Agreed, Marc, I’m always amazed, (although I don’t know why I should be) when I remind otherwise intelligent and educated individuals of that fact and get in return nothing but blank stares of incomprehension in the vast majority of cases. Just another spotlight on the glaring holes in our dysfunctional educational system and an indictment
of over fourty years of creeping PC at all levels of society.

**Socialists** of every stripe are part and parcel of the leviathan state apparatus of Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. Some are just more skilled at murdering people and getting away with it.

A socialist is a socialist is a socialist; and socialism is “equality” delivered from the barrel of a pistol.

Too bad the top two candidates this election are both cut from the same “government is the solution” socialist cloth.

What the Left lives by is morally grotesque. Even A recent buddy of mined evinced the same callow double standards. Our moral discourse has indeed coarsened a lot in 20 years. I don’t trust these folks. Obama learned the same utilitarian version of ideologically agenda driven self-interested truth from Bill Ayers, and has practiced it in his campaigns. (SEE “The Case Against….”)

I may be libertine libertarian, but I loath these useless souls. I have no respect for them. May fellow American’s see the same light this election day.

I am extremely sick of the slanted media. How do they expect a fair election when the majority of the media outlets are so liberal? People cannot get a clear and accurate picture of any politition with media as their tool.

BTW, you can find Greenberg’s address and phone number on a website called Zaba Search and she lives in California.

It’s called public information folks.

P.S. Libs keep up the extra nasty attacks the voters are paying attention.

Still, it is beyond comprehension that she could possibly take any pride in images that were possible only through deceitful acts involving the betrayal of her client (the Atlantic) and her subject (Senator McCain). Nevertheless, I believe the dishonest manipulation of the images of John McCain will prove, in the not-so-long-run, to be have been more clever than smart.

As for the unsophisticated teleological tactics of the far left, surely Ms. Greenberg’s childish actions come as no surprise (and are actually one of the more modest blots on that particular political escutcheon).

You mean, as the monster that you see. Thanks for confirming Shannon’s point. LOL.

“…From here on, next time you shoot a politician be ready to produce your voter registration card to show your are “the right kind of person” and have every image reviewed by his or her handlers before you can leave with your photos.

Ms. Greenberg has just managed to smear an entire industry in fifteen minutes. Thanks a lot, Jill.”

However, while many of the commenters are disgusted and find her conduct reprehensible, many others clearly espouse the “end justifies the means” argument. Others seem to view it as an “artistic independence” issue.

That deep-seated sadism and narcissism is required to justify tormenting children to advance one’s personal, financial and political goals is beyond doubt. To be willing to commit acts of personal dishonesty, deceiving both her client and her subject, bespeaks further character flaws. That not one but a substantial number appear willing to defend her, apparently because they share her political orientation, testifies to the moral degeneracy that pervades that gang of perverts.

It depends. The default contract that most publishers offer to artists treats the material as “work for hire”, which means that the publisher owns the work in perpetuity. Savvy artists insist on a “first publication rights” contract, which means that the publisher only has the right to use the work once (whether for magazine illustration, book cover, or whatever) and the artist retains ownership of the work itself and of all rights to subsequent republication, printing in books, etc. Of course, even with a favorable contract not everything necessarily goes well: A publisher might ignore the terms of the contract if they feel that they can get away with it. (Court costs might exceed what the artist would hope to win–a big thank-you to pugnacious folks like Harlan Ellison who are willing to fight even for a few dollars, for the sake of principle and on behalf of other artists.) I have heard artists describe how art department directors would shamelessly steal original artwork that was supposed to be returned to the artist. One artist told me of an incident in which, when he demanded the return of a painting, the art department sawed it in half before mailing it to him.

And as to photography organizations,etc caring about the profession’s reputation, where was the outcry from photographers over the myriad ‘fauxtography’ scandals?