|
Post by lea1977 on Mar 1, 2015 23:23:07 GMT -4
I think that Cindy has had work done, I don't fault her for that, she makes her money from her face and body, just be honest about it.
|
|
|
Post by FotoStoreSheila on Mar 2, 2015 10:53:11 GMT -4
On the first page of the thread there's a link to an article where she admits to having had plastic surgery.
|
|
|
Post by Sunnyhorse on Mar 2, 2015 11:52:19 GMT -4
Her career doesn't center around modeling anymore. Meaningful Beauty has dominated her career for the last 5 years, and it's her product, so no one has the power to hire or fire her. Cindy herself claims that this product reverses aging and uses pics of herself in the 20s and 40s for comparison and proof that it works. The ads don't say you'll look like a beautiful 40-something woman if you use my magic-melon product. They say you'll be a 40-something woman who looks like you're in your 20s forfuckingever if you use my magic-melon product. If there are pics of her floating around where she looks like a beautiful 40-something woman who looks like she's in her 40s (the horror!) which causes her to lose money, then that would mostly be on her for making false claims and only slightly be the fault of whomever leaked the pic for exposing the false claims. Her body, her photos, her right -- same as during the big hack of female stars' nude photos.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 19, 2024 23:40:35 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 12:24:24 GMT -4
Sure, she has a right to demand photos of herself be properly photoshopped, especially in the setting of a professional photo shoot. But I'm certainly not going to feel sorry for a woman who is profiting from the anti-aging megaindustry and using those photoshopped pictures of herself as proof that the snake oil she is selling works when her real appearance, which is nothing to be ashamed of, is exposed.
ETA: I don't agree that this is the same thing as the hacking of celeb photos. When a celeb goes out in public, they know that the paps might catch a photo of them and it's up to them to decide how to handle that aspect of their lives. A photo shoot is also, obviously, a situation where they know that the photos will be released. Having un-photoshopped pap pictures or photo shoot pictures released to the public is nothing like having expressly private photos hacked. Yes, there could be legal recourse based on the contract Cindy Crawford signed for her photo shoot, but this doesn't reach the level of damage that the hacking of private photos does in a criminal or civil sense IMO.
|
|