Last minute shoot

Sometimes we get assignments/jobs at the last minute. ( I am not a daily newspaper journalist, I know they deal with this all the time...) But as a magazine features/commercial photographer, I usually have some lead time.

My girlfriend is a makeup artist. And one of her clients has a client that needs a hand model (did ya follow that?) So they called her and asked to see a shot of her hands asap! The shoot is in a few days and the client of the client needs to see hand samples. She asked: "Who has professional photos of their hands just lying around?!"

That is where I come in. So we got right to it. Very simple lighting. Pop a few shots. Then up to my office for a few minutes in Adobe LightRoom. Her client needed this photo with in half an hour of asking for it.

So here is what we came up with.

More Copyright infringment cases

First up is this case, it is SOO blatant it is ridiculous. But here it is a sculptor infringing on a photographer's copyright, in contrast to last weeks post.

Then there is this story. A photograph of a celebrity taken for People magazine, and some how American greetings got their hands on the image to make a card out of it! Take a look at the articles for the full stories.

I hope the photographers, in both cases, receive maximum compensation that is appropriate for each.

Infringment, or Fair use?

I came across this story twice on Twitter today:

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/02/03/public-art-lands-photog-in-hot-water/

The article pertains to whether or not photographer, Mike Hipple ,infringed on the copyright of sculptor, Jack Mackie , when he created this photograph:


Mr Hipple, created this photo and licensed it for sale as a stock image; to reap financial/commercial gain. Here and Here are links to see part of the original work.

I think Mr. Hipple's photo shows enough of the original work to leave no doubt as to where the subjects are standing. As a matter of fact, Mr. Mackie's work is integral to the compositional success of this particular photo.

Within copyright law there is room for another person to use part of an artists work for several reasons. Here is a clip from the US governments website of Title 17, copyright law:

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. (emphasis mine)Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"

So, did Mr. Hipple infringe upon Mr. Mackie's copyright? Only a court of law can determine this. Matter of fact here is another quote from the copyright site:

"The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. "

However, from my perspective, I think Mr. Hipple did in fact infringe. I am sorry Mr. Hipple. Here is an excerpt of what Mr Hipple has to say about the suit:

"Think of it this way: if Mr. Mackie is correct and this isn’t fair use, then he can file a $60,000 law suit against anyone who, when strolling along Capitol Hill, thinks the dance steps are nice and takes a photo or video. He may not find you if you just leave the image on your camera or computer, but as soon as you post it to Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, etc., he can (and apparently will) sue you."

I believe the above statement is wrong. If you are a tourist, taking photos of cool art you see while on vacation, and not trying to sell said photos for profit, but only sharing with your friends on Facebook, etc. then you are not infringing on copyright. The minute you try to make a commercial gain from someone else's work you are in trouble.

One more part of copyright law to consider is derivative works. Here is a bit of info about how a new work might be considered derivative or not:

"A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable."

-From: US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works

According to the above it does not appear, to me, that Mr. Hipple's work can be considered a Derivative work that is independently copyrightable.

The Law Suit

Mr. Mackie first contacted the stock agency that held the image. The agency agreed with him, removed the work and gave him a settlement. Mr. Mackie made his claim of infringement known, and the stock agency complied and gave him money. I believe that his further law suit against Mr. Hipple is now just frivolous.

As a professional photographer I am not sure how I want this case decided. On the one hand, I can sympathize with Mr Mackie. Why? Because I would not want to be in his shoes. If someone created work for commercial gain based on my images, I'd be pissed.

However, I may side with Mr. Hipple for two reasons. 1)I can't stand frivolous law suits. As stated above, Mr Mackie already received financial compensation. 2)How would this play out, if Mr. Mackie does win, for taking professional photos in public places. All public art and buildings might become off limits.

I did some research here to support my feelings, and I may change them as the case moves forward. But as of now I think they are both in the wrong to some degree.

So what do you think?

Site changes in store

I know, I know. I've said this before... I'm making changes to my site. Seems like every 2 years I'm saying the same thing.

Well, I've been self publishing my own site for years now. One of the many hats that must be worn as a self employed photographer. As I have come to learn, true success needs focus. And to focus one must delegate tasks to others who are better suited to them.

One of these tasks I am giving up control of is website design. I am deciding between two hosted solutions, and will have a decision made within a week. Shortly there after going live.

So, keep your eyes tuned in for these changes. When this is done, my site should look more polished and be updated more often. I also hope to have my blog published under the sites domain to keep everything together.

Speaking of the blog: I plan on setting aside time to work on it more frequently. Here's to good intentions.

Show at Oyster Mill Playhouse

I currently have some prints hanging in the lobby of Oyster Mill Playhouse. They recently completed some renovations to the space and I had the honor of being the first artist to show in the new digs.

Over the last 2 decades I have had work in dozens of shows locally. And each and every time I went with shots that were close to my heart. I decided with this exhibit to show pieces that may have a more commercial appeal to them. By that I mean images that will, hopefully, appeal to the art buying audience in this area.

This selection was based on images that recently sold well in other shows.

Here are a few of the shots in the show. I encourage everyone to go to Oyster Mill to see them in person, and maybe even take in the show that is currently running, "A Shot in the Dark".

Thanks

Street Photography

What photographer, at some point in time, hasn't shot on the street? There is a freedom that comes from not having any other motivation than to capture the Decisive Moment. A rush of adrenaline from the hunt. The sense of danger that is associated with fear. Fear of intimately photographing strangers, fear of the stranger detecting my voyeuristic lens.

When shooting images on the street I think it is important to remember to be respectful of the people at which you are pointing your camera. We can capture people in their daily lives, and even in moments of tragedy while still being respectful.

These 2 images came from a trip to Manhattan back in August '09, while walking through Central Park.

Haiti Relief, Loose Print Sale

2009 was a tough year, all over the world. And like so many other people I have been moved to help the relief efforts in Haiti. The easiest way, for most of us, is to donate to an organization like the Red Cross.

During the last 10 months I have had images in 5 exhibits. And after each exhibit closed I took some framed prints back home. Each of these images have been removed from their mats and frames, they are "Loose" prints.

I am offering these loose prints for sale and donating 50% of the proceeds to the Red Cross. There are limited quantities of each print and size. As you click through to the full size preview of each you will see a table of sizes available for that image. From there select the appropriate paypal button below the image. I will update each image's remaining quantity as they sell.

I have priced these images at discounted rates and am offering free shipping in the USA. Thank you for considering a purchase. And remember, 50% of your purchase price is tax deductible.

Click HERE to visit the site.