Model and actress Emily Ratajkowski has hit out at a photographer who has released a series nude images of her without approval, saying they are “an example of exactly the opposite of what I stand for.”
Tweeting about the Polaroids on Thursday morning, which are included in a book by photographer Jonathan Leder, Ratajkowski began, “I’ve been resisting speaking publicly on the recently released photos by Jonathan Leder to avoid giving him publicity. But I’ve had enough.
“The book and the images within them are a violation,” the 25-year-old continued.
Deceptively titled Leder/Ratajkowski, the book is a collection of both clothed and nude images Leder took of Ratajkowski in upstate New York back in 2012 for a magazine shoot. The outtakes, however, now make up the book, which Ratajkowski says, she never agreed to.
"5 out of the now 100s of released photos were used for what they were intended: an artful magazine shoot back in 2012," Ratajkowski's tweets continued.
"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," she wrote finally.
Agreeing to a shoot destined for a magazine is one thing. But having a photographer stash away the outtakes for four years only to turn them into a book with your name in the title and release them when you're at the height of your fame (without asking for your permission) in the revised context - not cool at all.
It's hardly the first time the Entourage star has called out sexism when she sees it.
In February, Ratajkowski penned an essay for Lena Dunham's Lenny Letter titled 'Baby Woman' and spoke about growing up in a sexualised world and learning to be the master of your own liberation.
Emily Ratajkowski
"I refuse to live in this world of shame and silent apologies. Life cannot be dictated by the perceptions of others, and I wish the world had made it clear to me that people's reactions to my sexuality were not my problems, they were theirs," the Blurred Lines star wrote.
And in March she made headlines once more when she posted a topless selfie with reality television queen, Kim Kardashian West, both of them giving viewers the middle finger.
Neither Leder or the book's publisher, Imperial, have commented on Ratajkowski's claims as yet.
Top Comments
First of all, certainly not siding with the photographer BUT doesn't he own the rights to the photo's to do with as he will? The same way a wedding photographer has the rights to the pictures they take, not the people in the wedding.
Only if she signed a general release. Sounds like she approved some shots for use, but not the ones used in this book. He's profiting from her image, so she does need to sign off.
Sounds fair enough. How does that work with paparazzi and the like? Sorry, I have no idea and just assumed the photographer owned the pics.
After some very light googling it looks like the person who takes the photo owns them, there are some exceptions but they don't seem to apply here.
I think for the paparazzi, it's because those photos were taken in a public space; you and I could take the same photos!
In moral terms, she's right; in practical terms, posting any photos of yourself to the internet cedes all control.
Protesting otherwise, is like throwing a sheet of A4 into a hurricane and complaining when it gets whipped out of sight.
Also, if Emily's nudity is some form of activism, then why complain when your 'message' gets more cuthrough, through wider distribution?
But the photos in the book weren't posted to the Internet, so are not up for free use. And there's a difference between sharing a nude image of yourself for your own reasons, and someone else sharing shots you didn't approve for distribution for their own profits.
Well, in the digital world, shared means shared. Whatever your motives, whatever the provenance of the images.
Again, the photos in the book were not shared on the internet.
I skimmed the article and your point and while I can see ER's point, she sells her naked or semi-clad images as her livingand consented to, and presumably, was paid well for, the poses at the time.
If you swap 'the digital world' for 'the public domain' or 'another's hands', then I think that my points still apply.
Unfiltered opinion - Really tired of the use of nudity to gain attention/money/fame and then complaining when the images end up far and wide and in nefarious contexts.