I will have no further comment nor answer any questions at this time, other than to reiterate that Ms. Kennis' claim that the photo "isn't a modeling photo, it's a Polaroid" so it must be a family photo taken by her mother is blatantly false and totally ridiculous! I'd suggest that perhaps her "prestigious" modeling career may not have been as prestigious nor as extensive as she claims if she can't identify a casting Polaroid, hundreds and hundreds of which were taken every day in the predigital era. I've even read comments on-line where people say "it looks just like a casting Polaroid!" Ms. Kennis' own former agent, Sue Charney, told Vanity Fair "To me it is very clearly a Polaroid taken at a casting session." The fact is that for decades, Polaroids were used on a daily basis in film, television, and advertising for a variety of reasons including casting, and by script supervisors, set decorators, wardrobe, art, and prop departments for continuity purposes. Obviously anyone who was a working model in 1983 should be familiar with the use of Polaroids as they were such a commonly used valuable tool in the industry.
Additionally, Ms Kennis' dismissal of Polaroid and Polaroid film as something reserved for family snapshots indicates a total lack of understanding of the use of Polaroid in the creative community. Generations of photographers, filmmakers and artists have very effectively used Polaroid for both pure art, as well as for commercial purposes with great success. Books, magazines, and now the Internet are filled with creative Polaroid images, and the statement that “It was a Polaroid, not a modeling picture,” is refuted by the tens of thousands of "modeling pictures" recorded on Polaroid film.
I took the photo during a casting session for a South American soap (Sensus Jabón) commercial at Cherbuti Films in New York City during the summer of 1983, and this fact is easily proven with irrefutable documentary evidence as well as witnesses who were present. The director of the commercial was one of the top fashion and beauty directors in NYC, and coincidentally, his wife was a Ford model for many years. By her absurd claim that her mother took the photo, Ms. Kennis has attempted to appropriate my copyright as the photographer, and has slandered and defamed me which I don't take lightly. As anyone who visits the "About Tod" page of this website can plainly see, I was heavily involved in the production of "beauty" & "fashion" commercials at the time the photo was taken. Which is more of a stretch? That I took the photo during the course of a casting session, or that I just happened to stumble across the photo by chance one day, and held on to it so I could sell it to a band I had never heard of almost three decades later?
Oh, and one more thing. As it has been from the outset, PDN's reporting of the case, the settlement, and the dismissal continues to be factually incorrect, particularly in its treatment of me and my involvement. So factually incorrect as a matter of fact, that it's impossible to believe that it's not intended to be defamatory and libelous. It's amazing how they're able to selectively report on some court documents and rulings properly, while outright lying about others. Yellow Journalism at its best!
Additionally, Tim Nudd of Adweek has jumped on the bandwagon of irresponsible journalism, mistating facts and boldly claiming that I "didn't take the picture but somehow came to be in possession of it." I hope for his & Adweek's sake he has something more than other people's lies and innuendo to back up the libel and defamation he's spewing, because if a retraction isn't forthcoming, there will be consequences. The same holds true for HUH Magazine and others repeating this outrageous lie.
|
