A responsible island in the wild-wild-west that is the world-wide-web
Today was an interesting day. I spent the morning with an electron microscope, the afternoon with an ambassador, and this evening with a Member of Congress. I am currently sitting in the lobby of a hotel that is far more expensive than I can afford, crafting this missive. What prompts me to write today? Oh, the world-wide-web. Yes, that wild-wild-west of the photographic landscape, where people with pictures are under the impression that the fact that they have a JPEG means they can put the photos on Flickr, MySpace, or their own company website. Oh, so wrong.
I experienced something interesting – and responsible – by a congressional staffer today. He was tasked with taking photos of the congressman for their website, and what was he doing? Collecting signatures on a “web release form” of every person that he photographed.
Wow.
For years, I’ve been espousing this issue. In fact, I’ve been doing it so long that the graphics on that web page are from my site two iterations ago. My explanation, which is a part of EVERY estimate I send to clients, can be seen here: www.JohnHarrington.com/about-the-web
Many of my clients just don’t understand this. They think that they can put whatever they want on the web. They do not understand that the web – especially a company’s website – is just like a printed brochure or corporate sales sheet, and everyone appearing in images there must have releases, or they are at risk of a claim.
When clients just insist, saying they are sure it’s ok, I, not wanting to stand between me and an assignment, but wishing to protect myself from legal risk, send out a form which they are required to sign as a part of the contract/estimate we send.
They are sent a one page document titled:
"This is an agreement between {my name/address} and {company name/address} regarding the assumption of risk and liability for any claims arising out of the use or misuse of photography by client. Client understands that Photographer has advised them that the use of photographs on internet or intranet web-sites may require releases from recognizable individuals who appear in the photographs.I sign at the bottom, and they sign below this sentence:
Client hereby accepts all liability and risk involved in using photographs created by Photographer on their web-site, for which no releases from individuals exist. In the event of a legal claim regarding the use of the images Photographer has created for
Client, Client hereby indemnifies and holds Photographer harmless against any and all liabilities, claims, and expenses, including reasonable attorney s fees, arising from its use or misuse of any of Photographer's work created for Client. Client assumes insurer's liability for all loss, damage, or misuse of any photographs.”
"I, Client, also hereby state that I have full authority to enter into this agreement, and be bound to these terms."I have sent this out since 1999 a handful of times, less than 50 to be sure. Almost all of my clients, upon consultation with their legal department, acknowledge my points, and don’t sign, and don’t put the photos on the web. Many of them thank me for the insights they had not had before.The remaining few? They sign the document, and I feel safe(r) being protected.
I have one client that knows about the form, and has returned more than once asking for an estimate, AND the above form, which they sign.
It was, however, good to see that other responsible people are out there ensuring that they too are not subjecting themselves to potential legal claims down the line.
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.
On the road to that little state called Rhode Island. Next Thursday (March 8th & 9th) marks my sixth time presenting at the 
Many a time I've been heading into a client's office for a meeting, and stepped on the elevator with one or two other folks. On the ride up, I was concious that, maybe one or two of the other folks I am in the elevator with may end up being in the meeting with me, so I'd better not say anything that would put me in a poor light. My tie better be adjusted, or I shouldn't be finishing a donut or soda while heading skyward.
Ok, so, just as I hate it that people are stealing Microsoft's Windows, and Adobe Photoshop, I too get upset when the Galactic Empire's IP gets (allegedly) stolen. Worse yet, it's by an organization I really admire -- 
If that's the case though, then why is this now the article? It's the same article, but the photo has been removed entirely, not replaced with a non-watermarked one.
On the heals of that photograph however, comes a bit of history. A search of The Consumerist yields 
From our friends at the Coloradoan.com, comes this little insight:
When you're taking your laptop (or, maybe desktop for a big shoot) on location to an assignment, what does your desktop look like? Is it professional? Helpful?
I'm headed to Chi-town! The last time I was in Chicago it was for a guerilla-style photo shoot along the shoreline, no permits, no plan (as the client dictated), and, at one point, no subject! (ask me about that at the presentation.) I am looking forward to my trek there to talk business with a bit more advance planning! Each time I gather with a group of people who are so focused on growing their knowledge about the somewhat confusing side of the business of photography, I get excited. If you've got a copy of my book, and feel it'll be worth more when you sell it on e-bay with my signature, bring it down and I'll be happy to sign it, as it's not for sale there.
So, how many times have you had a client call to say "the color is too dark", "to pink", or they otherwise object to how it looks on their screen? 
If you''ve ever seen a non-flatpanel (i.e. old school screen type) where you can see that something's been displayed on the screen for a very long time, that's called screen burn in, and is a demonstration of the fact that the screen's phosphors age and wear out. That is why screen savers were invented - literally, to save the screen from constantly displaying one image, thus causing that image to burn into the screen. Where items and objects move (like the flying toasters, or the manufacturers logo) the burn won't happen. On an LCD screen, there is much less likeliness that you'll get screen burn, what you usually get is " temporary image persistence", meaning that the image looks like it's burned in, but most of the time, it goes away after a short period of time. A typical LCD lifespan is 50,000 hours of use compared to 15000 to 25000 for a CRT. Lifespan, however, is referring to when it will no longer function, not when it can no longer be calibrated. I would submit that those figures are about half of the above numbers. So, for a CRT, where someone has their computer on 10 hours a day, that's about 2.8 years on the short end, and when left on continuously, that's a lifespan of less than 1 year. For the LCD, at half-life, that's 2.85 years before you can expect your LCD to fail.
Lastly, if you've ever walked into a Circuit City or Best Buy, and looked at a wall full of monitors, displaying the same image, but some looking better than others, while brand can be a point, the more germaine point is that none of the monitors were adjusted and calibrated to look their best, they were unboxed, and plugged in. Further, I've heard of sales managers going in and making the "on sale" monitor look it's best by making adjustments to the color/sharpness and so on causing the buying public to gravitate to the one on sale. The point is, you must calibrate your monitor using the 
calibrators so that you have set your monitor to a known industry standard scale. Once you've done that, whatever you deliver, will be independantly "perfect", and when someone looks at the image on a non-calibrated monitor, you will have some ground to stand on, and a review of the image(s) on the monitor in the clients' art or graphics departments (where hopefully they are calibrated) will alleviate your clients' concerns.
Back in the free-wheeling days of the early 80's, drug use was rampant. It was, however, much more intense (and deadly) than that of the 60's, where it was free-love and pot, with the occasional 'shroom and LSD for the heavy. Cocaine, Heroin, Speed, Crank, Meth, and so forth and so on, were the problems that lead Nancy Reagan to launch her "Just Say No" campaign, 
and it really was a black and white issue. Even McGruff the Crime Dog was roped into the effort. It wasn't "don't drink and drive", "don't smoke a joint and then use heavy equipment." There was no grey area, no refuge where, if the circumstances were right, drug use was okay. It was clinical fact that using drugs detroyed - forever - brain cells.
The Advertising Photographers of America even jumped into the fray, when ad agencies tried to secure photography for their campaigns on spec. A revolt lead many of the prestigious agencies to stop asking for spec work, yet this still pops it's head up from time to time.