TW: This article discusses themes of a sexual nature. Reader discretion is advised.
The sexualisation of female bodies has been a topic of conversation for decades, becoming more extensive with the ubiquitous use of social media over recent years. Online platforms and discussion have created an increasingly sexualised mass media where women’s bodies are thrust into territories that objectify and sexualise, regardless of consent. Writer Maureen Murdoch summed this up when she posited: “Women’s bodies are public domain… everyone has an opinion about what a woman should or should not do with their body”.
This week, Emily Ratajkowski’s essay ‘Buying Myself Back: When Does A Model Own Her Image’ was published in New York Magazine, in which she discusses her personal experiences with sexual harassment and men feeling entitled to her body, as well as the lack of support and protection she received in response.
In the essay, the actor and model argues polaroids taken by photographer Johnathon Leder were published without her knowledge. The photos, featuring Ratajkowski in lingerie or nude, were to be used for Darius magazine only, but many were withheld and published years later by the photographer’s publishing company.
Some may argue that Ratajkowski had posed for the images, that she was working a model and had a role to fulfil for the magazine. Arguably, these images would have been released to the magazine and Leder, as the photographer, had legal right over the polaroids.
However, Ratajkowski explains how she had not been informed the shoot would be nude and had been drinking throughout the shoot to calm her nerves. She later explains that at the end of the shoot Leder sexually assaulted her on the sofa.
“It was discovered Ratajkowski’s agent’s signature had been forged, meaning that to pursue the lawsuit would be fruitless”
Ratajkowski writes that Leder used the “most compromising and sexual photos… and from what was being said online, a lot of people believed the entire situation was my doing. I after all, had posed for the photos.”
After sending cease and desist letters to Leder’s publishing company, explaining he had no right to use the images beyond the agreed usage, it was discovered Ratajkowski’s agent’s signature had been forged, meaning that to pursue the lawsuit would be fruitless.
The book titled EMILY RATAJKOWSKI has since been reprinted three times. At $80, it lines Leder’s pockets with money he should not have any rightful claim to.
Women’s Bodies and The Judicial System
Consequently, the story brings into question the support women have for defending the rights to their own bodies in the judicial system.
In 2019, gov.uk published a press release which examined whether current legislation is fit to tackle new and evolving types of abusive and offensive communications, including image-based abuse.
Justice Minister Paul Maynard said, “No one should have to suffer the immense distress of having intimate images taken or shared without consent”.
This is not an issue of copyright but of approval, whereby women’s bodies are pulled into the public domain without their approval.
Ratajkowski later writes about Richard Prince’s “Instagram Paintings”. Prince, an artist, sold a photograph of Ratajkowski taken from her Instagram account, presenting it as a painting and selling it for $80,000. Ratajkowski bought the image with her boyfriend but once they had split her ex told her she must pay $10,000 for the painting when dividing their assets.
“All these men, some of whom I knew intimately and other I’d never met, were debating who owned an image of me”.
The model had to prove that the image of her, taken from her Instagram and sold without her consent, belonged to her. A ridiculous notion.
Ratajkowski’s essay highlights the issues of ownership that models face, having their bodies treated as a commodity that is taken advantage of by others, often to far more financial gain than they themselves receive.
In this example, Ratajkowski’s photograph served as a piece of valuable art, purchased from an artist without any consideration for the content of the image itself. The image was deemed valuable because of Prince’s reputation, when in fact he had taken an image from Instagram without her approval and presented the image as his own.
“Releasing images and presenting false ownership of other women’s bodies in photographs is exploitation.”
Elsewhere, in 2018 The Independent reported that George Garafano, who had hacked into hundreds of iCloud accounts of Hollywood stars, including Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton, was sentenced to eight months in prison following the 4chan scandal that resulted in their nude photos being leaked online.
Jennifer Lawrence described the hacking as a ‘profoundly violating ordeal’ and ‘should be classified as a sex crime’.
Releasing images and presenting false ownership of other women’s bodies in photographs is exploitation.
Considering this, more work needs to be done to support women in the judicial system seeking justice for images over their own bodies. The publication of these images needs to be seen as not just an issue of copyright but a sex crime, to address the nuances of releasing images without consent.
Millie Lockhart
Featured image by Maru Lombardo on Unsplash.