Considering you can't see anything at all, and it looks extremely tasteful... I'm not getting what the outrage is about. I could understand if she was all nippley.
Fifi wrote: Considering you can't see anything at all, and it looks extremely tasteful... I'm not getting what the outrage is about. I could understand if she was all nippley.
They violated her written contract. That is the problem
I call BS !!!
There was a reality TV "actress" from Pakistan who pulled this same stunt a few months ago
Im sure they are crying all the way to the bank
i'd be pissed too. photoshopping off clothing is stupid as hell. either shoot it skimpy or nude...or shoot it clothed. don't go photoshopping off clothing. that's breach of contract in her case and bloody annoying on the other hand. i'd be pissed too.
some people just don't want the world to see them nude. end of story. simple to understand.
I understand that. I know tons of models who don't shoot nudes for that reason, and I applaud them for that. But, to have a non-nude stance when you have shot nudes before, that's what I don't understand
I agree that breaching a contract is an incredibly shitty thing to do.
I understand that. I know tons of models who don't shoot nudes for that reason, and I applaud them for that. But, to have a non-nude stance when you have shot nudes before, that's what I don't understand
I agree that breaching a contract is an incredibly shitty thing to do.
i don't know, maybe she wanted to keep nudes as one aspect of her career and not have an implied sort of nude for a cover photo. maybe to her being on the cover of a magazine was a bit more prestigious so warranted a more clothed look? i'm just guessing here. i mean i wouldn't want to get a cover and have someone remove the clothing i wore for it. i'd want it as we had planned.
There's a bunch of people here saying that they violated her "written" contract, yet there's nothing shown in the article in terms of the specific contract where it says they couldn't PS the sheer fabric. The cover of the mag is shown, not the contract. Anyone else notice this?
Also, while I completely understand and respect her views on this, unless she's got something going on under there which makes her unique to the females of the species, it really is kind of a silly stance for a fashion model to have.
Lastly, it took me several minutes to get past the word, "writed". That really bothered me more than the substance of the entire article or issue at hand.
CBAPhoto wrote: There's a bunch of people here saying that they violated her "written" contract, yet there's nothing shown in the article in terms of the specific contract where it says they couldn't PS the sheer fabric. The cover of the mag is shown, not the contract. Anyone else notice this?
Also, while I completely understand and respect her views on this, unless she's got something going on under there which makes her unique to the females of the species, it really is kind of a silly stance for a fashion model to have.
Lastly, it took me several minutes to get past the word, "writed". That really bothered me more than the substance of the entire article or issue at hand.
there's nothing proving that you are not some kid or some bot posting dumb sophistry on the net, but we act on the assumption you are human. That's the whole point: it's not a court room and MM is not a case management system. Every story begins with the assumption that facts entered are true. We have to go on that, else there's nothing to talk about.
So bringing up the fact that we have not seen the contract (or any other evidence) is pretty useless. I notice when useless posts show up. anyone else notice it?
Also, your understanding of her views has been noted. I'm sure everyone will sleep better tonight.
Lastly, I'm glad you shared the fact that a particular spelling issue disturbed you. I can only hug you and whisper "their they're there" and hope it is of some comfort.
Fifi wrote: I understand that. I know tons of llamas who don't shoot nudes for that reason, and I applaud them for that. But, to have a non-nude stance when you have shot nudes before, that's what I don't understand
I agree that breaching a contract is an incredibly shitty thing to do.
Where are her nudes that she shot before? The shot you posted is a thong body suit
I know one thing for sure... I probably wouldn't have even seen the cover for BRAZILIAN Elle, if not for this whole debacle.
I've made my opinions known at some length in another thread... but I will say this: Her policy is her right, period. If Brazilian Elle did in fact violate her written contracts, they are extreme bastards to the Nth degree.
Stay Puft
Posts: 2,413
Ofu, Manu'a, American Samoa
My thoughts are that beautiful women who refuse to pose nude are as evil as those who steal a Van Gogh from a museum. How dare they be so selfish as to take beauty from the world and try to keep it for themselves?
In her blog post it says verbal and written opposition to doing what they did.
My question is why are they so insistent on doing this with Coco when they could have done this with someone else who would do it, even nude under the dress?
I like the cover, always like Coco, yet violating someone's conditions is not right.
Why does it matter what the terms were for other publications?
She didn't have those agreed upon terms w/ them.
Did you read all of my posts? I stated that what the magazine did was shitty. I was trying to understand her stance in general. Reading all the posts in a thread is a good thing.
I don't believe that there was anything in her contract about photoshopping out the appearance of the garment in question. If it were, why would she need to make "verbal and written directions to the team." Plus, what are such requests/demands worth to members of the team? It's their boss that they would defer to.
As for taking what she says in public media at face value... what turnip truck is missing its cargo?
Where are her nudes that she shot before? The shot you posted is a thong body suit
It shows a hell of a lot more than the cover has, and people who don't know better would assume that she's not wearing bottoms at all. I find it funny that she's irate about what they show on this cover (I understand being pissed about the contract) and saying she has a stance on no nudity, when she's done pictures like this. I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to be pissed over the breach of contract. It's all just funny to me.
| 
| 
| edu