Photo Confidential

Years ago I had the chance to work with Matthew Rolston and was checking out his site. I found a link to his representation and eventually their submission policy, or anti-policy.

Now I understand the intent is to disuade people from submitting material. But I have rudimentary understanding of the law and it seems to me that this anti-policy is actually a policy stating that “we can use anything that you send us for any reason we want.”

Are they really that naive about artist copyrights?

Here’s a link and a quote in it’s entirety.

>>>>SUBMISSIONS POLICY
@RADICAL.MEDIA
POLICY CONCERNING UNSOLICITED SUBMISSIONS
@radical.media (we/us) wishes to acquaint all those (you) who have submitted or intend to
submit unsolicited materials, including without limitation, any ideas, suggestions, notes,
scripts, story lines, articles, fiction, proposals, marketing or promotional plans, program
formats, literary material, videos, musical compositions, characters, drawings, concepts
and./or other information and/or materials (collectively, Unsolicited Submission(s)), with our
company policy concerning Unsolicited Submission(s).
For the reasons set forth below, our company policy does not allow us to accept, review or
consider, and we do not knowingly accept, review or consider, any Unsolicited
Submission(s), and we must request that you do not send us any Unsolicited Submission(s),
as it is our company policy to delete, destroy or return any and all Unsolicited Submission(s)
immediately and automatically without reviewing them, whether sent to us by mail, electronic
transmission, personal delivery or otherwise, by you or any other person or entity.
Therefore, any similarity between any Unsolicited Submission(s) and any elements in any
@radical.media creative work including without limitation any film, television series, story, title
or concept, would be purely coincidental.
It is the intent of this policy to avoid the possibility of future misunderstandings when
materials developed by or at the request of @radical.media professional staff might seem to
others to be similar to their own creative work. We can receive and review materials only if it
is left up to us to determine whether we have in fact used such materials and to decide what
compensation should be paid in the event of such use.
If despite our requests that you not send us any Unsolicited Submission(s), Unsolicited
Submission(s) are sent to us by mail, electronic transmission, personal delivery or otherwise,
by you or any other person or entity, such Unsolicited Submission(s) will be deemed, and
will remain, the property of @radical.media and may be used, copied, sublicensed, adapted,
transmitted, distributed, publicly performed, published, displayed or deleted as we see fit,
and @radical.media will exclusively own all now known or hereafter existing rights in and to
any Unsolicited Submission(s) of any kind and nature throughout the universe in perpetuity,
and we will be entitled to unrestricted use of such Unsolicited Submission(s) for any
purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, by all means and in all media now or
hereafter known or devised, without compensation to you and/or any other sender of such
Unsolicited Submission(s). You agree that you are not entitled to any compensation, credit
or notice whatsoever in connection with any Unsolicited Submission(s), and you further
agree that by sending any Unsolicited Submission(s) you waive that right to make any claim
against @radical.media, its parents or affiliates relating to such Unsolicited Submission(s),
including, without limitation, unfair competition breach or implied contract or breach of
confidentiality. No Unsolicited Submission(s) will be subject to any obligation of confidence
on our party and we will not be liable for any use or disclosure of any Unsolicited
Submission(s).

Okay - I admit it. I’m not a fan of Jill Greenberg.

Her easily identifiable lighting sytle in generally unflattering and I think she did cross some lines when she photographed children after making them cry.

She makes a extremely successful living shooting people of note for well known publications.

I personally think she crossed the line with her recent comments about John McCain in PDNPulse:

When The Atlantic called Jill Greenberg, a committed Democrat, to shoot a portrait of John McCain for its October cover, she rubbed her hands with glee.

She delivered the image the magazine asked for—a shot that makes the Republican presidential nominee look heroic. Greenberg is well known for her highly retouched images of bears and crying babies. But she didn’t bother to do much retouching on her McCain images. “I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad,” she says.

Then again, she does call herself the “The Manipulator”.

Did she cross professional boundaries or breach the trust of her client?