Thad wrote:Could probably use a content warning for sexual assault there.
At any rate, there's a lot going on there and while I understand the common theme of lacking ownership of her image, I'd say the paparazzi photos, Richard Prince paintings, and Jonathan Leder photos are all qualitatively different examples (respectively: photos taken without her consent; transformative use; "consensual" photos taken under predatory circumstances that should be illegal, then published outside the agreed-upon terms, which is illegal but fat lot of difference that makes if you can't afford the cost of a lawsuit).
Aside from the obvious misogyny involved in men feeling entitled to images of women's bodies (and, in Leder's case, to a woman's body itself), these stories have implications about all sorts of other issues, including copyright, work-for-hire, and the legal system. As usual, publishers are predators, work-for-hire is predatory, and business and law are both rigged systems.
"""transformative""", but his is the least egregious (and I think the point of that section was more the violation she felt from the 4chan leak and the potential that her ex-boyfriend could've leaked a bunch more, not as much about Richard Prince being a thief)