Thought I would share this. Some of you may have heard this story.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...moves-clinton-another-woman-from-iconic-photo
How they planned on getting this through without anyone noticing is beyond me, maybe they just don't care...not sure.
I found it interesting how they do not print images of women in their newspaper. I will not subscribe to this rag anytime soon.
Tell me I'm wrong but you don't seem like a regular Der Tzitung reader.
ok...i confess....I am not
I agree with erikg.
People have the right to believe any religion they wish, or none, as long as it harms no one. Arguments pro-theism or pro-atheism are moot because one cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a Divine Being (or Beings), and any supposed evidence for either case is therefore a subjective matter.
That said, Der Tzitung violated original photographer Pete Souza's copyright by altering the image. Photoshopping the women out of the photo is an alteration of the original and thus a violation of copyright, and is also possibly an act of photographic libel, misrepresenting the facts of the news story. If the newspaper would not print images of the women in the photograph because the paper's religious slant prohibits doing so (or for any reason, really), then the photograph should have either not been used, or the women should have been censored: blacked out to simply show that although they were part of the photograph, they could not be shown.
Then stop embarrassing yourself. You don't have a dog in this fight, if indeed it is a "fight." Perhaps the moderators can close this?
Unbelievable. Any idea what the circulation of Der Tzitung is? Talk about typhoons in a teacup. Any clue why the photo was altered?
Orthodox Jewish paper apologizes for doctored pic
The paper said Monday that its photo editor had not read the "fine print" accompanying the White House photo that forbade any changes. The paper says it has sent its "regrets and apologies" to the White House and State Department.
An editor at another weekly that covers Jewish issues addressed why the paper might have altered the image. The Forward managing editor Lil Swanson says some ultra-Orthodox Jews refuse to run photos of women because they believe such images are "immodest."
It is not a fight my friend, it is the altering of a historical photograph to appease the editors of a newspaper. This paper is not reporting news but attempting to alter it to their liking...sound familiar?
You seem to be upset, I was just delivering the article because I believe it was unethical and would be an intersting topic, and for the moderator to close this, i would think it would be unlikely.
Neither the photographers "copywrite" or the terms under which the photo is made available are an issue in this case. It is a photo made by a government photographer paid for by taxes, when released it is in the public domain.
Despite the publication's backpedaling regarding the terms, the manipulation would be considered protected speech and the terms are unenforceable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?