Re-Mixing Content

One of the most effective infomercials was the sham-wow sales pitch, with the "are ya following me camera guy" line. Then, the pitchman goes up in flames with press about an incident where the police get involved. So much for his career, right?

Enter the slap-chop product and a new infomercial (here). No doubt, they got this guy for a song, because he was trying to revive his career, and with slap chop the slap chop remix, he has done just that. So the question is - why are we discussing this on Photo Business News?

What originally happened was the copyrighted "slap chop" commercial was re-mixed. From everything I can find, it was remixed without the copyright owners' permission. However, in this case, the re-mix became so popular, the the copyright owner of the commercial decided to make it an official commercial and use it to sell the product (as reported here). You really can't appreciate the talent that went into the remix, until you see the original content he had to work with, (here). Now, here is the mesmerizing result:


More and more, photographers are rightfully standing up for the unauthorized use of their images. However, as copyright evolves, it may be that people re-mix your photography without your permission, and then you like the result even more. Who then owns that copyright? Who then profits from that derivative work?

(Comments, if any, after the Jump)

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Burning Bridges

So, how often have you heard the phrase "don't burn bridges, you never know...." usually followed by some reason for not burning that particular bridge.

The bigger question - the one that should serve as guidance, is - "should I ever burn a bridge?"

The short answer is "no", but that doesn't mean that bridges aren't being burned all around you.

(Continued after the Jump)

The more verbose way of saying "don't burn bridges", is to say "don't take a proactive action where the purpose of that action is to destroy an ongoing interaction pathway between you, and someone else."

This does, however, leave A LOT of wiggle room.

If someone takes an action that torches the bridge you built, there's the possibility that you might nuke it. Consider the client who, when you say to them "if you'd like to use that photograph of so-and-so for an ad campaign, we'll need to discuss an extended rights package and the associated fees for that", says "huh? We own the photo, we're not paying you another dime, and we're doing what we want with it." That blatantly F-U response warrants calling in the lawyers and filing suit. Result? Bridge burned.

What if, however, you observe a fellow photojournalist working for the organization you do staging a news photograph, and your photo editor, knowing you were there, comes to you and says "hey, did Jane Doe set that photo up, or did it just happen spontaneously, like Jane says?" By answering truthfully, you know that Jane might be fired at worse, and at best, she will be angry with you and never speak to, or trust you again because you wouldn't cover for her. Your truthful answer would burn the bridge. I submit that you should speak the truth, and not further the cover-up.

Suppose you are a working photographer and an educator at a local university, and a friend/colleague of yours is being critisized because, for example, they were shooting at a sports event and their actions changed the outcome of the game. For example, a shutter click at a golf tournament, an errant lens on a basketball court in-bounds that trips up a player running down court, or being in the pit and inadvertently interfering with a refueling stop for a driver that penalizes them a few seconds. When your students say "what do you think of the news about Jim Smith messing up that game...", and your saying "well I know Jim, and he's generally a responsible photographer, but he was in the wrong on that one..." and Jim gets wind of it. If he's honest with himself, he will acknowledge he was in the wrong, but more than likely, he won't like that you criticised him.

On the other hand - suppose you overheard some of your peers taking smack about you, or your photography? Should you get sucked in and defend yourself, and in turn, start talking smack about them, either to their face, or behind their back? No. While you can pretend you don't hear what's being said, you can realize that those that are not only talking smack, but more importantly, those in that group that you thought were your friends are not sticking up for you, aren't really your friends. Don't engage, just apply the old adage - keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Frankly, when I have something critical to say of someone, it must be something that I am willing to also say to that person's face. Do I, for example, think there are people who are doing a grave disservice to the photographic profession? Do I think that there are people who are just plain jackasses? Do I think that there are people who talk smack about or to others, and hope that those they are talking smack about don't learn about it? In all three situations, the answer is yes. Also, in all three situations, I would (and in some cases have when the opportunity arose) suggested as much to them.

Do I know that there are people in the photographic community that feel that I have burned my bridges to them? Sure. Yet, during the burning, it was because I stood up for what I believed to be right (and over time, those beliefs have turned out to be truths) despite the easy path being to just say nothing. The measure of a man is not where he stands in times of comfort and ease, but where he stands in times of adversity and challenge. Over time, instead of me recognizing that the bridges were burnt and saying to hell with so-and-so, the smarter path is to just remain silent, and let the other side re-build the bridge. On more than one occasion, that has happened to me.

If the consequences of doing what is right, honest, truthful, and just, is that a bridge is burned, then, so be it. In those instances, it wasn't your actions per se that caused the bridge to be burned, but rather, a consequence of someone doing something wrong, dishonest, deceitful, or unjust.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Behind The Cover - Vogue Magazine

Years ago, I had the opportunity to work with R.J. Cutler when he produced The War Room, and another project. Now, RJ has turned his documentary style on Anna Wintour at Vogue, for an amazing look behind the scenes at what goes into the most important fashion tome of every year, the September Issue of Vogue. Rivaling many cities' entire phone book in size, the best fashion and best fashion photography are showcased every year in this issue. This is a real-life incarnation of The Devil Wears Prada, which was based upon Wintour, and played by Glenn Close. I can't wait to see the movie. Here's the trailer.

(Comments, if any, after the Jump)

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Send In The Clowns

When you don't hire a professional, it's not just your organization that can get a black eye, it's the entire press corps that can. Enter the amateur photographer who arguably caused golfer Ian Poulter to lose the lead-in to the French Open, dashing his chances to win that.

Poulter is quoted, in Sporting Life (Poulter Snaps Over Photographer), as saying "That's what happens when you let novice people come in and ruin our livelihoods. We are playing for world ranking points and I want to move up as high as I can."

Indeed Mr. Poulter, I agree with you.

(Continued after the Jump)

This is not the first time this has happened. In March of 2008 Tiger Woods cited a photographers' camera noise as halting his momentum, and in 2007, golfer John Daly tore a muscle in his abdomen over a camera noise (albeit a fans, in this case) but the list of photographers that are untrained and have an adverse impact on events like golf goes on and on.

Already a very crowded scene with too many photographers covering these events, photographers are going to be pushed farther and farther away. Further, it may not be unreasonable soon to expect that photographers closer than, say, 20 feet, if they are allowed that close at all, will have to use a sound blimp similar to those used on movie sets. (See Jacobsen Sound Blimp video we did awhile back).

Amateurs somehow always worm their way into press pens they don't belong in. Sure signs? A point-and-shoot covering a concert. A person who is admonished not to use their flash during concert photography, and responds - "what do you mean I can't use my flash?!?!" It's a dead giveaway. Someone in a press area during any event that is applauding during a speakers' remarks. These, and many more are sure signs you have an amateur making getting your job done just that much harder.

If you're going to pretend to be the press, don't applaud in the press area. Don't bring a point-and-shoot to a press conference, that's like bringing a knife to a gunfight, and for gods' sake, don't go asking for autographs from the people you are supposed to be there photographing. Lastly, learn when it's appropriate to take a photo, and when it's not, and then stick to it. If you can't figure it out, follow the lead of those around you.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Washington Post Sells Out - More Details

We wrote in Washington Post Sells Out about the dirty little secret of the Post Post (NYSE: WPO) selling access to its' reporters, and to elected and administration officials. The Post today continued their own self-flagelation, in Post Co. Cancels Corporate Dinners.

Well, it appears that the marketing department of the Washington Post, who, as we previously suggested might be considering booking the staff photographers out for non-editorial work, didn't think that the staff photographers' work was good enough for use in the marketing materials promoting the "salon" or to shoot something for it?


Nicely done Washington Post.
So, then, where did they get the image from?

(Continued after the Jump)

It is a royalty-free image from Photodisc, and for under $500 you can get the full disc of 100 images. Here's the image:


There's just something wrong with this picture, and I don't mean the actual image.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Washington Post Sells Out

The Washington Post (NYSE: WPO) continues its' downward turn. Not content to watch their own freefall, they instead turned the nose straight towards the ground and powered the engines to full, accelerating their plummet.

I've photographed my share of "salons" in Washington over the years. Here's how it goes, when it's a pure event: A high profile organizer invites a half-dozen elected officials, a half-dozen administration officials, a half-dozen think-tank policy wonks, and a half-dozen industry lobbyists. The salons are always off the record, and the conversation flows freely, and frankly. In all of these instances, everyone comes away better informed, and, yes, relationships are built.

The problem is, when you take that last half-dozen lobbyists, and condition their "invitation" on a $25k to $250k fee, you create a really really big problem.

Enter The Washington Post.

(Continued after the Jump)

First, with the details and links. Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander, opines in The Post's 'Salon' Plan: A Public Relations Disaster, "For a storied newspaper that cherishes its reputation for ethical purity, this comes pretty close to a public relations disaster" who then goes on to say "The story, accurately reported by Politico (and former Post) reporter Mike Allen, is based on a flier being circulated by a new marketing arm of The Post." The Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth is cited in the Politico article, Washington Post cancels lobbyist event amid uproar, taking the position that "...The Post, which lost $19.5 million in the first quarter, sees bringing together Washington figures as a future revenue source."

Now, listen carefully, as this matter rises to the level of the daily briefing at the White House. (I was there Friday, and happened to watch this exchange between the Press Secretary and the reporters.)


What's next?

How long before Washingtonians can book a Pulitzer-Prize winning photojournalist to photograph their wedding? These photographers have slow days, especially on Saturdays, so why not schedule them for $10k to shoot a wedding? Heck, with the newsroom interventions this salon offer seems to have been making available, it might not be unreasonable that that "standalone art" or "weather feature" hole that needed filling in the paper instead gets filled with a select from that wedding the Post booked for its' under-utilized staff photographer. Heck, they could even book a freelancer, at a day rate of $200 to do it!

What is most remarkable, is that the elected officials and administration officials likely would never have known that they were the literal bait to get the lobbyists to pony up $250k to get their message heard in a "salon" forum. Fortunately, a genuinely honest lobbyist for the health care industry felt it was a conflict of interest, and brought it to Politico's reporting staff.

The flier from the Washington Post, as reported by Politico solicits: "Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate". It then goes on to offer:

"Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."

If that offer isn't selling out, I don't know what is. And you don't think they wouldn't consider selling out the photo staff too? Don't be so sure.

---

Related: Washington Post Sells Out - More Details

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Weighing One Against The Other

Martin Luther King Jr. once famously said "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." But, how do you measure and weigh the good and the bad that one has contributed in weighing whether or not you have respect for them?

The timely example (we'll get to more specific ones in a minute), is to judge Michael Jackson. Now, he has met his maker, and been judged where it matters most. However, where does he stack up in ones' own heart and mind? The easy comparison is to pit his music against the allegations and resulting settlements for his 'issues'. Yet, that does not factor in the good he did for charities, nor the odd manner in which he raised his children. The pendulum swings back and forth, and I could go on with hundreds of pluses and minuses. Thus, you get the point. Measure and celebrate just his music, and you have a hands-down showcase for any number of musical halls of fame. Add in other issues, and the matter gets decidedly cloudy.

While we don't have unions, per se, how do you qualify a "scab" in the world of photography? And, when you do, is it okay to break bread with them and play nicey-nice? What would a reader of this column surmise if they witnessed me having lunch with the greatest proponent of work-made-for-hire, or microstock? I don't know if any one individual or company fits that bill, but what would a reader think?

(Continued after the Jump)

Without knowing the topics of conversation, it would be hard to draw a thoughtful conclusion. Suppose, I was trying very hard to convince them to step away from the dark side? Sometimes, these types of conversations are incremental, or relationship building. Successes can be measured in inches, and are sometimes imperceptible to the untrained eye. The President, regardless of administration, meets with other world leaders to find places of agreement, not to argue (at least not at first) over matters of disagreement.

What, however, would be your reaction if a friend did a job you had turned down, because it was a work-made-for-hire job, or a $1k job that paid $100? And, if this same friend seemingly was echoing your anti-WMFH attitude, but you knew they had signed a WMFH contract to do that job, how would you react? Does your personal friendship survive and your business discourse with them get short circuited?

If, for example, Time Magazine had named Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden Person of the Year, would you cancel your subscription? Was American Photo's celebration of the work of Robert Maplethorpe (a long time ago) enough to get people to cancel their subscriptions? When news outlets get metaphorically 'spanked' by fake news (like the fake reports of George Clooney's death) does the mindset "you reap what you sow" enter into the equation?

As newspapers begin to actually rely on 'citizen journalists' for their content, over their journalistically trained professionals, will you accept the occasional assignment from them and lend your credibility to the publication, knowing that it adds to the credibility of the free 'citizen journalist' content? What if you got sent out to do the cover assignments for the publication every issue, but all the inside pages were filled with 'citizen journalism' and the frequent bad image, would you associate yourself with that?

Lots of questions here, what do you think?

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

On Failure, and Becoming Legendary

Michael Jordan, on failure:


Michael Jordan, on becoming legendary:

(Continued after the Jump)

How committed are you to being a photographer?

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

Washington Post Fakes Own Front Page For Profit

The Washington Post, (NYSE: WPO) which normally sells reprints of past editions from major news stories for keepsake purposes, has stooped to a new low, faking a cover to cash in on Jackson's death. To make matters even more absurd, Matt Schudel, in his article "Michael Jackson Obit, the Backstory" writes of the Jackson obit "...we had no advance obituary prepared." Really? The King of Pop, whom you deem worthy of a $249 framed "commemorative" issue of, had no advance obit of Jackson? Since Jackson, at the age of 50, was not expected to die anytime soon, despite many reports of health irregularities over the years, it's little surprise that an over-worked and under-staffed newspaper would not focus on preparing an obit, given the numerous rounds of staff reductions in recent times.

The fake cover - that is - it's not an actual cover from the newspaper the day Jackson died - can be had in a framed version for as much as $249.95.

(Continued after the Jump)

Here's the actual cover (with thanks to the Newseum, viewable here too), with a small piece at the top, which refers to Jackson as an "Object of Acclaim, Curiosity", which I can only guess doesn't make for much of a resale piece. (Click at right to see it larger and read it for yourself.)

Below is a screen grab of the Post store (viewable live here):


The Post should think twice about faking it's front page - re-writing history from its' actual front page to one that they can sell "commemorative" copies of.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]

NY Times' AME McNally 'We Apologize' Over Infringement Suggestion

In a Q&A interview, titled "Talk to the Newsroom", New York Times Assistant Managing Editor for Photography, Michelle McNally issued an apology for freelance writer Sonia Zjawinski's unencumbered advice to use Flickr's photographs for interior decorating, not providing any suggestion that the potential user confirm the photographer has granted those rights. (New York Times Advocating Copyright Infringement?, 6/26/09). When asked during the Q&A by Rod Irvine:

Q. Do you endorse the view of Sonia Zjawinski that it is perfectly acceptable to steal copyrighted images from the Internet? Do you think it's a good idea for The New York Times to seemingly endorse such views by publishing them? Or do you think it is as disgusting and outrageous as I do?

McNally responded:

(Continued after the Jump)

A. I have received a number of queries about Ms. Zjawinski's recent post on Gadgetwise, a New York Times blog about personal technology, in which she discussed downloading and printing Flickr images for use as home décor. Here is where The Times stands on the issues that have been raised about the post:

We are strong proponents of copyright protection. The New York Times does not endorse, nor is it our policy to engage in, the infringement of copyrighted work. We apologize for any suggestion to the contrary.

Interestingly, this was the last question on the last page of the Q&A, seemingly buried at the end of the discourse. In a sense, like corporations or government officials putting out bad news late on a Friday afternoon, where it will be missed by many. What is also interesting, is that McNally does her darnedest to differentiate "The New York Times", as was inquired about in the question, when she refers to the piece by Zjawinski, under the masthead of the The New York Times as being "...on Gadgetwise, a New York Times blog about personal technology..." as if to say the blog isn't really the Times.

---

With thanks to Tampa photographer James Broome for the heads up on this in the comments of the original post.

---

Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

[More: Full Post and Comments]