Betrayal

Jill Greenberg might be a talented Photoshopper, but she’s a lousy businessman:

Editor James Bennet said Greenberg behaved improperly and will not be paid for the session. He said the magazine is also considering a lawsuit.

“She has violated the terms of our agreement with her, of our contract with her so we’re taking steps. So we’re looking into what steps we can see to do something about that,” Bennet told FOX News, adding that he is “already drafting a letter of apology” to McCain.

“I mean this photographer went in there under our auspices to take a cover shot for us … but while she was there she behaved in an incredibly underhanded and unprofessional way,” he said.

Not paying Greenberg sounds reasonable, but is a lawsuit against her a step too far?

Unfortunately, no.

In the days of film, photographers generally would have to turn over their negatives to the magazine they shot for. In the digital age, when it’s difficult or impossible to determine who has electronic copies of what, editors have relied on photographers to stay honest. Greenberg wasn’t.

Now, every time Greenberg gets a magazine shoot (if she gets any more magazine gigs), what hoops will the lawyers make her jump through, to make sure she isn’t keeping — and Photoshopping — the magazine’s property? I dunno, but I bet they’ll be cumbersome.

And the same might go for every photographer from now on.

That’s bad for business. Thanks, hon.