Posted on 11/17/2009 7:37:04 PM PST by Bigtigermike
You gotta be in the first ten rows to enjoy the show.
Keep it up.
My mistake. Sorry.
They put Palin on the cover in a pair of shorts with hopes that conservative men would buy it. But the declaration that Sarah is a problem for the US will turn them off.
I read Penthouse personally at my dentist’s office...perhaps you heard of him, Tim Whatley?
nice summary and right on!
the only ones Sarah is a problem for are the elitist, self serving politicians, liberal media types, and every leftist organization known to man including abortionists. Oh yeah and John McCain’s dumb as- handlers for his sorry campaign. The only good thing about McCain’s campaign was it gave us Sarah!
good. I am very happy to hear that it is getting this response from some lib women. AS IT SHOULD!!!!
There’s not a whole lotta Republican women (at her age and with 5 kids) that look as good as Sarah!
Not exactly sure when her son was deployed to the sand box, but if it was after her nomination, the Blue Star Flag would indicate that the photo was taken after Minn-St Paul
When I do a shoot, I usually have a bigger up front fee, then allow unlimited reproduction rights, except for sales to outside companies.
With a significant public figure, the negotiations can be more complex. Most magazines and newspapers tend to be “seat of the pants” operations, and I’ve usually set things up with a couple of emails.
It’s likely that Runner’s World didn’t even think beyond the article. Being a niche publication, they never run a negative article about anyone, and most runners are not controversial. They probably never considered that their photos could be used negatively.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with the photo. It’s the text added to it that made the cover controversial.
When I do a shoot, I usually have a bigger up front fee, then allow unlimited reproduction rights, except for sales to outside companies.
With a significant public figure, the negotiations can be more complex. Most magazines and newspapers tend to be “seat of the pants” operations, and I’ve usually set things up with a couple of emails.
It’s likely that Runner’s World didn’t even think beyond the article. Being a niche publication, they never run a negative article about anyone, and most runners are not controversial. They probably never considered that their photos could be used negatively.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with the photo. It’s the text added to it that made the cover controversial.
Isn’t it weird that NewsWeak would run a major story about a politician, and not send their own photographer to take a picture, but instead would purchase a stock picture from an agency?
.
She had to give permission when she posed for the pictures. Her people could have insisted that the photos be under her control, or only for use by Runner’s world.
Not that I EXPECT she would have thought to do that, but you asked how it COULD be her fault. I know that when my family posed for pictures for a magazine article, we signed a release but didn’t make sure it was exclusive for the magazine in question.
They want to disassociate themselves from the Newsweek hit piece.
Because while the picture was appropriate in context of a Runner's World article, Newsweek was wrong in presenting it in context of serious political commentary.
(And when 80% of the women on The View take that position, Newsweek is way over the line, Only 80%; Joy Behar is irredeemable)
This is THEFT, and I hope that Newsweak is ruined over it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.