von Unwerth's new book, Fräulein, features women. Though she shoots models and celebrities in states of undress — often bare-breasted — there's always a certain elegance, a wink, an element of fantasy — and not the irritating, trying-too-hard kind, manufactured by Victoria's Secret.

Morris asks: "As a female, are you allowed greater access in your approach to erotica? (For example, would the same photos taken by a man be seen as objectification?)"

Ellen von Unwerth: I never felt this to be a problem.

Interesting. As a fan of her photography, I've always felt that the unsaid truth — these are women posing for a woman — filtered through to the viewer. But I can't say why. Maybe it's because I know the photographs are being shot by a woman? Or maybe it's because the women in the pictures seem so unfettered, and not self-conscious? A review from the Independent puts it this way:

The great quality here is that the power belongs to the subject - any fantasy projected is ultimately her own. To be allowed a glimpse into her world feels like a privilege.

But maybe the reason von Unwerth's photography never seems exploitative or forced is because she used to be a model. She tells Morris:

I hated modeling and felt uncomfortable not being able to move, and do silly things in front of the camera. So now I push my models to live and express themselves… I think the girls in my pictures are playful and they are having fun. I like to show their personality and charm, and not just their bodies. I also love when the picture tells a story.

So help me, I love it, too. I'd much rather see her shooting Vogue covers. Be sure and read the full interview, in which she spills that her shoots involve loud music and champagne. (And just FYI: you can look at all 450 pages of the $700 book here.)

Fräulein [Dazed Digital]
Ellen von Unwerth, Fräulein [Taschen]

Times Square, New York.

Grant Park, Chicago.

Harry's New York bar, Paris, France.

Athens, Greece.

Geneva, Switzerland.

Times Square, New York.

Geneva, Switzerland.

Columbus, Ohio.

McLean, Virginia.

Vienna, Austria.

Birmingham, Alabama.

Jakarta, Indonesia.

Grant Park, Chicago.

Seoul, South Korea.

Las Vegas, Nevada.

Bangkok, Thailand.

Grant Park, Chicago.

Times Square, New York.

Sydney, Australia.

Moscow, Russia.

Paris, France.

St. Paul, Minnesota.

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Beijing, China.

Beijing, China.

Brooklyn, New York.

The Hague, Netherlands.

Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Beijing, China.

Denver, Colorado.

Grant Park, Chicago.

Times Square, New York.

[Images via Getty.]

Because, you know, what the world needs now is more lawsuits.

Schwarzenegger, himself a celebrity, has approved a measure which states that the rights of a free press "to report details of an individual's private life must be weighed against the rights of the individual to enjoy liberty and privacy." That sounds reasonable… or does it?

Magazines and blogs (like this one) buy pictures of stars everyday; how are we to know if the snapper was over Lindsay Lohan's property line or not? What if you were fined for clicking on an illegally obtained photo? What if you went to buy ice cream, and later found out that the ice cream you bought was stolen, and you were being sued by a rich person for eating it?

As Dionne Searcy writes for the Wall Street Journal:

Some legal experts… question whether the California law is enforceable. In general, it remains legal for individuals to take photographs of other people, as long as the photo is snapped in a public place. In many cases, they add, it can be difficult to determine where a photo was taken after the fact.

In addition, there's a concern that celebrities are getting special treatment. Your house is on Google Street View; journalists have the right to pursue a story by knocking on your door or photographing you on the sidewalk if you are, say, a dry-cleaner ripping off customers, a lottery winner or a suspected terrorist.

But a measure okaying lawsuits is really saying: Celebs! Go ahead and sue. You have money! The snappers and blogs and magazines will be sorry they fucked with you.

Look, I'm not saying it's right to jump a hedge to get exclusive picture of someone's backyard wedding. Laws should not be broken. But taking a magazine or blog to court and fining them as much as $50,000 for not knowing that shot is illegal doesn't seem right either.

A New California Law Places Paparazzi Under The Spotlight [WSJ]

Goldstein cites a piece by After Ellen's Julia Miranda, which explains that most of Leibovitz's financial woes stem from inheriting the estate of her longtime partner, Susan Sontag. Writes Miranda:

Same-sex couples do not have the same privileges as straight married couples when it comes to inheritance. If your partner passes away and leaves her estate to you, you have to pay up to 50 percent of the value of your inheritance in taxes. However, if you and your partner were recognized as a married couple, you wouldn't have to pay a dime.

Sontag left several properties to Leibovitz, who was forced to pay half of their value in order to keep them. Hence, the gay tax. Goldstein has personal experience with this issue; she notes:

In my household it comes to around $329.25 monthly: that's the gay tax my wife and I shell out for me to be on her health insurance plan, because her company must treat that benefit as additional taxable income. It doesn't matter that our Massachusetts marriage is recognized in New York. Companies pay for their employees' health insurance with pre-tax money through a federal program, and same-sex marriage isn't federally recognized.

Is it a shame that Leibovitz is making headlines for spoofing her own photographs instead of for her struggle? Since she is so high-profile, so visible, couldn't she be a galvanizing voice in the fight for gay marriage? Or is this a case where the personal need not be political?

Annie Leibovitz And The Gay Tax [Salon]
Annie Leibovitz Is In A Jam [AfterEllen]

Over at feminist blog Shakesville, Melissa McEwan writes:

Even when women do what they're meant to do by the fucked-up standards of The Patriarchy-get naked and submit themselves for public objectification-they're going to get mocked for doing it. Because, even though we're ostensibly laughing at the Judd Apatow Boyz for their uproarious send-up of a sexy female-oriented VF cover, implicit in that laughter is a condemnation and marginalization of the female-oriented cover: See how silly it is when a man does it?! Ho ho ho.

Author Amanda Marcotte, on her Pandagon blog:

"I prefer jokes that send up sexist stereotypes, like when Liz Lemon makes a stupid mom joke and high fives herself. This joke, it seems to me, works off the idea that it's stupid to want to put men in an objectified position, ‘cause duh, that's for ladies! The bodysuits just makes it more insulting."

Salon's Rebecca Traister adds:

All this silliness does is amplify the point that men can become famous in Hollywood, and famous enough to be photographed by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair, without having bodies that you want to see unclothed. There is not a similar path to success for Hollywood's women.

But we're really behind Mary Elizabeth Williams of Salon, who says:

Between the hack work and the pawning of her photos, I guess Annie Leibovitz really is hard up. That this drivel is being peddled by the same woman who shot one of the most famous male nude photos ever — the beautiful, vulnerable image of John Lennon curled up against Yoko Ono for Rolling Stone, just makes the whole business all the more cynical and pitiful.

See, we're starting to wonder if Vanity Fair is the problem, or if Annie Leibovitz is the problem. She's one of the most famous photographers working right now, but she pushes people of color off of covers, turns black basketball players into gorillas, gets 15-year-old girls to pose half-naked and has no regrets.

As an artist, it is certainly her job to push boundaries and break the rules. But lately it seems that instead of inspiring and innovating, Leibovitz offends and denigrates. What is she doing? What is her goal? To create "art"? Or to rock the boat? Or merely to get paid? On the one hand, she's been generating lots of negative press lately — why would any magazine continue to use her? On the other hand, no publicity is bad publicity, right?

One of These Things Is Not Like the Other [Shakesville]
Quick Take: Funny Or Not? [Pandagon]
Dudes Undress For Vanity Fair [Salon]
Earlier: Vanity Fair: Not In Favor Of Naked Men
Photo Finish
LeBron James "King Kong" Cover
Is Vogue's "LeBron Kong" Cover Offensive?
Miley Cyrus: Fifteen & Topless in Vanity Fair
Is Tween Titillation More Offensive Than Casual Racism?

[All images by Annie Leibovitz.]