Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30129
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
( edit ) Actually while the article quotes Vogue ( USA ) saying that they have not used TR since 2010 and ( currently ) have no plans to work with him - TR still appears actively shooting for Vogue ( Paris ) and other top Fashion Magazines such as Harpers Bazaar - so it would appear that this news article from Time is a bit slanted http://time.com/70714/terry-richardson- … -appleton/
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
Garry k wrote:
I know you are all tired of hearing about TR but this appears significant
http://www.thewrap.com/vogue-done-with- … llegations Hard to say if Vogue is basing the decision on the factual integrity of screengrab of the conversation, or don't want what they perceive as bad publicity, either way.
We all know that plans can change.
If he did indeed send the message in question, then he's a lot dumber than I thought. Or a lot more brazen.
Let's see how many posts we can get to before this convo steers toward a critique of his work 
+
"A spokeswoman for Vogue said Sunday that the magazine will no longer work with Terry Richardson, in the wake of new allegations that the celebrity photographer offered a model the chance to be in the magazine in exchange for sex."
"...we have no plans to work with him in the future,” Hildy Kuryk, communications director for US Vogue told TheWrap on Sunday.
Photographer
Solas
Posts: 10390
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
If the allegations are true, well, fuck him.
If not well, that blows for him
Regardless I like his photography
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
Ick 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
So she's not agreeing to the terms of the TFP shoot then?
(I am going to hell)
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Good Egg Productions wrote:
So she's not agreeing to the terms of the TFP shoot then?
(I am going to hell) 
Photographer
KungPaoChic
Posts: 4221
West Palm Beach, Florida, US
CHAD ALAN wrote:
Hard to say if Vogue is basing the decision on the factual integrity of screengrab of the conversation, or don't want what they perceive as bad publicity, either way.
We all know that plans can change.
If he did indeed send the message in question, then he's a lot dumber than I thought. Or a lot more brazen.
Let's see how many posts we can get to before this convo steers toward a critique of his work
+
"A spokeswoman for Vogue said Sunday that the magazine will no longer work with Terry Richardson, in the wake of new allegations that the celebrity photographer offered a model the chance to be in the magazine in exchange for sex."
"...we have no plans to work with him in the future,” Hildy Kuryk, communications director for US Vogue told TheWrap on Sunday. wow
if it came from his phone or account he is incredibly stupid.
I don't have a problem with his work. I think he is a solid photographer but I find him personally icky.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Vogue dumps TR? “The last assignment Terry Richardson had for US Vogue appeared in the July 2010 issue and we have no plans to work with him in the future,” Hildy Kuryk, communications director for US Vogue told TheWrap on Sunday. They haven't worked with him since 2010.
Dumped him? please...anyone suggesting this should be embarrassed in light of the actual comment from Vogue.
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
KungPaoChic wrote:
wow
if it came from his phone or account he is incredibly stupid.
I don't have a problem with his work. I think he is a solid photographer but I find him personally icky. Chicchowmein is grounded!
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
Vogue has no plans to work with me in the future either 
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
In the words of the great Jackie Gleason....
"And away we go"........again.
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
Cherrystone wrote:
In the words of the great Jackie Gleason....
"And away we go"........again. Jackie who?
Google just got 18 search requests for "Who is Jackie Gleason"
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
CHAD ALAN wrote:
Jackie who?
Google just got 18 search requests for "Who is Jackie Gleason" Kids....whaddya gonna do with them. 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
CHAD ALAN wrote:
Jackie who?
Google just got 18 search requests for "Who is Jackie Gleason" Nah, they'll just assume he meant Jack Gleeson.
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
It could just be bullshit.
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
CHAD ALAN wrote:
"A spokeswoman for Vogue said Sunday that the magazine will no longer work with Terry Richardson, in the wake of new allegations that the celebrity photographer offered a model the chance to be in the magazine in exchange for sex."
"...we have no plans to work with him in the future,” Hildy Kuryk, communications director for US Vogue told TheWrap on Sunday. I have to point out that the quote from Hildy Kuryk does not say that they won't work with him.
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
Nah, they'll just assume he meant Jack Gleeson. Hahah!! (laughs after google search)
Photographer
ChadAlan
Posts: 4254
Los Angeles, California, US
J O H N A L L A N wrote:
I have to point out that the quote from Hildy Kuryk does not say that they won't work with him. Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. "No plans" is a lot different than "never" or "won't"
Photographer
SayCheeZ!
Posts: 20621
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
"A spokeswoman for Vogue said Sunday that the magazine will no longer work with Terry Richardson, in the wake of new allegations that the celebrity photographer offered a model the chance to be in the magazine in exchange for sex." Karl JW Johnston wrote:
If the allegations are true, well, fuck him. Ummm, that's what he's hoping for.
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30129
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Christopher Hartman wrote:
Vogue dumps TR?
They haven't worked with him since 2010.
Dumped him? please...anyone suggesting this should be embarrassed in light of the actual comment from Vogue. Curios to know what you would call it
I mean given the Vogue is the largest circulating fashion magazine in the world , and TR ( reportedly ) is the highest earning photographer
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Garry k wrote:
Curios to know what you would call it
I mean given the Vogue is the largest circulating fashion magazine in the world , and TR ( reportedly ) is the highest earning photographer It sounds like, regardless of the allegations, they haven't worked with him for over 3 years.
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
What they mean to say is "we have not used him in 4 years because he shoots a lot for a Hearst publications and fashion magazines are worse then jr. High school girls"
Photographer
Keith Allen Phillips
Posts: 3670
Santa Fe, New Mexico, US
Garry k wrote:
Curios to know what you would call it
I mean given the Vogue is the largest circulating fashion magazine in the world , and TR ( reportedly ) is the highest earning photographer The title of your thread + the story in the link you provided insinuate that Vogue "dumped" him because of him offering a Vogue shoot in return for a fuck. That's obviously not what happened because the quote from Vogue makes it clear they haven't worked with him for years so how the hell could they be dumping him over this?
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30129
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Keith Allen Phillips wrote:
The title of your thread + the story in the link you provided insinuate that Vogue "dumped" him because of him offering a Vogue shoot in return for a fuck. That's obviously not what happened because the quote from Vogue makes it clear they haven't worked with him for years so how the hell could they be dumping him over this? Unless i am suffering from some sort of mental blackout ( which is possible ) i dont recall mentioning the most recent allegations .I only linked to the article
It would appear though ( in reading the article ) that Vogue has made an official statement regarding their relationship with TR - a statement that was issued following the new allegations emerging
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
Garry k wrote:
Unless i am suffering from some sort of mental blackout ( which is possible ) i dont recall mentioning the most recent allegations .I only linked to the article
It would appear though ( in reading the article ) that Vogue has made an official statement regarding their relationship with TR - a statement that was issued following the new allegations emerging Putting the recent allegations in the same thread as vogue dumps TR suggest that you are trying to make it seem like Vogue dumped TR because of this new issue.
You are such a passive aggressive person. 
Photographer
A-M-P
Posts: 18465
Orlando, Florida, US
Erlinda wrote:
Putting the recent allegations in the same thread as vogue dumps TR suggest that you are trying to make it seem like Vogue dumped TR because of this new issue.
You are such a passive aggressive person. in Garry's defense the article title is indeed the following
"Vogue Is Done With Photographer Terry Richardson After New Sex Allegations"
Photographer
Keith Allen Phillips
Posts: 3670
Santa Fe, New Mexico, US
Garry k wrote:
Unless i am suffering from some sort of mental blackout ( which is possible ) i dont recall mentioning the most recent allegations .I only linked to the article
It would appear though ( in reading the article ) that Vogue has made an official statement regarding their relationship with TR - a statement that was issued following the new allegations emerging Two words for to describe you and then I'm done.
Deliberately obtuse.
Photographer
Keith Allen Phillips
Posts: 3670
Santa Fe, New Mexico, US
A-M-P wrote:
in Garry's defense the article title is indeed.
"Vogue Is Done With Photographer Terry Richardson After New Sex Allegations" And "The Wrap" is just as dumb as this thread:)
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Karl JW Johnston wrote:
If not well, that blows for him Seems like he is making money either way and his name is already out there. Although shooting for publications is fun, he already has everything he needs from them. In fact, that article could have got both him and the publication more attention than they could have working together.
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Model Mentor Studio
Posts: 1359
Saint Catharines-Niagara, Ontario, Canada
So we're not planning to work with this guy that we weren't planning on working with because of allegations of a shoot that we weren't planning to do.
That makes sense.
The model sure ran away from her claim pretty quickly. Not saying TR wouldn't do that, but...
Photographer
A-M-P
Posts: 18465
Orlando, Florida, US
Rick OBanion Photo wrote:
So we're not planning to work with this guy that we weren't planning on working with because of allegations of a shoot that we weren't planning to do.
That makes sense.
The model sure ran away from her claim pretty quickly. Not saying TR wouldn't do that, but... I wouldn't doubt if they intimidated with legal action or bought her off. She erased the screen shot but in the tweets after she erased it she didn't really retract her claim. She ended up erasing her tweeter account I'm sure she was probably getting some heat.
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30129
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
A-M-P wrote:
in Garry's defense the article title is indeed the following
"Vogue Is Done With Photographer Terry Richardson After New Sex Allegations" Umm ...yeah
You have to wonder about the comprehension levels of some folks and if they even bothered to read the article
Photographer
L o n d o n F o g
Posts: 7497
London, England, United Kingdom
We're talking Vogue US yes?, the same Vogue that just had KK on their cover? If so, I'm not sure that anyone will give a rats ass!
Photographer
Awesome Headshots
Posts: 2370
San Ramon, California, US
Koryn wrote:
It could just be bullshit. Agreed.
This sounds like more TR publicity originated by TR.
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30129
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Keith Allen Phillips wrote:
Two words for to describe you and then I'm done.
Deliberately obtuse. Maybe you missed the memo
but name calling is against the rules and is a brigable offense
Lucky for you though that i am not one of those CAM happy guys
Photographer
Erlinda
Posts: 7286
London, England, United Kingdom
A-M-P wrote:
in Garry's defense the article title is indeed the following
"Vogue Is Done With Photographer Terry Richardson After New Sex Allegations" So why was he back pedalling and saying that that wasn't what he was suggesting.
I don't care what someone's opinion is but there is nothing more annoying and two face then someone who can't stand for what they were saying to begin with.
Pick something and stick to it. Don't twist and turn words to flip flop whenever you feel like someone is questioning you.
Photographer
JC Strick
Posts: 713
Dalton, Georgia, US
Good Egg Productions wrote:
So she's not agreeing to the terms of the TFP shoot then?
(I am going to hell) Trade For Penis?
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Garry k wrote:
Maybe you missed the memo
but name calling is against the rules and is a brigable offense
Lucky for you though that i am not one of those CAM happy guys
Write that European guy, I hear he loves to CAM. Maybe he'll do it for you.
|
