Flashing Tiger, Hidden Rules

By Mz. MANNERS, OUT OF REHAB AND BACK ON THE CASE

It is a great moment for protecting media content. Annie Leibovitz has imposed fascinating and bold restrictions upon her images of a stripped-down Tiger Woods.

The Vanity Fair cover images, shot three years ago, as part of a very Vanity-Fair type of article, can be shown on television with the following criteria:

Leibovitz's rules, as given in an email:

TIGER WOODS PHOTO RESTRICTIONS

-Each image (other than the cover with coverlines) can be shown for no more than 2 seconds each, one time only, on each shot.

-Each image (other than the cover with coverlines) can be shown only ONCE on your show.

-If you show any inside images, you MUST also show the Vanity Fair Tiger Woods cover with cover lines.

-This photo credit must accompany all Tiger Woods images onscreen:
Copyright 2010, all photographs by Annie Leibovitz, all rights reserved, N.Y.C.

Source: The Huffington Post, January 7, 2010

So the guy has an eye for the ladies. He, in fact, appears to have some sort of problem. Let me divert the issue for a moment, because ethics is all about making abstract connections:

Last night I was watching This Emotional Life on PBS, and they asked a bunch of rich people if money can or cannot buy happiness. They all dodged the issue, except for the lovely Joan Rivers. Even though Joan's frozen face cannot register emotion, she is very articulate about the issue of happiness. Of course money can buy happiness, she says. Anybody who disagrees is a lying sack. I'm paraphrasing. In my case, money could very easily make me happy. I would literally make love to a pile of money, first thing. I would cash that first giant check, dump the cash out on my futon, and roll around in it. Money, literally, would make me happy.

What is happiness? Happiness is sustained fun. Money can buy fun experiences. So therefore, it can but happiness. It may be a shallow, material happiness, but it sure beats working for a living.

In Tiger's case, he is using his fame and money to participate in some extraordinary escapades. Sexcapades! I don't know if it makes him happy or not. Many superstars pay a lot of money to keep their private business a secret from the press. So there is a lot of money involved here, lots of money changing hands. His adventures in Electric Ladyland are costing a fortune. His sexual transgressions are costing taxpayers a fortune. I am not sure how yet, but look for that in a future article "How Tiger Woods's Sexcapades Are Costing The Taxpayer a Fortune".

If marriage is an institution, then so is infidelity. What makes an institution an institution? The exchange of money, the establishment of rules, and the widespread practice of the act of it. So the institution of infidelity is under scrutiny here.

Cheaters are unethical. Their secret exploits cause major problems outside of the bedroom. A divorce, or an extramarital affair, can cause tremors in communities, businesses, industries, cultures, and global systems. Celebrity affairs are very powerful things. The culture of celebrity is an ethical minefield.

But is the institution of marriage also an ethical minefield? Skip on marriage, and maybe you can live an amoral life. Not necessarily an immoral life, but amoral, meaning that you operate outside of moral systems. Skip on marriage! The worst thing Tiger Woods ever did was to get married. Think of the needless suffering! And think of the infinite pleasures of the flesh! And no one gets hurt (although when you look at some of the pictures of Tiger's women, I bet two or three of them could break your back in the sack!).

Back to the Vanity Fair thing for a moment. Leibovitz has an opportunity here, and she is working within the law to be a stick in the mud and require people to buy the magazine if they want to look at the picture for longer than a couple of seconds. Fine. Thanks a lot, Tiger. Now you have gotten all photojournalists into a pickle. The past decade or so has been a real free-for-all. The internet allows people to spread images and information like crazy. And now she expects us to pick up a magazine to look at a half naked man? This is major.

Thanks a lot, Tiger. Now every time I tell people they can't plagiarize my blog, they think I'm an uptight party-pooper who thinks she's Annie Leibovitz. Tiger Woods, you are costing taxpayers a fortune (I'm still not sure how, but I love saying that. A little joke around the a2ethics newsroom has been to try and use the term "costing taxpayers a fortune" in as many articles as possible. The winner gets a prize).

Ethically speaking, she is helping the institution of journalism and the protection of intellectual property. Naked Tiger, is, after all, intellectual property. It belongs to Leibovitz, to the magazine, and it can be ours too, for $5.95. I plan to shoplift my own copy, which my new-age church pastor says is perfectly fine, as long as you steal it from a chain store. My favorite is Wal-Mart, but any major chain will do.

You win this time, Mz. Leibovitz. Fine! You are costing taxpayers a fortune!

So in a nutshell, our culture has arrived at the following new depth of moral desolation: