Emily Ratajkowski

[slowen]

To quote from her Twitter:

 

Quote

I've been resisting speaking publicly on the recently released photos by Jonathan Leder to avoid giving him publicity. But I've had enough. This book and the images within them are a violation. 5 out of the now 100s of released photos were used for what they were intended: an artful magazine shoot back in 2012. These photos being used w/out my permission is an example of exactly the opposite of what I stand for: women choosing when and how they want to share their sexuality and bodies.

 

[Ardilla]

Take-Two Interactive Hosts Miami Beach Kickoff Party 11/30/16

   

   

[twoinone]

20 hours ago, slowen said:

To quote from her Twitter:

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

[Shepherd]

13 hours ago, Ardilla said:

Take-Two Interactive Hosts Miami Beach Kickoff Party 11/30/16

 

 

Adds

 

[Shepherd]

Los Angeles International, Dec 1 '16

 

[pizzarat]

 Nice candids, thank you Shepard 

[LucyLover]

 

[LucyLover]

 

[LucyLover]

 

[LucyLover]

 

[frenchkiki]

On 01/12/2016 at 4:08 AM, slowen said:

To quote from her Twitter:

 

 

 Is she aware the pictures and her image do not belong to her anymore? The guy is certainly very rude for not telling her he is going to release a book out of the shoot but this is how the things work in fashion and photography business.

 

Quote

women choosing when and how they want to share their sexuality and bodies.

Like posing top less for the paparazzi on the beach? PR is a bitch Emily.

[thumbs]

2 hours ago, frenchkiki said:

 Is she aware the pictures and her image do not belong to her anymore? The guy is certainly very rude for not telling her he is going to release a book out of the shoot but this is how the things work in fashion and photography business.

 

Like posing top less for the paparazzi on the beach? PR is a bitch Emily.

She did choose when she posed for them, lot of the time she comes off as an idiot. She tries to portray everything as a women's rights issue

[slowen]

12 hours ago, frenchkiki said:

 Is she aware the pictures and her image do not belong to her anymore? The guy is certainly very rude for not telling her he is going to release a book out of the shoot but this is how the things work in fashion and photography business.

 

Like posing top less for the paparazzi on the beach? PR is a bitch Emily.

 

it sounds like she agreed to pose for a shoot in which about half a dozen pictures would be published in one magazine.   instead, leder has sold way more than a few images to at least two magazines and published dozens of pictures in at least three books, two of which are exclusively made up of her images (meaning not compilations or portfolios of his work in general).  that's not really "how things work" in the fashion business or any other business.

 

also, one does not "pose" for paparazzi on the beach.  those pictures were taken without her consent or the consent of her friends.  

 

is she famous? yes. does being famous come at a cost? yes. but people (even famous ones) still deserve a right to privacy and a right to control the use of their image.

[slowen]

just because one *sees* someone who may be taking pictures doesn't mean that they consent to having their picture taken and distributed.  you do not know that her or her friends saw any photographers before they got into the water and took their tops off.  and once they spot them, what are they supposed to do, run after them?

 

also you're speculating about the terms of a contract, or even the fact that a contract exists. 

 

you complain about her voicing concerns about these issues on twitter.  i wonder what you suggest she do instead.

[Schemer]

Please, Emily is like a D-list celebrity. Most people still don't even know her by her name but by being "that blurred lines girl".

 

19 minutes ago, frenchkiki said:

Of course it wasn't something she asked: the papz following her, but once she saw them, she started her show and took off her swimsuit top.

 

I heavily doubt paparazzi follow EmRata. Usually in situations like this star's PR tips off paps where their client will be and paps do their thing. And now Emily gets to act violated which brings even more publicity to her and tabloids who are going to publish those photos.

 

It's a game and they're all on it.

[Sunshiine]

Out and about in Los Angeles

 

source: gotceleb

[thumbs]

2 hours ago, slowen said:

 

it sounds like she agreed to pose for a shoot in which about half a dozen pictures would be published in one magazine.   instead, leder has sold way more than a few images to at least two magazines and published dozens of pictures in at least three books, two of which are exclusively made up of her images (meaning not compilations or portfolios of his work in general).  that's not really "how things work" in the fashion business or any other business.

 

also, one does not "pose" for paparazzi on the beach.  those pictures were taken without her consent or the consent of her friends.  

 

is she famous? yes. does being famous come at a cost? yes. but people (even famous ones) still deserve a right to privacy and a right to control the use of their image.

By law in most states/countries once you go into public i.e. outside you can not expect privacy, and when you go to a photographer they pay you for the day not for 10 pictures along with a release that gives guidelines on what can and can not be used. So with that being said she is just crying beacuse she was not paid as much then as she would be now

[slowen]

sorry, i didn't realize you were a lawyer, my bad.