Art and Design | Brad Pitt | Magazines | News | Photography

Brad Pitt Surprised to be on Vanity Fair Cover, May Sue

VfpittAlthough Brad Pitt signed a release for the photos shot by avant-garde film director and artist Robert Wilson, part of a video portrait project in which he poses in boxers with a toy gun, he was surprised to see himself on the cover of Vanity Fair.

Pitt is currently considering his legal options, which may be few, according to what VF reps told TMZ: "In a letter dated October 5, 2006, and sent to Pitt care of Brillstein-Grey [Pitt's managers], Wilson informed Pitt that a still image from his portrait was going to be featured in the December art issue of Vanity Fair. Brad Pitt posed for a Robert Wilson video portrait, and in the photo release (signed by Pitt), agreed to allow Wilson to use the portrait or any images from that sitting in connection with any publicity on Wilson's video project. Vanity Fair decided to do a story on Wilson's video portraits and obtained rights to the entire collection of photographs from those sittings, which included Pitt's."

Said Pitt's people: "We are very disappointed that Vanity Fair has chosen to put an unauthorized cover on their magazine. It seriously makes me question their integrity and motives."

The motives seem clear to me: sell lots of magazines using Brad Pitt's shirtless body. As far as integrity goes, this one seems to fall into the 'act first, apologize later' category.

You may have missed...
Brad Pitt and his Hungry Bottom [tr]
Brad Pitt Will March Down the Aisle When the Gays Can [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I don't see the problem with this. Pitt posed for the photos/film, signed a release that stated the photos could be used in any manner to promote the film (and Pitt himself - who has a film, Babel, coming out any day now) and when the photo is actually used he throws a fit? Get over it Pitt. You licensed out those photos.

    Posted by: FernLaPlante | Nov 1, 2006 10:24:38 AM


  2. Seems that if he signed a release, and agreed to collaborate in producing an artwork (art is public!) then Pitt has no arguement.
    Maybe Brad's just wisely wrangling a Conde Nast donation to Africa out of this kerfuffle.

    Posted by: A.J. | Nov 1, 2006 10:38:51 AM


  3. Stand in your underwear in front of cameras and your destiny is no longer your own to control. Period.

    Posted by: Rob | Nov 1, 2006 10:40:38 AM


  4. A movie star is complaining about being on the cover of a magazine?

    Posted by: Tom | Nov 1, 2006 11:04:03 AM


  5. Wilson got the release for promoting his project; Pitt may have been OK with that in any context other than a national magazine that would typically pay a lot of money for such well-done cover shots of a hot movie star.* Wilson may not think of it as selling his photography - he's just trying to sell his project, but Vanity Fair would be disingenuous to suggest they purchased the photos in order to promote Wilson's project.

    *And for somebody who doesn't typically go for smooth blonds, Mr. Brad Pitt really is hot.

    Posted by: Rey | Nov 1, 2006 11:34:28 AM


  6. What a pussy Brad Pitt is. He's so good looking they put a photo that he did pose for on the cover of a magazine without his persmission. Wow, we should all have these life altering problems.

    Brad, get over yourself!

    Posted by: wtf` | Nov 1, 2006 11:46:11 AM


  7. If I had Brad's body, I'd be in my underwear all the time and you could put my image anywhere you want.

    Posted by: Marco | Nov 1, 2006 1:03:27 PM


  8. ...after his recent series of suck-ass, erm, acting/films he should be thrilled as a little girl to get such broad exposure. As for me I won't have to shell out the £9 to sit through another crap film in hopes of seeing some BP skin. Amen to that.

    Posted by: Lead | Nov 1, 2006 2:38:52 PM


  9. Yes, Brad Pitt should be as carefree and frivolous with his image as anybody who wishes they looked like him would be.

    Posted by: Rey | Nov 1, 2006 3:30:57 PM


  10. It's all about the $$$.

    Posted by: Anon | Nov 1, 2006 3:54:17 PM


  11. Even if I had a body like Brad Pitt's, I wouldn't be happy appearing on the cover of Vanity Fair wearing underwear like that.

    Posted by: Leo | Nov 1, 2006 6:10:43 PM


  12. It's all about control. Control of what I say. Control of what I do...

    Brad Pitt enjoys working on photoshoots, but only when he has the ability to exude his creative influence (hence, loving to work with Steven Klein).

    Posted by: Steven. | Nov 1, 2006 6:54:40 PM


  13. HEY BRAD!!! IF YOU DO WANT TO BE SEEN IN YOUR UNDERWEAR THEN DON'T POSE IN THEM!!!
    DOING CHARITY DOESN'T PROTECT YOU FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS! wHAT A SPOILED LITTLE BABY!!

    Posted by: alan brickman | Nov 1, 2006 7:33:49 PM


  14. ehh...ya know what? (as madtv's vancome lady would say) lol

    I don't really like Brad. He's not THAT CUTE... he's okay, let's move on. The word that comes to mind when i think about him is elitist... and that sounds conservative, which i really hate... but I still think brad Pitt is just a big pussy.

    Posted by: juliana | Nov 1, 2006 11:15:58 PM


  15. In defense of Brad Pitt, "Vanity Fair" publisher Condé Nast Publications has a bit of a rep for screwing people over on licensing fees by purchasing third party photographic material to use in in their publication. They not only do it to star talent like Brad Pitt, but to photographers and photographic producers as well. Brad Pitt should sue Condé Nast over this. If they think they've become so powerful that they can overtly screw over one of the top Actors in Hollywood, they'll certainly try to do it to everyone else too. I hope Mr. Pitt takes teaches them a lesson...

    Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Nov 2, 2006 5:15:19 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Up to 10 Shot at Castro Halloween Fest in San Francisco« «