Get over yourself.
You live by media coverage. When you throw yourself out there you have to accept how people respond.
In this case the magazine seems to like and respect you and feature you. You don’t like what they did and want total control of your image?
Then don’t give interviews, have photos published and only use your own website/insta/‘book.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49509496

Would you want stuff published about you, without your permission?

You…want total control of your image?

You wouldn’t? I would.

*wonders if should be filed under ‘M’ for meh, or ‘W’ for whatever.

No matter how she looks in those pictures, somebody, somewhere ………

As a dad with two daughters I’m very glad Billie is making the point she is.

She is a 17 year old child. I think she has a case for being pissed off in this instance.

Thats cool. I didn’t see any disrespect in the image shown on the BBC though.

She is a 17 year old child.

She is a 17-year old woman, old enough to have a child of her own.

I think she has a case for being pissed off in this instance.

Tricky one, really. I mean, yes, she’s every right to be pissed off, I agree with you there. Whether they did anything actually wrong though, I’m less sure of. Not asking her first is a dick move, and if I were her I’d be more cross about them calling her a “fembot” because that has kinda icky connotations (doubly so given that it seems to be the antithesis of what she’s about). But you don’t really have a right for them not to do this do you?

Also,

Prior to this post I’d never heard of either her or the magazine. So one of them’s got what they wanted I guess.

Can’t help but be reminded of the old Oatmeal comic on this topic.

I have little interest in her music but considering the pop music industry’s long track record of how it’s treated young women, good on her for refusing to be forced into the cookie cutter ‘sexy starlet’ mold and staying true to herself.

Hopefully those that follow her will have the confidence to do likewise by following her example.

What’s all this about then? 🙂

Newspapers and magazines publish pictures and stories about people who don’t give their permission all the time, how is this any different? Just because you give interviews doesn’t mean everything published will be one. Sometimes there will be stories about you that don’t feature you and don’t require your consent.

That’s kinda where I was coming from.

Doesn’t mean she has to like it, though. And that’s all this story is, she posted on Instagram expressing her displeasure, she’s not trying to have it banned or sue them or anything. If I were her I’d probably have done the same thing.

No she doesn’t have to like it, that’s fair. She should probably think about the fact that she has a way of getting that message across to people who actually listen and will take up her cause, unlike the “benefits scroungers” the daily fail regularly holds up to ridicule. Or any other examples you care to mention.
Plus she has a bunch if money and a big PR machine to help her.
She doesn’t have to like it but I don’t feel too bad that I won’t be losing any sleep over her concerns.

she’s still technicaly a minor and in my view the world would be a better place if magazines don’t photoshop people who are legally children on to the bodys of implied topless adults.

If she is a minor, she couldn’t consent anyway could she?

It’s funny, I didn’t see the picture as implied topless, I just assumed strapless top. I thought it was an homage to Max Headroom and the Cranberries cover art.

Absolute shite.

she’s still technicaly a minor

I don’t really want to get into a pedantry argument, but yes, she’s technically a minor by dint of being under 21 (in America). Biologically she’s no longer a child after puberty. (Would you really say “a child aged 20”?)

and in my view the world would be a better place if magazines don’t photoshop people who are legally children on to the bodys of implied topless adults.

In my view the world would be a better place if magazines stopped doing that regardless of the age of the subject. It encourages body dysmorphia, people thinking they have to attain to some lofty goal of perfection that doesn’t really exist. But that’s a whole other wormcan.

she’s technically a minor by dint of being under 21

That’s the drinking age. Age of majority, or adulthood is set state by state, not federally. Most states it’s 18, some 19, some when you graduate high school or a certain age, whichever is later. There’s a few that are 21 but not many.

But that’s a whole other khardasian

Ftfy.

Like I said, I don’t particularly want to get into a pedantry war. Point was, calling her a child isn’t helpful, it’s arguably disingenuous and kinda patronising. A minor she may be in legal terms, for whatever definition and arbitrary age limit you care to stick on that by accident of geography, but a child she is not.

Can’t beat a bit of celeb gossip.

I have to disagree with eddiebaby and fully support Billie on this; before publishing a photo of someone that’s been so heavily manipulated, it should be a matter of policy to get artist consent before publication, it’s not only the polite thing to do, it’s the ethical thing to do, especially in the prevailing #metoo world.
I personally don’t see anything prurient about the image, but I can see why she’s unhappy about having zero say or input about how she’s portrayed.

I don’t really want to get into a pedantry argument

Wouldn’t a pedantry argument be an argument about pedantry, as opposed to a pedantic argument?

Who? Yes I Googled but still, who? It’s all just extra publicity isn’t it?

I’m happy to report I have absolutely no idea who he/she/it is. Fantastic 🙂

Imagine being a grown man and getting annoyed about a 17 year old girl you don’t know

Keep up Grandad 😉 She’s been putting stuff out for a couple of years now and some of it is pretty good.

BoardinBob wins today’s internet.

I’m still happy to be none the wiser and long may it stay that way!

@BoardinBob cheers, sums it up and I’m obviously not missing out on anything interesting or remotely useful.

I think she’s ace, I like her music and I like the fact the young people like her. Proper music written by her and her brother and she has got her own thing going on.
Yeah Fem Bot is extremely unpleasant picture to use an actual girls face on. I’m with her on this.

I’ve seen middle aged IT blokes throw a strop when someone has ‘photoshopped’ them for comedic or nefarious effect …

(Even ‘Cold War Steve’ says he keeps expecting lawyers to get in touch over his satirical collages featuring ‘celebrities’ etc!)

But I’m kinda with Billie on this one – she has made a stance as a young women, not to be defined by her ‘body type’ etc which is quite refreshing I think in todays online world and seemingly inspirational for many of her fans. All she has done [as far as I can see] is voice her objection to her image being manipulated like that.

Ok, so her target audience isn’t perhaps Singletrackworld, but her Glastonbury & Leeds/Reading sets went down a storm. Recent album is good in places – standout track being ‘Bury a Friend’ which reminds me a bit of the Doors ‘People are Strange’ and has been critically aclaimed by the likes of Portishead.

It may not fall within your purview but that probably says more about you than her and her fans. I didn’t know anything about Ariana Grande until the tragic Manchester incident.
Billie Eilish’s music has an occasional dark brooding malevolence that perhaps encapsulates the zeitgeist of being a teenager or young person in todays world.

Oh … and the child bit? … nope – she’s a young person not a child.
She’s old enough to get on stage in front of thousands of people and ‘eff & jeff’.

Am I the only one that thinks the magazine cover looks absolutely bugger all like her? Then again I’m sat listening to the last Dope Lemon album whilst typing this. I’ll probably give her a listen now though (after the new Bruce Springsteen and Bon Iver albums – don’t hate me DezB), see what the fuss is about.

I understand why she is annoyed. She has made it a mission for her image to be portrayed a certain way and this mag image goes against it. Her music and image is great and refreshing.

Reading the article it seems she actively goes out of her way to de-sexualise her image so to me entirely reasonable to be angry at being portrayed as a naked robot… This is exactly the kind of thing that continues to enforce gender stereotypes no?

Seems reasonable to have asked her first.

Honestly, WGAF about these “celebrities” where nothings ever good enough for them. They get all this free advertising to sell their mediocre garbage and they’re never happy

I got the impression that it wasn’t so much the asking that was so bad, there must be hundreds of magazine covers with her photo on them. But:
A) when you’ve made a point of wearing baggy clothes both because that’s what you like and becaue you dont want your body objectified. Having your clothes photoshoped off is going to peeve you a bit.

B) shes 17. Which raises the interesting quandary of can you create a photorealistic image that could be construed as pornographic if the real one would be illegal.

And just at a societal level, did they not get the memo? Even the most knuckedragging Harvey Weinstein wanabe knows he’s supposed to judge people on their talents. How did it get past the editor that the “future” isn’t going to be (at least this particular) 17 year old girls going topless for magazine covers.

Well, my 17 yr old daughter says that her complaints are entirely reasonable… I’m happy to defer to her on this one.

misread the post topic ..thought it was going to be about Billy The Fish ..
What a goalie that bloke is ..

She’s got a point, you may disagree, but why does it bother you enough to start a thread on here?

Did you particularly enjoy the nudey robot pics or something?