AM
it looks like alba is trying to shake down PB over the magazine cover. good for her.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0228062alba1.html
Good for her? Oh, get the f**k over it, Miss Priss. You're the one who chose to pose for that publicity shot. And you're the one who chose to play the role of a stripper on screen. What the hell, that doesn't lay the groundwork for the kind of sexiest celebrity status that Playboy awarded you?

And what is wrong with you, Mr. P? Next you'll be rooting for me to sue for sexual harassment in the workplace. I think you have a fever, you better lie down.

-Ev

doc-catfish
03-08-2006, 08:40 AM
Good for her? Oh, get the f**k over it, Miss Priss. You're the one who chose to pose for that publicity shot. And you're the one who chose to play the role of a stripper on screen. What the hell, that doesn't lay the groundwork for the kind of sexiest celebrity status that Playboy awarded you?
JA is like a lot of the gal upstairs. She doesn't want to be known as the actress equialent of an "extras girl" despite the fact that she to some degree is putting her T&A on display for all of us to see, much like the women who DO pose nude in Playboy. Kirk Cameron of Growing Pains fame would probably still call her a whore.

I'll have to see yet whether form fitting outfits, showing cleavage, and playing roles as sex workers constitute extras in Hollywood. I'm sure Sporty can help me out on that.

Jenny
03-08-2006, 11:26 AM
Well, Alba specifically refuses to do nudity (and unless you are about to say that you pay as much for a stripper who keeps her bra on, I think we all know that there is a difference in showing yourself in a bikini and showing yourself out of a bikini). So it stands to reason that she doesn't want people to THINK that she is doing nudity, or be associated with it. And she specifically refused to release her photos for this purpose. And they did get the photos by subterfuge. Andyou guys do have this whole "right of publicity" thing that is meant to allow celebrities to control the use of their image. So playing a sex worker (a la Sin City) might not be an extra, but posing for Playboy might. So they didn't just put her name in a list; they hijacked her photos specifically because they know that their buyers want to see her naked and will THINK that she is, in fact, naked in there. It really is pretty egregious and it is certainly in bad faith; even in terms of PR it doesn't seem like a good decision. Like, next time they call Angelina Jolie she could be like "Well, you guys now have a history of using our images and personas in ways in which you are not authorized; I am therefore hesitant to give you ANY authorization for fear of what it may be construed."

doc-catfish
03-08-2006, 12:01 PM
Well, Alba specifically refuses to do nudity (and unless you are about to say that you pay as much for a stripper who keeps her bra on, I think we all know that there is a difference in showing yourself in a bikini and showing yourself out of a bikini).
Aside from the fact that one would be showing everything in the second instance? No not really. Our hypocritical puritanized culture just makes us think its that way. If what guys really wanted out of a stripper was to see her goodies exposed, why should dancers invest money into outfits at all. Why not just walk out on stage naked?


So it stands to reason that she doesn't want people to THINK that she is doing nudity, or be associated with it.
But she is associating herself with nudity, just not full or topless nudity. Last I checked, JA has done two Maxim covers, and a number of other sexy layouts. I understand her disgust with the way Playboy used back alley means of obtaining this particular photo, but should she really be surprised?

SportsWriter2
03-08-2006, 03:22 PM
I'm sure Sporty can help me out on that.
As Dark Angel she was hot, but has more attractive fake blondes. :-\

Jenny
03-08-2006, 05:19 PM
Aside from the fact that one would be showing everything in the second instance? No not really. Our hypocritical puritanized culture just makes us think its that way. If what guys really wanted out of a stripper was to see her goodies exposed, why should dancers invest money into outfits at all. Why not just walk out on stage naked?
Um, because we are trying to get you guys to pay us to remove the clothing in question? Are you trying to say that you cannot portray yourself as "sexy" while being clothed? So seriously - you would pay for a table/private/lap dance in which the girl kept her costume on? You really don't see the difference in wearing clothes and not wearing clothes? Right now I'm wearing jeans and sweater; but a band of skin around my waist is showing, so is my neck, my hands and a little part of my ankles. And, of course, my face. What percentage naked is that? Or would one not intuitively label that as "clothed" despite the fact that a certain amount of bare skin is showing and I may look attractive? (I said "may" - I'm not bragging). We associate nudity with exposing particular body parts - and this is not arcane or esoteric or specialized. I mean, we all know that showing breasts, penises and vaginas on a movie screen changes the rating, right? Whereas showing feet, bellies and forearms, and more explicitly "sexy" parts like cleavage, does not? In most places (not here) women are not allowed to expose their breasts in public (In Ontario they are, as long as it isn't done in a lascivious manner, or in a manner intended to incite lust); in fewer are they allowed to expose their vaginas. Men are not allowed to expose their penises. Now would a man be picked up for walking around the street in his underwear? Yes, because that is an unusual way to walk around and someone is going to assume that he is deranged. But we still know the difference between a man walking around in his underpants and a man walking around naked.


But she is associating herself with nudity, just not full or topless nudity.
But generally - according to her industry standards, playboy's industry standards, and indeed MY industry standards and all standards of decency in the country (except in Ontario - unless you are doing it in a manner to incite lust) - that is not considered "naked". That is clothed.


Last I checked, JA has done two Maxim covers, and a number of other sexy layouts.
Again - there is a difference between being sexy and being naked. I mean they frequently intersect, but the fact that she has portrayed herself, and allowed herself to be portrayed as sexy doesn't equate to portraying herself as nude.


I understand her disgust with the way Playboy used back alley means of obtaining this particular photo, but should she really be surprised?
Um, yes? I've had porn offers (none from playboy - more in the variety of "watch as six guys cum on this girl's face" variety. You know; skeezy and completely non-tempting) which I have refused. I would have been very surprised indeed if they obtained photos through dishonest means and used them anyway. And, unlike Alba, I DO do full nudity. Point being, it is illegal, her image is her property and she has the right to control it. (I don't know a whole lot about this, because we don't have it here)

doc-catfish
03-08-2006, 05:59 PM
So seriously - you would pay for a table/private/lap dance in which the girl kept her costume on?
What do you mean would I? I have bought such dances. As of last December, they do them at my club. I know this may come as a shock to those of you in the Great White North land of full nudity, full contact dacnes but yes there are actually jurisdictions here in the States where dancers must remain fully covered during lap dances.

What's the selling point you ask? Well, its the contact (duh), the likelihood of a full bar, and sometimes the cheaper price. Functionally speaking though, these dances aren't any different than their topless or nude counterparts.


You really don't see the difference in wearing clothes and not wearing clothes?
Depends of what kind of clothes were talking about. I don't think a woman in a Goretex parka is aiming for quite the same effect as one posing in lingirie or a bikini is.

Jenny
03-08-2006, 06:26 PM
So you don't see the difference in sitting on the beach in a bikini and sitting on the beach naked? Incidentally - I would never sit on the beach in a bikini; I'm very shy and I sunburn easily. All other things being equal, the naked girl would not grab your attention more? Or rather you would not notice that there is a girl wearing clothes and a girl wearing not clothes? Are we seriously arguing that posing in a swimsuit is qualitatively the same as posing naked?

As I said - I recognize that someone posing in a bikini may be (or almost certainly) is trying to appear sexy. I just don't think she is trying to appear naked.

As for clothed lap dances - weird man. Just -- weird. I would love to do that. I just think my breasts are really weird, and I would likely do a lot better if I could just keep my nipples covered up. But seriously, yes they are functionally the same insofar as the girl can grind on you just as much (or probably better, depending on the kind of pants you are wearing. Or, oh, I forgot. You might not be wearing pants since YOU DON'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN BEING CLOTHED AND BEING UNCLOTHED. So presuming that you have decided, for some reason, to put on pants). But you do have to admit, that she is not naked. In fact, if I may: "dancers must remain fully covered during lap dances"

Docido
03-08-2006, 08:17 PM
Right now I'm wearing jeans and sweater; but a band of skin around my waist is showing, so is my neck, my hands and a little part of my ankles. And, of course, my face. What percentage naked is that?

So is it possible to be naked and not naked at the same time like Schrodinger's Cat?
Maybe we can come up with some quantum experiments and call it Schrodinger's Stripper?

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html :D

evan_essence
03-12-2006, 06:03 AM
So it stands to reason that she doesn't want people to THINK that she is doing nudity, or be associated with it.That's what she SAYS. That's not what she DOES. She chose to play the role of a stripper in an R-rated movie. She didn't think that some members of the audience would think they were going to see her breasts because that's generally what the role would call for? Puh-lease.


And she specifically refused to release her photos for this purpose. And they did get the photos by subterfuge.You're assuming her side of the story is the only side. I doubt that's the case. It's quite possible that Playboy simply said we want some publicity shots from the movie and the film company sent them over without question. Neither of us knows for sure at this point.


Andyou guys do have this whole "right of publicity" thing that is meant to allow celebrities to control the use of their image.It's debateable whether or not right of publicity applies to this case. IMHO, it's a gray area. The subject of a photograph doesn't have the right of publicity to stop a journalistic/news use of a photo; only a photo that's being used on a commercial product which derives its value primarily from the use of the celebrity's image. Therefore, a news photo of me on the front of a newspaper, I have no right of publicity over. A photo of me on a coffee mug for sale, I do. A photo of me on the cover of an entertainment magazine covering the 25 sexiest celebrities?? That's what lawyers get paid to argue over.


So playing a sex worker (a la Sin City) might not be an extra, but posing for Playboy might.There are two issues here, whether Playboy had permission to use the photos that way (if, in fact, they even needed permission, see above) and whether the way they used the photos damaged her reputation. The former we don't know because both sides tell a different tale.

With regard to the latter, I contend that, after playing a sex worker whose breasts are not seen bare in an R-rated movie, any publicity shots Playboy publishes in which her breasts are not seen bare do not damage her reputation anymore than the movie could have. The basic fact is she wasn't nude. Not all photos in Playboy are nudes. Not all celebrities pictured in Playboy are nude. Playboy didn't represent that she was going to be nude any more or less than "Sin City" represented she would be nude. One could have assumed by context that she would be nude in both cases, but one would have been wrong in both cases, one of which she specifically chose to do and is not suing over. She's being hyprocritical.


So they didn't just put her name in a list; they hijacked her photos specifically because they know that their buyers want to see her naked and will THINK that she is, in fact, naked in there. It really is pretty egregious and it is certainly in bad faith; even in terms of PR it doesn't seem like a good decision. Like, next time they call Angelina Jolie she could be like "Well, you guys now have a history of using our images and personas in ways in which you are not authorized; I am therefore hesitant to give you ANY authorization for fear of what it may be construed."Again, authorization might not be needed. From a business perspective, if certain celebrities aren't going to do special photo shoots for them anyway, they may not have anything to lose by defaulting to publicity shots. And if Maxim can sell magazines with sexy photos of celebrities on the cover, it seems like a logical business move for Playboy to try the same strategy.

-Ev

mr_punk
03-12-2006, 06:53 AM
And what is wrong with you, Mr. P? Next you'll be rooting for me to sue for sexual harassment in the workplace. I think you have a fever, you better lie down.no, i'm fine...i think. like i said, PB has been pulling that stunt for years on their readers for years. it's about time they paid a price for it. i hope she shakes them down for a nice fat settlement check.

Jenny
03-12-2006, 03:16 PM
That's what she SAYS. That's not what she DOES. She chose to play the role of a stripper in an R-rated movie. She didn't think that some members of the audience would think they were going to see her breasts because that's generally what the role would call for? Puh-lease.
So do you think Jodie Foster ought to expect to have her photos hijacked and used in pornographic material because she was in Taxi Driver? Especially in a magazine that implied that she is in it, behaving as a prostitute, not in the context of her role, but as herself? We tend to think that actors should be able to choose their roles based on the merit of the part - and some people, for some reason, actually thought Sin City was good. And they didn't promote the movie by implying that you would see her naked - they implied you would see her looking sexy, not nude. And I must stress again that she explicitly refused to appear on Playboy. There was no dithering, and it's not like she is appearing on the covers of other porn mags. She doesn't want to be associated with porn, does that make it less contentious? And again - Brooke Shield doing "Pretty Baby" and Heather Graham doing "Boogie Nights" is different, qualitatively, than either of the above doing actual porn.


You're assuming her side of the story is the only side. I doubt that's the case. It's quite possible that Playboy simply said we want some publicity shots from the movie and the film company sent them over without question. Neither of us knows for sure at this point.
I'm assuming that her legal representation is not submitting falsehoods to the court when the truth of the matter is SO easily verifiable. That would be a stupid lie, and while people have told stupid lies in the past, I cannot help but think that anyone would hesitate before submitting a document that said "the production company did x" when the production company is going to say "Uh, no, we, in fact, did y".


It's debateable whether or not right of publicity applies to this case. IMHO, it's a gray area. The subject of a photograph doesn't have the right of publicity to stop a journalistic/news use of a photo; only a photo that's being used on a commercial product which derives its value primarily from the use of the celebrity's image.
I agree; the entire "right to publicity" is problematic. However I think Playboy is going to have a bitch of time showing that a list of sexy celebrities is news; and I think the fact that they approached her, told her that their readers wanted to see her naked, asked for her photos, were refused and then got them through false means really bolsters the other side. But yes - it is contentious. That's why it's going to court in the first place.


There are two issues here, whether Playboy had permission to use the photos that way (if, in fact, they even needed permission, see above) and whether the way they used the photos damaged her reputation. The former we don't know because both sides tell a different tale.
Well, whether they had permission is easily verifiable - it's simply a matter of calling Columbia/MGM and asking under what circumstances they gave up the photo - were they told that Alba had approved it, or not? And seeing as she held copyright, and license for each use, and had explicitly refused it - well, there you go.


With regard to the latter, I contend that, after playing a sex worker whose breasts are not seen bare in an R-rated movie, any publicity shots Playboy publishes in which her breasts are not seen bare do not damage her reputation anymore than the movie could have.
Again - I cannot help but think that there is a qualitative difference in performing in a movie, and appearing in a porn rag. I mentioned Heather Graham - appeared fully nude while depicting a porn actress. That is qualitatively different than actually being a porn movie. She still might not like someone stealing footage of her having sex and publishing it as a porn movie, and arguing that people have already seen he like naked and acting like a porn start would be specious. There are a lot of reasons that actors choose roles, and branding them because their artistic endeavours would be a questionable legal proceeding.


The basic fact is she wasn't nude. Not all photos in Playboy are nudes. Not all celebrities pictured in Playboy are nude. Playboy didn't represent that she was going to be nude any more or less than "Sin City" represented she would be nude.
I disagree. Sin City was a movie, in which it was understood she was representing a character. Playboy is a porn magazine, with no such characterization.


One could have assumed by context that she would be nude in both cases, but one would have been wrong in both cases, one of which she specifically chose to do and is not suing over. She's being hyprocritical.
You think it is hypocritical to choose to be a movie and then not choose to be a porn star? Because I think that is a perfectly rationale decision, and likely the one I would make if I had any talent.


Again, authorization might not be needed. From a business perspective, if certain celebrities aren't going to do special photo shoots for them anyway, they may not have anything to lose by defaulting to publicity shots.
No, but if the shots are under copyright and not used in a news setting you still need permission to use them.


And if Maxim can sell magazines with sexy photos of celebrities on the cover, it seems like a logical business move for Playboy to try the same strategy.
It is very logical. Nobody is questioning their business strategy - readers want to see Alba naked, they put a photo of Alba on the cover implying she might be naked inside. That is not under contention. What is under contention is whether they were entitled to put the photo of Alba on the cover.

By the way Ev - I have missed you so.

Docido
03-12-2006, 06:20 PM
Let's approach this from another angle, the "immeasurable harm" argument. I can’t see how this is even remotely damaging Jessica Alba's reputation. If anything its increasing interest in her upcoming film and as other posters has pointed out, she has done sexually provocative roles before. Also, there isn't any suggestion on the cover that Jessica Alba is nude inside the magazine. As for being awarded monetary damages; remember, this is someone who is a well know public figure. Courts traditionally have used a higher standard before awarding any "immeasurable harm" damages to celebrities. So as I see it the case only has merit as a straight forward work-for-hire copyright case. Did Playboy obtain permission to use the picture on the cover under false pretenses? That is what will be settled in court and if any damages are awarded it will be because of copyright violations. The immeasurable harm argument sounds like bunk.

Jenny
03-12-2006, 06:52 PM
Let's approach this from another angle, the "immeasurable harm" argument. I can’t see how this is even remotely damaging Jessica Alba's reputation.
I can. Suppose that she wants to move into family films - a playboy association would hurt her more than a provocative role - particulary if that provacative role was in a capital-g-Good Movie (I didn't care for it, personally, but hey). Suppose she wants to (again with the quotes) be "taken seriously as an actress" - the Playboy association is not helpful. Suppose she simply wants to be known as an actress who keeps her clothes on - which she OBVIOUSLY does. The Playboy association - not helpful. The fact is that she obviously feels it is damaging, and nobody could possibly claim that wanting to avoid pornography (which keep in mind, Playboy is. We get used to thinking of Playboy maintstream. It's still porn) is an irrational career move on her part.


If anything its increasing interest in her upcoming film and as other posters has pointed out, she has done sexually provocative roles before.
But the difference is that one was a role, and this is not. They are both gigs, but that doesn't mean they are qualitatively the same. And you might consider that the interest it is increasing is PRECISELY the kind of interest she was trying to avoid.


Also, there isn't any suggestion on the cover that Jessica Alba is nude inside the magazine.
Again you are assuming some sort of social vacuum. She is on the cover of Playboy. That does have meaning, in and of itself, and we all know it - including Alba, Playboy, all thier legal counsel and the judge at the hearing.


Courts traditionally have used a higher standard before awarding any "immeasurable harm" damages to celebrities. So as I see it the case only has merit as a straight forward work-for-hire copyright case. Did Playboy obtain permission to use the picture on the cover under false pretenses? That is what will be settled in court and if any damages are awarded it will be because of copyright violations. The immeasurable harm argument sounds like bunk.
Again, that's because you are used to thinking of Playboy as mainstream media. You might not agree if the defendants were using her picture on that photo of "Donkey Punch" thing that is above. Then you would clearly see harm. Even just a normal raunchy magazine, you would see harm. You are just desensitized. (Aha - see! Porn does desensitize you! I consider my point made). But Playboy IS still pornography and Maxim is not and Sin City are not - let alone are her roles in Maxim and Sin City pornographic.

Docido
03-12-2006, 08:54 PM
This is assuming that she didn't want to ever appear in Playboy, but if I'm reading the Smoking Gun document correctly, there was no problem with a publicity photo appearing in a list of the 25 sexiest women. Her argument is with an unauthorized picture on the front cover i.e. the copyright and usage issue.

As to the argument that it would damage her future earnings that is a hypothetical. Yeah I know we are all arguing hypothetical here, but again she was willing to let Playboy publish authorized publicity shots, no doubt hoping to increase her earnings in an upcoming film. Jessica’s publicist knows her fan base and PR people don’t operate in a “vacuum” either. They want to use a “porn magazine” as publicity knowing full well its notoriety will get attention. I could buy that “not that kind of interest” argument better if she flat-out refused any appearance in Playboy.

I also don't buy the argument about it preventing her from doing family films or more serious films. It might be a far fetched example, but Eddie Murphy was caught soliciting sex from transvestites. After that incident he made several films for Disney. I highly doubt Ms. Alba will lose any work.

You and I are in agreement that she does have a good copyright case. Playboy, according to her side, got the picture by shady means, altered the photo, and slapped it on the cover without permission. Playboy will argue that they didn’t advertise Ms. Alba as being nude and then try dragging out the fair use doctrine as a way to cover their ass. But, I still think you are on shaky ground with the “immeasurable harm” argument.

As to the mainstreaming of Playboy and whether I'm de-sensitized to porn, put up a few pics in the gallery and we'll have that discussion. ;)

Jenny
03-13-2006, 11:39 AM
The idea that it would enhance her future earnings is also hypothetical.
And you're right, Murphy is an extreme example. As a general rule Disney doesn't hire porn stars. She may lose work, she may not; however her right to control her own image has been compromised.

Saying that they wanted to use a porn mag to get ahead is questionable. She did not approach them, they approached her and were rebuffed. They were permitted to use a photo in EXTREMELY controlled circumstances (there was size, background, etc). In a way I can see that her position would be strengthened if she had refused altogether, but a) I don't think that her position is necessarily weak and b) she could viably argue that she was attempting to exercise control - that is negate the possibility that what happened, would happen by allowing use of a small, uncompromising photo. Keep in mind - big difference appearing ina thumbnail in a list and appearing on the cover. I would agree that her copyright case is stronger - but I think she has a viable claim to damages. Seriously - you can't possibly think that there is no damage to a person who has actively avoided pornography being featured, against her explicit and express wishes, on the cover of a pornographic magazine? Like I said, I think a lot of the "pooh-poohing" of the position comes from the fact that we (especially with the raunchiness that is part of our daily lives) think that Playboy is, more or less, the same as Maxim. I can see that the differene is getting slimmer and slimmer, but Playboy? Still age restricted. Still pornographic. Maxim? Not.

doc-catfish
03-13-2006, 12:53 PM
Like I said, I think a lot of the "pooh-poohing" of the position comes from the fact that we (especially with the raunchiness that is part of our daily lives) think that Playboy is, more or less, the same as Maxim.
Oh no, no. Playboy still has some articles in it that can be comprehended with someone with a 12th grade education.


I can see that the differene is getting slimmer and slimmer, but Playboy? Still age restricted. Still pornographic. Maxim? Not.
Playboy has nudity in it, but pornographic? Ehh, depends on your tastes I guess.

The same goes for Maxim despite a lack of full nudity. They've banned it and two similar publications at Wal-Mart after all, and I'm not sure that I'd be reading either rag in a place where its presence might offend people.

Jenny
03-13-2006, 01:20 PM
I get what you are saying - and I think that is what I meant when I said I can see the difference getting slimmer. But Playboy they have to sell, by law, to people over whatever the age of ponro majority is. They have to, by law, in many places have it covered (except the banner). Maxim doesn't. Walmart may choose not to sell it - but they don't sell the soy chicken that I like either. That doesn't make my soy chicken pornographic. If they only sold my soy chicken to people over the age of 18 because of their moral susceptibility - well, that would be some questionable soy chicken. By the way - that is not a ban. That is a choice to not stock a product. And I appreciate that many people agree that Playboy isn't getting people off anymore (and - remember what I said about porn sharing elements of behavioural addiction? How people need more, harder, stronger, raunchier? See? It's all an intricate tapestry) however it is still a pornographic magazine. That is not a matter of taste. That is a matter of the mandate of the Playboy corporation, the historical context of playboy, and its legal status. Whether or not you find it hot or explicit enough for your porny purposes IS a matter of taste, and in that I defer entirely to you.

And didn't we have this conversation about the quantum of nudity? Now I'm wearing two tank tops, so my arms and shoulders are bare as well. But you can't see my feet. How nude is that? Because I think most people would intuitively see me as "clothed". I always thought that the issue between "full nudity" and "partial nudity" had to do with the vagina question. Like partial nudity is breasts and full includes the frog. Again this could go back to industry standards, but if she isn't showing any of her girly parts, I'm pretty sure it's not considering nudity in any quantum.

dlabtot
03-13-2006, 01:59 PM
So do you think Jodie Foster ought to expect to have her photos hijacked and used in pornographic material because she was in Taxi Driver? Especially in a magazine that implied that she is in it, behaving as a prostitute, not in the context of her role, but as herself? We tend to think that actors should be able to choose their roles based on the merit of the part - and some people, for some reason, actually thought Sin City was good. And they didn't promote the movie by implying that you would see her naked - they implied you would see her looking sexy, not nude. And I must stress again that she explicitly refused to appear on Playboy. There was no dithering, and it's not like she is appearing on the covers of other porn mags. She doesn't want to be associated with porn, does that make it less contentious? And again - Brooke Shield doing "Pretty Baby" and Heather Graham doing "Boogie Nights" is different, qualitatively, than either of the above doing actual porn.
them because their artistic endeavours would be a questionable legal proceeding.

My guess is that Jodie Foster, Brooke Sheilds and Heather Graham were all in PB's 'Sex Stars of the Year' in the years those movies came out. Maybe one of our junkies with a big pile of back issues could check it out and see....

Jenny
03-13-2006, 02:13 PM
Jodie Foster was 13 years old. Brooke Shields was 10. I hope they most certainly were not. My point is that choosing to do those roles does not mean they are choosing to brand themselves with the word "Porn star" across their foreheads.

dlabtot
03-13-2006, 03:15 PM
Jodie Foster was 13 years old. Brooke Shields was 10. I hope they most certainly were not. My point is that choosing to do those roles does not mean they are choosing to brand themselves with the word "Porn star" across their foreheads.

Actually Shields was 12 (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000222/bio) but it's not because you are once again wrong on the facts that your argument is specious. Movie stars don't get to choose what other people write about them. Besides, looking at Shields' career, the notion that she didn't want to be known as a sex star is ludicrous. ("Want to know what gets between me and my Calvins? Nothing.")

And I'm still betting they were featured in those years.

Jenny
03-13-2006, 03:25 PM
No. But they do get to control what is done with their images outside of a "news" context. It was being argued that choosing certain roles vitiated that right. I argued that it, in fact, didn't. Particularly when they own the copyrights for those images. My argument is not specious, my error on Brooke Shield's degree of pedophilic nightmares notwithstanding. It is, in fact, an argument shared by the Supreme Court (although they decided about Glen Gould, and that it was in a news context. But the reasoning holds). And you seriously think Playboy featured 13 year old girls as sex stars? Or are you joking, and just not very good at it?

PS - I see you changed your reply from 13. So I'm not the only one who has a little problem with facts? Anyway. You thought Brooke was 13, and now you think she's 12. You are obviously stupid, and should discounted in the future. Or I could be reasonable and acknowledge that the difference is insignficant in this context.

Docido
03-13-2006, 03:26 PM
Jenny you do have a point about the grey area between porn and nudity. You've done nude dancing, so do you consider yourself as having done porn? I'm sure your answer would be no. Some BDSM contains no nudity, but it is certainly thought of as porn. Mind you I know next to nothing about BDSM.

dlabtot
03-13-2006, 03:42 PM
You are obviously stupid, and should discounted in the future.


LOL. Someday I aspire to rise to this level of repartee... though, I suppose I'd have to be as 'smart' as you are for that... ;D

Jenny
03-13-2006, 03:50 PM
Indeed. And I wouldn't hold your breath.

dlabtot
03-13-2006, 04:26 PM
The orginality of your banter brings me back to those blissful days on the elementary school playground... please do continue, so that I may recapture my lost youth.....

Jenny
03-13-2006, 05:09 PM
Dude, what is your point even? If you are going to make fun of people, you are meant to be funny. Not tired. Like, what can I even say back to that? Like "No, YOU'RE immature. Nuh uh! Nuh uh!" Seriously, dude, that's what you sound like to me. I am all about being amusing and amused and you "nuh uh" replies aren't doing it for me. If this is the best you can do, we can both just go home now because it is just sad. As I said.

My arguments are cogent, relevant and reflect case law. There may be opposing arguments. If there are and you know them, by all means share. But what you've posted so far, outside of being mildly insulting to me, is worthless (so I guess the ultimate worth depends on how much you think insulting me is worth. I shall flatter myself and say: a lot. But still. Move on. Say something good, funny or at least shocking. Otherwise you are not earning your metaphorical keep.)

Jenny
03-13-2006, 05:16 PM
Jenny you do have a point about the grey area between porn and nudity. You've done nude dancing, so do you consider yourself as having done porn? I'm sure your answer would be no. Some BDSM contains no nudity, but it is certainly thought of as porn. Mind you I know next to nothing about BDSM.
Well, porn, by nature leaves a record. We may use "pornographic" as an adjective, by which you could say that I've done "pornographic" shows, but that is colloquial use and can be expanded beyond "porn proper" as it were. The BDSM angle is interesting - I don't think it has a lot to do with Alba or Playboy, but in terms of the Donkey Punch thing and moving things over the border - something being declared pornographic is not the same thing - to the border officials or the courts - as declaring it "obscene". Obscene materials cannot be imported. Pornographic materials can. So the grey zone in that instance is not between porn and non porn, but porn and obscene porn. I have seen some magazine here with spots covering some of the action and actually blacked out text. I think what happens with that is that producers are self-censoring - in a weird, fucked up Soviet kind of way - so they can bring their material here.

dlabtot
03-13-2006, 05:23 PM
Dude, what is your point even?

I made my point, and your response was to call me stupid.

Not everyone is driven by an obsessive need to repeat themselves ad nauseum or engage in namecalling with those who disagree with them.

LOL

Jenny
03-13-2006, 05:59 PM
^^^
No? I'm sorry, do you seriously imagine that you are subtle? Or are you imagining that I can somehow write and not read? Nevermind. You have apparently made your point - although I'm not sure what it was except that you think Playboy features 13 year old girls and Brooke Shields was 12 not 10 when she did Pretty Baby. Was that your point? Again - nevermind. I'm pretty sure you are wrong about one and I can't see that the other is relevant, and we've established that you are not amusing in the slightest. Generally I am kind of a pit bull and insist on having the last word: in this case I shall invite you to, and then hopefully our paths shall never cross again.

Docido
03-13-2006, 06:05 PM
Now we're moving into really murky waters. So let’s throw a little chum in the pool and see what happens. If I interpret the law correctly (remember I'm talking US law and not Canadian) obscenity is determined by “community standards.” This means that our legal system has “no probability of regularity in obscenity decisions by state and lower federal courts.” In practice this means different jurisdictions have dissimilar standards. So if you get totally nude in one town you’re being a bad, evil stripper and get sent to jail with all the other naughty people. But in the next town or county you can be naked and grind away till your heart’s content or the customer….oh, never mind I won’t go there. The bottom line is we’ve blurred the line as to what is and isn’t obscene that obscenity has become very subjective. So is our imaginary line Playboy (porn, but probably not obscene), Donkey Punch (pornographic and obscene) or somewhere in between.

The quote is from Justice Brennen. Also, I’m not a lawyer so everything should be taking with a huge lump of salt.

Now we’re so far off-topic …..where were we?????
8)

dlabtot
03-13-2006, 06:42 PM
we've established that you are not amusing in the slightest. Generally I am kind of a pit bull and insist on having the last word: in this case I shall invite you to, and then hopefully our paths shall never cross again.

Sorry to disappoint you: our paths will definitely cross again, lol.

And btw, I'm not in the least bit interested in 'amusing' you. However, your comments do amuse me. I've always found bombast, pedantry and logorrhea to be funny.

Jenny
03-13-2006, 08:33 PM
The quote is from Justice Brennen. Also, I’m not a lawyer so everything should be taking with a huge lump of salt.

Now we’re so far off-topic …..where were we?????
8)

Meh. I'm not a lawyer either. I am, however, a first year law student. That means I know EVERYTHING. Just ask all the other first year law students. We all know everything. It's our thing. Those things I don't know, I ask my professors. And if you are imagining that I have the good judgment to not ask my law professors about a contract on smokinggun about how short a woman should keep her pubic hair - boy, you haven't been paying attention. Just kidding. I didn't inquire about the pubic hair. Although I did have a conversation about the "Suckered by stripper, man sues" complaint. And we were doing R. v. Butler and having the big conversation about the validity of porn as expression and I raised my hand to bring up donkey punching. And then I put it down. Because, for crying out loud, my judgment is not THAT bad.

We have community standards in our common law - but they tend to be interpreted super liberally, especially at the appellate level. In terms of the difference - there is a sort of scale of deference given to the trial judge - what that seems to mean is that they are mean to defer in factual issues, but frequently revisit them. So appeals here will review substantive issues; mainly if they think the trial judge did a really bad job. (By the way - is it true that if the judge makes an error in law that the crown cannot appeal criminal decisions? I saw a movie with Ashley Judd - but I was a little.. meh. Like it seems unlikely that a judicial mistake entitles someone to commit a murder). Although for issues of obscenity, which are in the Criminal Code here - not sure how you guys do it - it is federal, so you do have a uniform code. However in terms of "live acts" - particularly in strip clubs, there is a provincial jurisdiction insofar as they get to legislate and monitor the sale and marketing of liquor (and as Doc pointed out, the skeezy Canadians have the full nudity AND the liquor). Technically anything "moral" in nature is meant to be left to the feds, but you frequently get municipalities and provinces trying to get their hands in over prostitution and stripping.

evan_essence
03-14-2006, 08:04 AM
So do you think Jodie Foster ought to expect to have her photos hijacked and used in pornographic material because she was in Taxi Driver? Especially in a magazine that implied that she is in it, behaving as a prostitute, not in the context of her role, but as herself?That's a straw man filled with hyperbole.


We tend to think that actors should be able to choose their roles based on the merit of the part - and some people, for some reason, actually thought Sin City was good. And they didn't promote the movie by implying that you would see her naked - they implied you would see her looking sexy, not nude.Same as Playboy. They didn't promote the magazine by implying you would see her naked - they implied you would see her looky sexy, not nude.


And I must stress again that she explicitly refused to appear on Playboy. There was no dithering, and it's not like she is appearing on the covers of other porn mags. She doesn't want to be associated with porn, does that make it less contentious? And again - Brooke Shield doing "Pretty Baby" and Heather Graham doing "Boogie Nights" is different, qualitatively, than either of the above doing actual porn.Can we drop Brooke Shields and Heather Graham since I don't follow them?

Jessica Alba doesn't want to be associated with porn, but she appears in an R-rated movie. An R-rated movie can most certainly be as pornographic as Playboy. Yet not everyone's depiction in an R-rated movie or Playboy is pornographic. What she did in Sin City wasn't pornographic, and neither is what Playboy did with her picture. If association with Playboy is bad, then so is association with a stripper's role in an R-rated movie. Not for what it actually is, in either case, but for the damage it might do from what people might assume it is. She's gotta come down on one side of the equation or the other, not play it both ways.


I'm assuming that her legal representation is not submitting falsehoods to the court when the truth of the matter is SO easily verifiable.Oh Jenny, I fear you're going to become a pro bono lawyer in one of those neighborhood legal clinics, aren't you? Lawyers submit falsehoods all the time. They're not called that. They're crafted to be plausible but they're still some amount of bullshit. It's not about truth; it's about winning.

Well, whether they had permission is easily verifiable - it's simply a matter of calling Columbia/MGM and asking under what circumstances they gave up the photo - were they told that Alba had approved it, or not? And seeing as she held copyright, and license for each use, and had explicitly refused it - well, there you go.That's assuming they even remember the conversation precisely in the first place. And would be honest about it. <sarcasm>After all, they have no vested interest in bolstering their case or covering their asses with revised recollections, right?</sarcasm>

I haven't read the court materials. Was there a contract signed when the publicity shots were released? If so and it says what you're contending, then you're right. If not, then proving what was verbally agreed upon, or even what was verbally said that was meant to be binding as an agreement, is going to be a bit problematic.


Again - I cannot help but think that there is a qualitative difference in performing in a movie, and appearing in a porn rag. I mentioned Heather Graham - appeared fully nude while depicting a porn actress. That is qualitatively different than actually being a porn movie.THERE WAS NO NUDITY. So drop the comparisons of nudity because they're not relevant. I'm saying an R-rated magazine can't damage her reputation any more by showing her NOT NUDE than she could by choosing to be NOT NUDE in a movie that's rated R.


I disagree. Sin City was a movie, in which it was understood she was representing a character. Playboy is a porn magazine, with no such characterization.If Playboy is pornography by your definition, then so is an R-rated movie with similar depictions of nudity. You're conveniently playing on emotions and prejudices by using the loaded term pornography to apply to one but not the other.


You think it is hypocritical to choose to be a movie and then not choose to be a porn star? Because I think that is a perfectly rationale decision, and likely the one I would make if I had any talent.I don't believe Playboy has ever been legally declared obscene, but even if one considers it pornography, appearing clothed on the cover of Playboy, or presented in a picture inside with one's clothes on, does not make one a porn star.


No, but if the shots are under copyright and not used in a news setting you still need permission to use them.We both agree that the right of publicity in this case is an arguable point, but I suspect you view the advantage in the argument as Jessica's while I view the advantage as Playboy's. I'd contend you're probably interpreting "news setting" as too narrow. A fair use could include entertainment news or even commentary, not merely the "this just in from Iraq" stuff.


Nobody is questioning their business strategyWell, no one except you. I was responding directly to a contention by you that, regardless of the legalities, it wasn't very smart business strategy. D'oh! Your bad.


By the way Ev - I have missed you so.Then stop arguing with me, and bow down to worship me like the Canadian mistress of mine that you know you want to be!

-Ev

Jenny
03-14-2006, 08:35 AM
Same as Playboy. They didn't promote the magazine by implying you would see her naked - they implied you would see her looky sexy, not nude.
Again, I can't agree. Playboy has meaning, and if I said I appeared in Playboy, would you assume that I was wearing clothes, not? A movie poster is qualitatively different that the cover of what is the most notorious, well known porn magazine in the world.


Can we drop Brooke Shields and Heather Graham since I don't follow them?
Surely you've seen Boogie Nights? I don't follow them, in terms of I don't follow them around. But I am just giving you endless examples of women who have appeared in sexually explicit roles who - for one reason or another (in shields case because of her age. Yes, I know EVERYTHING she got up to when she was 16) - still did not want to be associated with porn.


Jessica Alba doesn't want to be associated with porn, but she appears in an R-rated movie. An R-rated movie can most certainly be as pornographic as Playboy. Yet not everyone's depiction in an R-rated movie or Playboy is pornographic. What she did in Sin City wasn't pornographic, and neither is what Playboy did with her picture. If association with Playboy is bad, then so is association with a stripper's role in an R-rated movie. Not for what it actually is, in either case, but for the damage it might do from what people might assume it is. She's gotta come down on one side of the equation or the other, not play it both ways.
Okay, I appreciate your convoluted characterization. And it is a good argument. But a pornographic movie by North American standards is, by definition, rated X. Also, the nature of the movie and the role comes into play. Harvey Keital appearing nude in The Piano is not the same as him appearing nude in Playgirl - by any stretch of rthe imagination. I had the whole conversation with doc and docido about Playboy being "real" porn, so I don't need to repeat it, I'm sure.


Oh Jenny, I fear you're going to become a pro bono lawyer in one of those neighborhood legal clinics, aren't you? Lawyers submit falsehoods all the time. They're not called that. They're crafted to be plausible but they're still some amount of bullshit. It's not about truth; it's about winning.
That's assuming they even remember the conversation precisely in the first place. And would be honest about it. <sarcasm>After all, they have no vested interest in bolstering their case or covering their asses with revised recollections, right?
Maybe. And I somehow can't even take that as an insult. Although my favourite class is contracts. Actually right now I think you are just playing to stereotypes. And yes, of course lawyers are meant to "win" - but they are really, really not meant to lie. Bad things happen to lawyers who knowingly submit falsehoods to the court, at least in Canada. I mean, if we are not relying on the submitted facts you could simply contend that Alba said "Yes, I would love to be a playboy centrefold" and then, pissed off that they put her off for a month concocted this whole thing. Or that Playboy in fact has tried to kill her and that is what started this whole thing. So, yes, I'm relying on the submitted facts because they are not unlikely and those are the facts that we have.


I haven't read the court materials. Was there a contract signed when the publicity shots were released? If so and it says what you're contending, then you're right. If not, then proving what was verbally agreed upon, or even what was verbally said that was meant to be binding as an agreement, is going to be a bit problematic.
It's just the complaint, but seeing as Alba had the right to each use of her photos it is unlikely that Columbia would have released them without some idea that it was okay. Unless they screwed up and are just making the whole thing up - since we just like to assume now that everyone is lying.


THERE WAS NO NUDITY. So drop the comparisons of nudity because they're not relevant. I'm saying an R-rated magazine can't damage her reputation any more by showing her NOT NUDE than she could by choosing to be NOT NUDE in a movie that's rated R.
I realize that Alba wasn't nude. My point was that Heather Graham, appearing fully nude in a movie in which is depicted a porn star is STILL different that actually being in a porn movie - that although it is possible, using no social context to collapse these into the same kind of act, when you add a modicum of context there is a marked difference. It's an analogy. I think that, similarly, Alba appearing clothed, in a movie in which she depicted a stripper is different than appearing clothed in a porn mag. The fact is that r-rated movies are still separate from porn. That's why we have R then X.


If Playboy is pornography by your definition, then so is an R-rated movie with similar depictions of nudity. You're conveniently playing on emotions and prejudices by using the loaded term pornography to apply to one but not the other.
Not true. As I said - legal status, history, community perception etc. The Piano was R rated. With full frontal nudity. But I think anyone would hesitate before calling it pornographic.


I don't believe Playboy has ever been legally declared obscene, but even if one considers it pornography, appearing clothed on the cover of Playboy, or presented in a picture inside with one's clothes on, does not make one a porn star.
Well, legally, obscene materials are illegal. When something is declared obscene it is TOO pornographic, you know? So the fact that something is not obscene doesn't mean it is not pornographic.


We both agree that the right of publicity in this case is an arguable point, but I suspect you view the advantage in the argument as Jessica's while I view the advantage as Playboy's. I'd contend you're probably interpreting "news setting" as too narrow. A fair use could include entertainment news or even commentary, not merely the "this just in from Iraq" stuff.
I agree - news setting is terribly ambiguous. However "This just in - Jessica Alba is sexy" is stretching credulity a bit, don't you think?


Well, no one except you. I was responding directly to a contention by you that, regardless of the legalities, it wasn't very smart business strategy. D'oh! Your bad.
Context, Ev. I wasn't arguing that people wouldn't want to buy the magazine. I was arguing that other celebrities might be reluctant to license their photos. But I fully agree that people will want to buy the magazine - that particular strategy was not what I was contesting.


Then stop arguing with me, and bow down to worship me like the Canadian mistress of mine that you know you want to be!
Done.

But out of curiosity - would it be different, in your opinion, if she was on the cover, fully clothed, of "Snatch"?

Docido
03-14-2006, 05:13 PM
What’s considered porn is often all about context. The same nude photograph would be considered very differently in Aperture vs. Playboy. The same picture hanging on a museum wall is art, while the identical image in an adult magazine is pornography. The perfect example would be Robert Mapplethorpe. Images of men being fist-fucked have hung in the Corcoran. You place that same image in Freshmen its porn.

I never thought I’d type a paragraph with the word porn written so many times.

evan_essence
03-15-2006, 06:58 AM
Again, I can't agree. Playboy has meaning, and if I said I appeared in Playboy, would you assume that I was wearing clothes, not? A movie poster is qualitatively different that the cover of what is the most notorious, well known porn magazine in the world.What you're calling pornographic, to me, is merely R-rated. Both the movie and the magazine. To be pornographic, it would have to depict sexual acts or be so graphic as to be mistaken for a gynelogical examination.


Surely you've seen Boogie Nights?No. That's why I'm sayin'.


Okay, I appreciate your convoluted characterization. And it is a good argument. But a pornographic movie by North American standards is, by definition, rated X.Therefore, I don't understand why you're calling Playboy pornography when it does not rise to the level of what's depicted in an X-rated movie.


Also, the nature of the movie and the role comes into play. Harvey Keital appearing nude in The Piano is not the same as him appearing nude in Playgirl - by any stretch of rthe imagination. I had the whole conversation with doc and docido about Playboy being "real" porn, so I don't need to repeat it, I'm sure.I think the definition of pornography is a red herring to the issue of Jessica Alba's desire to avoid nudity. In your example, a nude Harvey is a nude Harvey in either context (and I don't know about you, but that's not an image that does anything for me). Whether Harvey's nudity is pornographic doesn't need to enter into it. If Jess (let's call her Jess since we're getting so chummy) has decided not to do nudity in either movie or magazine, I can respect that. I don't think her specific objection is that it's pornography; she draws the line at nudity. If she had showed a breast in Sin City, I wouldn't have called it pornography, but she didn't want to do it. She said in interviews that her dad would never accept it. So, as far as I can see, the issue of defining whether or not it's pornography is irrelevant because the line she's drawing is no nudity regardless of context. The argument is over nudity and the public perception of what she's doing.


I mean, if we are not relying on the submitted facts you could simply contend that Alba said "Yes, I would love to be a playboy centrefold" and then, pissed off that they put her off for a month concocted this whole thing. Or that Playboy in fact has tried to kill her and that is what started this whole thing. So, yes, I'm relying on the submitted facts because they are not unlikely and those are the facts that we have.First, they're not facts; they're simply statements purported to be fact, aka allegations. Second, you're using an extreme example to dismiss the possibility that lies can enter into it. Of course, your example is not a plausible lie. It has to be plausible to work. It's not hard for me to believe that someone on the plaintiff's side is going to "remember" a conversation differently than someone on the defense side. Possibly it's merely an innocent case of focusing one's memory on what sticks in that person's mind as important. But you can't tell me that a little selective memory isn't used to enhance the credibility of one's characterization of what took place. At best, it's an innocent case of he said, she said. At worst, it's deliberately crafting the story in a plausible way to bolster one's case, which I believe happens frequently, and that is tantamount to lying.


It's just the complaint, but seeing as Alba had the right to each use of her photos it is unlikely that Columbia would have released them without some idea that it was okay. Unless they screwed up and are just making the whole thing up - since we just like to assume now that everyone is lying.Sigh. You are just too trusting. Can I get a lap dance and pay you tomorrow? If they didn't want it used in the way it was used, was there a contract spelling that out? If not, why not? Did someone at Playboy promise to use them a certain way, or did they only talk vaguely about their "intentions," which of course, could later change? I don't find it hard to imagine a vague conversation taking place, the pictures being sent over, and then after Jess throws a hissy fit, the movie studio claiming they were deceived in order to stay in her good graces. I'm not saying that's what happened, but something similar surely has happened sometime in movie star history.


I realize that Alba wasn't nude. My point was that Heather Graham, appearing fully nude in a movie in which is depicted a porn star is STILL different that actually being in a porn movie - that although it is possible, using no social context to collapse these into the same kind of act, when you add a modicum of context there is a marked difference. It's an analogy.Oh, honey, you are confused. That is not an analogy. An analogy has to be relevant to the case at hand. That's a non-sequitir.

You seem to be hung up on the fact that Jess wasn't really a stripper; she only played one, and playing one doesn't make her one and shouldn't grant blanket permission for her to be depicted as one. I agree with that; that's not the point of my contention. My contention is that she conciously put herself in a role that the public would reasonably expect to feature nudity in the context of an R-rated film. If she had chosen the same role in a PG movie, I'd say differently, that the public would not have reasonably expected it to feature nudity and would not have inferred that she was baring anything. But she was okay with what the (sometimes incorrect) implications would be from playing the role in an R-rated film. She didn't bare anything, and the public soon got the word. So why is she upset when an R-rated magazine puts her on the cover? Because the public might think incorrectly that she's naked inside? If that's the case, she surely would have been similarly worried about what the public would think vis a vis Sin City.


I think that, similarly, Alba appearing clothed, in a movie in which she depicted a stripper is different than appearing clothed in a porn mag. The fact is that r-rated movies are still separate from porn. That's why we have R then X.You say tomato; I say ketchup. We'd have to actually research the public's perceptions to have an objective clue. But it's so much more fun to pretend we already know the answers.


I agree - news setting is terribly ambiguous. However "This just in - Jessica Alba is sexy" is stretching credulity a bit, don't you think?For commentary? No. Are you saying she's not? Because if you are, it's prolly just 'cause you're jealous. :P


Context, Ev. I wasn't arguing that people wouldn't want to buy the magazine. I was arguing that other celebrities might be reluctant to license their photos. But I fully agree that people will want to buy the magazine - that particular strategy was not what I was contesting.Hon, I comprehended what you were saying, context and all. You haven't comprehended that what I'm saying is that your point is moot because the celebrities they'd piss off aren't the ones who would be agreeing to do anything else anyway.


Done.

But out of curiosity - would it be different, in your opinion, if she was on the cover, fully clothed, of "Snatch"?This is how you worship me? By immediately bringing up another hypothetical case that doesn't fit the character of the original? You insolent trollop. If you insist upon knowing more about what I think, we'll have to simulate a photo shoot for said magazine, one with you clothed and one unclothed. PM me.

-Ev

Jenny
03-15-2006, 11:20 AM
This is how you worship me? By immediately bringing up another hypothetical case that doesn't fit the character of the original? You insolent trollop. If you insist upon knowing more about what I think, we'll have to simulate a photo shoot for said magazine, one with you clothed and one unclothed. PM me.
Please forgive me. I'm evidently (hee. EV-idently. Sorry. I'm lame) not good at this worshipping thing.

But.
That was not rhetorical, nor was it an analogy. Just clarifying your position. If, all other facts or alleged facts being the same, the magazine was "hard core", would that make a difference?


What you're calling pornographic, to me, is merely R-rated. Both the movie and the magazine. To be pornographic, it would have to depict sexual acts or be so graphic as to be mistaken for a gynelogical examination.
Okay - I think here we are diverging. I'm not using "pornographic" as a general adjective, so it is less relative. The actual status, legal and otherwise, of playboy IS of pornography. R rated movies involve a lot a things, things are are not pornography. I do appreciate how it can harder and harder to distinguish, and that some things skirt and seem to overlap. Fortunately, playboy has a long history and social context to draw on; not to mention the fact that the naked women are still the most salient feature. You are saying (if I understand correctly) that there is little difference between the actual degree of nudity in Playboy and Sin City and that they are, therefore, qualitatively the same.

I would point out that there was no "bottomless" in Sin City, so there is a degree of difference right there. I would further argue that context does have relevance. Hence my point that Harvey Keital naked in the piano is different that Harvey Keital doing a spread in Playgirl. In a role there is MORE than just nudity/sexiness that may go into consideration is accepting or declining it - and I mean stuff that is actually attached, by nature, to the role. Not external stuff like potential publicity. That is obviously always a consideration, but not intrinsic the role itself. Hence all my other movie star bring ups - situations in which people take roles that involve nudity, sex acts etc. that are obviously qualititatively different than Playboy or Snatch, and they may not be agreeing to allow their image be associated with porn - hard or soft core (or with borderline pornographic materials in which nudity is a main selling point) - because they accepted that role.

I am saying that Alba may be in a similar situation. She accepted the role; the role had context, good writers, directors, etc. She could think it would add value (both financial and artistic) to her portfolio. Because she accepts this role does not mean that she generally licensing her image to be associated with (and you're going to hate this one) GRATUITOUS nudity (as in there can be no claim, contested or otherwise, that the nudity is for anything but the sake of the nudity. One of the features of porn). And, like it or not, gratuitous nudity has certain stigma. The complaint actually says that Playboy has created an expectation, in its history and marketing, that women who appear on the cover appear nude inside. I don't know that EVERYONE who has appeared on the cover has been nude inside, but I do bet that is the general practice.


No. That's why I'm sayin'.
You should really see Boogie Nights. It was good. A whole lot better than Sin City.


I think the definition of pornography is a red herring to the issue of Jessica Alba's desire to avoid nudity. In your example, a nude Harvey is a nude Harvey in either context (and I don't know about you, but that's not an image that does anything for me). Whether Harvey's nudity is pornographic doesn't need to enter into it. If Jess (let's call her Jess since we're getting so chummy) has decided not to do nudity in either movie or magazine, I can respect that. I don't think her specific objection is that it's pornography; she draws the line at nudity.
I think the facts at hand (or alleged facts) dispute that. She clearly doesn't want to be associated with porn, or borderline porn or stuff that is traditionally called porn. Just because she draws a line at nudity doesn't mean she wants to appear, clothed, in "Snatch" (I don't actually know if there is a porn mag named Snatch. I just thought "Beaver" anything would give you ammo for Canadian jokes)


If she had showed a breast in Sin City, I wouldn't have called it pornography, but she didn't want to do it. She said in interviews that her dad would never accept it. So, as far as I can see, the issue of defining whether or not it's pornography is irrelevant because the line she's drawing is no nudity regardless of context.
Again, because she draws a line at nudity doesn't mean EVERYTHING else is open. She would probably resent being depicted, fully clothed, on the front of an Islamic Fundamentalist magazine, a Heritage Front magazine or REAL Women. Refusing to do nudity is not acquiesence to do everything else.


First, they're not facts; they're simply statements purported to be fact, aka allegations. Second, you're using an extreme example to dismiss the possibility that lies can enter into it.
I'm saying that conjecture based on no fact or allegations of fact is pointless, and I'm using an extreme example to illustrate how pointless.


Sigh. You are just too trusting. Can I get a lap dance and pay you tomorrow?
For you? Sure.


If they didn't want it used in the way it was used, was there a contract spelling that out? If not, why not? Did someone at Playboy promise to use them a certain way, or did they only talk vaguely about their "intentions," which of course, could later change?
I'm not sure I understand your questions. The allegations are: 1) Playboy called Alba (well agents of Alba, but lets condense) and asked her to be their cover girl. 2) Alba said no, and agreed to release a specific image in very controlled circumstances for the actual article. 3) The photo in question had all copyright and licensing approval retained by Alba for EACH USE, and only in conjunction with promotion of her movie. 4) Playboy approached the studio for the picture claiming that it was only for use INSIDE the magazine (and yes, these things do make a difference in the entertainment industry) AND that they had Alba's approval. 5) Playboy features the photo on the cover. You cannot be licensed for something under certain, pivotal criteria and then change your mind later. That is the point of having a license - like that is why she doesn't just sell her photos.


Oh, honey, you are confused. That is not an analogy. An analogy has to be relevant to the case at hand. That's a non-sequitir.
Evidently I am confused. To me it seems perfectly relevant. Maybe I am just not explaining it right?


You seem to be hung up on the fact that Jess wasn't really a stripper; she only played one, and playing one doesn't make her one and shouldn't grant blanket permission for her to be depicted as one. I agree with that;
It's alwasy nice when we can agree.


My contention is that she conciously put herself in a role that the public would reasonably expect to feature nudity in the context of an R-rated film. If she had chosen the same role in a PG movie, I'd say differently, that the public would not have reasonably expected it to feature nudity and would not have inferred that she was baring anything.
I'm not sure that is true. As I said before there is MORE than nudity in playing a role. There is not more than nudity to posing nude. I cannot help but think that public expectations in terms of movie roles are different than public expectations of Playboy magazines.


But she was okay with what the (sometimes incorrect) implications would be from playing the role in an R-rated film.
Again. because there is more to a role than being nude/clothed.


So why is she upset when an R-rated magazine puts her on the cover? Because the public might think incorrectly that she's naked inside? If that's the case, she surely would have been similarly worried about what the public would think vis a vis Sin City.
Well the magazine is not R-rated. Playboy means something different than R rated movies. As I said - The Piano was an R rated movie. Boogie Nights. Pretty Baby. All R rated. That doesn't mean that all the actors in questions want to associated with GRATUITOUS nudity. Gratuitous nudity has stigma that nudity in the context of film (and certainly in the context of these films) does not necessarily have. She has a perfect right to agree to a role in a movie that had non-gratuitous nudity (although I appreciate that claim could be contentious) and refrain from associating herself with gratuitous nudity (a claim that could not possibly be contentious).


For commentary? No. Are you saying she's not? Because if you are, it's prolly just 'cause you're jealous. :P
I am madly jealous. But that is not the point.


Hon, I comprehended what you were saying, context and all. You haven't comprehended that what I'm saying is that your point is moot because the celebrities they'd piss off aren't the ones who would be agreeing to do anything else anyway.
Okay, you're right, I didn't get that is what you were saying at all. Yeah, I think that is just wrong. There are all sorts of limitations you can put on use of photos. It's not just a matter of clothed/unclothed. If Playboy shoes themselves unwilling/unable/uninterested in respecting the licenses that they are granted, I don't think that makes them look that nice. It's not a matter of being pissed off. Angelina Jolie could hate Jess's guts and be glad that Playboy pissed her off. But she might still be like - now you guys have a history of not respecting the license you are granted, and doing things far outside the purview of what you are allowed. I prefer to abstain, pose for Maxim where I get all the sexiness, and none of the drama.

evan_essence
03-15-2006, 02:52 PM
Please forgive me. I'm evidently (hee. EV-idently. Sorry. I'm lame) not good at this worshipping thing.Yeah, I suspected as much. Well then, to keep the boys entertained, we're going to have to resort to pulling hair and clawing each other's eyes out. How are you with that?


But.
That was not rhetorical, nor was it an analogy. Just clarifying your position. If, all other facts or alleged facts being the same, the magazine was "hard core", would that make a difference?Yes.


Okay - I think here we are diverging. I'm not using "pornographic" as a general adjective, so it is less relative. The actual status, legal and otherwise, of playboy IS of pornography.Says what source? I am under the impression that there is no legal definition of pornography, only obscenity.


R rated movies involve a lot a things, things are are not pornography.Again, I don't know whose definitions you're using, but they're going to be subjective since I don't think there's any legal test for anything other than obscenity. In a movie, depictions of sex acts in which nudity is a part are not pornography? As you say, it's all about context of the individual situation as to whether it's pornography. I think you're ignoring the context that can exist in which an R-rated movie can have more gratuitous sex than Playboy.


I do appreciate how it can harder and harder to distinguish, and that some things skirt and seem to overlap. Fortunately, playboy has a long history and social context to draw on;Which is tied to the pop culture of the day and is as fluid as it is.


not to mention the fact that the naked women are still the most salient feature. You are saying (if I understand correctly) that there is little difference between the actual degree of nudity in Playboy and Sin City and that they are, therefore, qualitatively the same.No, I'm saying there's little difference in how the public is going to perceive Jessica Alba between being featured clothed on the cover of and inside the pages of Playboy vs. how the public is going to perceive her for playing a stripper fully clothed in an R-rated move. Perception/reaction is what I'm measuring. Not the actual amount or style of nudity, which was zero in both cases. It's possible for someone, before fully seeing either one, to assume from only the surface information they have obtained (cover of Playboy, trailer showing her stripping) that she might be naked in the movie and the magazine, given the history of those media and the context of the surface presentation. Upon seeing it or hearing about the details, one becomes aware that she is not naked in either. I think she's being hypocritical to claim one damages her reputation when the other apparently did not.


I would point out that there was no "bottomless" in Sin City, so there is a degree of difference right there.Again, you're focused on the actual elements involved, not the public perception of what might be revealed, which is the basis of a claim that her reputation has been damaged. If we're going to focus only on what was actually revealed, then there's no damage because she wasn't naked either place.


I would further argue that context does have relevance. Hence my point that Harvey Keital naked in the piano is different that Harvey Keital doing a spread in Playgirl. In a role there is MORE than just nudity/sexiness that may go into consideration is accepting or declining it - and I mean stuff that is actually attached, by nature, to the role. Not external stuff like potential publicity. That is obviously always a consideration, but not intrinsic the role itself.You're focused in the wrong place for countering what I'm saying. The relevant factor is the external publicity and the public perception of what's inside, not what's actually in there. If they see what's inside, they know for sure and there's no misinterpretation. The damage comes when they fill in the blanks from seeing only the outside.


Hence all my other movie star bring ups - situations in which people take roles that involve nudity, sex acts etc. that are obviously qualititatively different than Playboy or Snatch, and they may not be agreeing to allow their image be associated with porn - hard or soft core (or with borderline pornographic materials in which nudity is a main selling point) - because they accepted that role.My focus in bringing up the comparison is measurement of public perception and possible damage to her reputation, not what she may or may not have agreed to. That's a separate argument.


I am saying that Alba may be in a similar situation. She accepted the role; the role had context, good writers, directors, etc. She could think it would add value (both financial and artistic) to her portfolio. Because she accepts this role does not mean that she generally licensing her image to be associated with (and you're going to hate this one) GRATUITOUS nudity (as in there can be no claim, contested or otherwise, that the nudity is for anything but the sake of the nudity. One of the features of porn).Nudity for the sake of nudity can include art, if its primary purpose is not sexual arousal. Nudity for the sake of sexual arousal is gratuitous. I'm not saying Playboy is art, but I would maintain that Playboy includes elements that make its nudity less gratuitous than you and I are on the job. Well, than I am, anyway.

But I'm getting off the track, into arguing fine points that don't matter much to my point. The licensing issue is separate from damage to her reputation. She could license one use and not the other for totally arbitrary reasons of her own choosing. I'm not arguing that she doesn't have the right to control licensing when and if applicable (fair use for news purposes still being an issue that we've already discussed); I was arguing that Playboy's use didn't damage her reputation.


And, like it or not, gratuitous nudity has certain stigma. The complaint actually says that Playboy has created an expectation, in its history and marketing, that women who appear on the cover appear nude inside. I don't know that EVERYONE who has appeared on the cover has been nude inside, but I do bet that is the general practice.I haven't read the magazine routinely in years so I wouldn't even be able to form a half-cocked impression. That's a point I'm sure each side would present numerous examples and percentages to support or dispute.


You should really see Boogie Nights. It was good. A whole lot better than Sin City.I'm too busy playing with you on here to have time for movies now.


I think the facts at hand (or alleged facts) dispute that. She clearly doesn't want to be associated with porn, or borderline porn or stuff that is traditionally called porn. Just because she draws a line at nudity doesn't mean she wants to appear, clothed, in "Snatch" (I don't actually know if there is a porn mag named Snatch. I just thought "Beaver" anything would give you ammo for Canadian jokes)You're using fictional magazines in your arguments? You bitch! Just for that, I'm going to make up fictional legal precedent! Maybe I already have.


Again, because she draws a line at nudity doesn't mean EVERYTHING else is open. She would probably resent being depicted, fully clothed, on the front of an Islamic Fundamentalist magazine, a Heritage Front magazine or REAL Women. Refusing to do nudity is not acquiesence to do everything else.I agree but, again, that's not my point.


I'm saying that conjecture based on no fact or allegations of fact is pointless, and I'm using an extreme example to illustrate how pointless.Hey, f**k you, what fun is that? Sh*t, by extension, that would mean all the TRs filed here are pointless, but I know in my gut that they're not.


You cannot be licensed for something under certain, pivotal criteria and then change your mind later. That is the point of having a license - like that is why she doesn't just sell her photos.I'm asking if the license was in writing. The letter doesn't make it clear how the permission was spelled out. If it's not in writing, we have a verbal agreement that's going to boil down to "he said, she said."


Evidently I am confused. To me it seems perfectly relevant. Maybe I am just not explaining it right?Well, I could admit that there are various issues that we're mixing and matching, which makes it all confusing to keep straight, but this forum's entertainment value relies partly on a certain amount of sniping and superiority complex among participants, so I'm not going to leave it at that. I'll just puff up and say, no, bitch, you just aren't getting it.


Well the magazine is not R-rated. Playboy means something different than R rated movies. As I said - The Piano was an R rated movie. Boogie Nights. Pretty Baby. All R rated. That doesn't mean that all the actors in questions want to associated with GRATUITOUS nudity. Gratuitous nudity has stigma that nudity in the context of film (and certainly in the context of these films) does not necessarily have. She has a perfect right to agree to a role in a movie that had non-gratuitous nudity (although I appreciate that claim could be contentious) and refrain from associating herself with gratuitous nudity (a claim that could not possibly be contentious).Why is it okay for you to trot out context when you want to prove that a movie's nudity is not gratuitous, but if I trotted out context, that Playboy has women who are clothed in it, features no depictions of sexual contact and has literary and artistic value besides nudity, I'd probably be laughed right out of the thread. No fair.

-Ev

Docido
03-15-2006, 06:55 PM
Jenny you said you like contract law. After looking over the Smoking Gun site what is interesting to me is what’s left out of the complaint. There was no mention anywhere of specific contracts, addendums, or agreements about ownership of photos for usage in publicity events. Only statements that amounted to “he said, she said.” If there are no written contracts between Alba’s agents, Sony’s PR department, and Playboy specifically outlining how Alba’s image can be used, her side may have a difficult time proving their case. Wouldn’t it also depend on who has ownership of said images? Isn’t possible that the image belongs to Sony and not to Alba? That Sony has the right to use the said image for promotional purposes as advertising for their movie? That Sony gave Playboy permission with only vague assurances on Playboy’s part that no nudity would be involved.

I'm really spending far too much time thinking about this. According to Jenny, I should be lurking around in the gallery, feeding my insatiable porn addiction, or writing fictitious trip reports.

Ciao, it’s been fun playing. :P