From the article (caption is mine):
The inclusion of a version of a Getty Images photo of a bearded, flannel-wearing man, tinted with a blue and orange hue, prompted one reader to write to the magazine: "Your lack of basic journalistic ethics in both the manner in which you 'reported' this uncredited nonsense, and the slanderous, unnecessary use of my picture without permission demands a response, and I am, of course, pursuing legal action."
But it wasn't actually him.
|"I am, of course, pursuing legal action." OF COURSE YOU ARE!|
I'm guessing the presumptuously offended party was seeing dollar signs and fame. No such luck! Because after he bitched, the adults got involved. Again, from the article:
So in the end our creative director...wrote to Getty Images and said, "Look, we have an angry reader who doesn't like the way we used this photo. Could you check that you know that he signed a model release and the license is all in order?
They have a team that deals with legal complaints and they went into their archive and checked the details and they came back to us and they said, "Actually, the model in this photo does not have the same name as the person who wrote to you."
But hey, thanks for confirming the point the article was making in the first place. Dumbass. By the way, nonconforming in the same way = conforming. Deal with it.
"If you want to be one of the non-conformists, all you have
to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do..."