For those of you who didn't make the trip to DC to make photographs of the "big day", and who likely enjoyed it from the warm and toasty comfort of your own home, skipping the frigid weather and long hours, here's your chance to see it up-close and personal.
Photographer David Bergman posted his 1,474MP panoramic image on his blog, in an article - How I Made a 1,474-Megapixel Photo During President Obama’s Inaugural Address, and it's well worth a view. In it, It's so detailed that I can see myself all the way across the podium area, with my multi-camera setup (more on that in Part 2), and you can see that I'm not wearing a hat, it's that sharp.
During the event, I went around and did several interviews of people, and I wish I had known about Berman's project, as I would have tried to make it up to his position, except I might have been thwarted because I didn't have the right overlay. Part 3 of the wrap-up will have those interviews.
(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.
Scott Andrews, who, or about two decades, worked for Nikon in their professional services division helping photographers do their jobs, is a respected and amazing photographer in his own right. Today, Scott serves in the same capacity for Canon in their Canon Professional Services division, and is reprising his roll managing the remote cameras setup for the inauguration of President Barak Obama.
Take a few minutes to learn some more about remotes, and Scott.
(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.
Our colleagues over at Photo District News ran an insightful piece "Found: The Photo That Shepard Fairey Use For His Obama Poster, 1/15/09) about how a photograph by Reuters staff photographer Jim Young was alledgedly used to create the derivative work, as noted below: The image above is a well studied look, by Mike Cramer, dissecting the image with before and after (and inbetween) details, and the Philadephia News blog here dissects how this came to be.
The question is though, did Fairey seek permission? Did he need to?
(Continued after the Jump)
So, for the first question - When asked by Photo Business News if Fairey had licensed the right to produce a derivative work from the Reuters image, Reuters North American Director of Photography Gary Hershorn said "The image that certainly has become iconic did so without us knowing he used a Reuters photograph as the basis for the artwork. We learned that yesterday like everyone else."
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Wikipedia here has some good insights into this issue. Fairey says he based it on a Flickr photo, but, to date, he hasn't identified which one. Is that a cover for a willfully deceptive statement because he knew he based it on a Reuters image? Or, was this an "innocent infringement" because someone took the Reuters-owned image, stripped the metadata/credit line, and posted it to Flickr as their own? Herein lies one of the many challenges that Orphan Works will bring about, and, frankly, one that opponents of an expansive Orphan Works bill should be using for such an iconic image. Or, with a democratic Congress, maybe not.
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.
The above photo, captured just over four years ago on a very very cold day in 2004, has served me well. It was a better image than the one I made in the rain in 2000, and I had a better angle than I did in either 1992 or 1996. Next week will be my fifth inaugural, and arguably the most historic. This post is not, however, about politics, it's about preparation.
Today, we spent the day in pre-production. Between phone calls from prospective clients, and the estimates rolling out for February (many people not booking for the 20th are holding off booking much else until after the 20th, it seems), we were organizing gear. My life ceases to be my own at about 8pm on Friday, and it will be mercifully returned to me at about 1am next Wednesday morning.
Today's pre-production was the determination of the gear we will be using for the inauguration. We laid it all out, set it up, and tweaked it, and then tweaked it some more. Six cameras, all connected to one, triggering and pre-focused at the precise point needed at a variety of focal lengths.
Why so many cameras?
(Continued after the Jump)
Because we have approximately 30 seconds to make this historic photo. No chance for a redo on this. So we tested.
Which CF card to use? Which speed? Which speed makes a difference?
How many raw files can we generate in 30 seconds on the chosen card? What if we utilized the two slots in the D3? RAW to one, JPEG to another, how would that impact our performance?
We ran this video over a dozen times: (note - that's not my photo)
We maybe ran it two dozen times, and practiced. (In case you're curious - Bush 41's 32 seconds where his hand is/would be raised is here, and Clinton's approximately 29 seconds from 1996 can be heard here.) We learned that with our fastest UDMA CF card, in 30 seconds, we could produce 38 images on the D3. Yet, if you listen to the swearing in on that audio, the President doesn't speak for that entire time. He's reciting. So, many of those 38 images would be with his mouth closed (as the one I have above shows). I am of the opinion that the image is best when the President is actually speaking - mouth open/moving. So we tested some more. What if we only engaged the camera when the President was speaking? How would that impact the image count?
The answer is - we could capture 26 images made just during the recitation of the oath of office. I concluded that 26 images with words being spoken is better than 38 images overall. Filling the buffer and then waiting for the card to write the images produces these quantities. They are more than enough to select from - I am confident of that.
Tomorrow, we debate which camera gets what lens? The D2x - with its' crop factor can have a 300mm cum 420mm, and the D3 can have the 70-200 with the doubler? The D700 can have the wide? Lots of things to think about. Then we parse out the CF cards to the right cameras.
Yes, we will arrive at the Capitol at 5am. Yes, we will wait there for six hours before the ceremony begins. Yes, it will be freezing cold. Yes, I hope it doesn't rain. Yes, I have good gloves. No, there will be no food stands to feed us. Yes, we will be cramped. So, do I really want to be making all these decisions when I am in those conditions, or in the comfort of my office, when I realize I am short two of the Bogen 145BKT camera mounts, and two inserts for my super clamps, and have to order them from New York, instead of not having them?
We will do all of the above for 30 seconds of photographic opportunity. We have done this planning before (I can shoot an entire roll of 36 exposure film, change it out, and shoot another roll of film all the way through in 30 seconds, I learned in 1996, for example), and we will do it again on our sixth inaugural assignment. Yes, of course we will cover everyone else and everything else, but it will be those 30 seconds that matter most.
Thus, when the clock is ticking, it pays to be prepared. 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.
Lawrence Lessig has some interesting perspectives and ideas about copyright. He's recently written a book - Remix, where he is arguing that it's ok to remix copyright content and not pay the original owners, or allow them to preclude the remix if the copyright owner doesn't like how their work is represented.
In the piece below, Colbert takes Lessig to task - as only Colbert can, on this subject:
1) In the piece, Colbert modifies the title, and ads a graphic to the front page (i.e. a drawing of Snoopy). The exchange goes thusly (in part):
Colbert: OK, so, I could take your book, right here, and just change the "Remix" into "Memix"
Lessig: That's Cool.
Colbert: Ok, and, and then, change it to Stephen Colbert at the bottom, add some value, like, uh, I do a pretty good Snoopy, ok. I'll do that, ok, there's my Snoopy. Ok, so now, my book my work of art. You're cool with that?
Lessig: Ok, put this on ebay, you think this is going to get more than it is on Amazon, right now or less?
Colbert: Oh much more.
Lessig: That's exactly my point. Exactly my point. You have added value to that. Bravo. My praise to you.
Here is where Lessig misses the point - in order to ADD that value, you have to first purchase a copy of the book in order to rename it and add a Snoopy drawing. I suspect Lessig's perspective would be difference if someone re-typed the entire book (or got a copy of the electronic file), added a caricature or two, and renamed it and gave it away for free, or published it themselves for a profit.
2) They, in part, continue:
Colbert: I will be very angry, and possibly litigious, if anyone out there takes this right here, this interview, right here, and remixes it with some great dance beat, and it starts showing up in clubs across america.
Lessig: Actually, we're joint copyright owners, so I'm ok with that. You can totally remix this, I'm fine with it.
Colbert: I do not give you permission.
Lessig: I give you permission.
Colbert: To bad, you've got a lawsuit on your hands, buddy.
Lessig: No, you got a lawsuit.
Colbert: copyright is eternal.
Lessig: copyright is joint for us, its ours together, we're in this together stephen.
Colbert: I want a divorce, I'm remixing this relationship.
Now, I'm pretty familiar with model releases, and personal appearance releases, and they're pretty clear: in exchange for the appearance, Viacom/Comedy Central owns the piece, and Lessig grants all rights to them to do with it what they want. Unless Lessig has re-written the standard Viacom release to allow for his joint ownership of the Copyright to the broadcast, he is mis-informed, and is advising viewers to break the law with incorrect assertions about ownership of the broadcast. The likelihood that Lessig, when talking to the Production Assistant was able to make binding changes to the appearance release, and get it signed off on by Viacom legal, is highly unlikely.
I do agree with Lessig on one thing for certain - Copyright is changing, and we need to evolve, just not in many of the ways Lessig is espousing. 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.
Every four years since 1992 I have had the privilege (and responsibility) of photographing the inauguration of the President of the United States. This year, I've taken some time to document what goes into the assignment, from swearing-in to reviewing stand.
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.
Many people just assume that when a politician running for office speaks, they're saying whatever will appeal to that audience, and that is why you have to look closely at their track record of casting actual votes (or in the case of judges, their actual case history).
As CNET News reported earlier this week (Obama picks RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top Justice post, 1/6/09), Obama's choice for a top position in the US Justice Department is a very pro-IP lawyer, having served as counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
(Continued after the Jump)
In this case, with an initial read of the tea leaves, a signal is being sent that Larry Lessig's "free culture" efforts - that is, a lessening of the strength of copyright laws and punishments, have been dealt a hard blow. Lessig had endorsed Obama, and Google - seen as one of the big proponents of Orphan Works by many - endorsed Obama as well (in the form of their CEO endorsing Obama.) That, however, was when Obama was a candidate. Now, as the President-Elect he is taking a more pro-IP stance.
The CNET piece goes into some great deal about what we can expect from the Obama Administration, and it's well worth a read. As we evolve into the Era of Obama, it seems that the rights of creatives, and other intellectual property rights-holders will gain some traction and re-establish the respect that it once had. We can see this with the sucess of Apple's iTunes store, places like Hulu.com, NetFlix and others for video, bodes well for a proper re-alignment of protections or copyright holders and their assets.
Don't get me wrong - while it looks like the tide is ever-so-slightly pulling back, it could be, as with India's Tsunami, this is the calm before the storm. 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.
We regularily read the gadget blog Gizmodo, along with EnGadget, Consumerist, and countless others. About two years ago, we wrote about how Consumerist just published a Getty Images photo with the watermark - (Getty Infringement, 2/27/07) which, to me, is a sure sign that you didn't download the image with permission. Now, we find that Gizmodo has taken a generic shot of the Las Vegas Convention Center, as a part of their CES coverage, and co-opted one of Jill Greenberg's crying babies images to make an editorial comment about CES -(Gizmodo's Guide to CES, 1/7/09). Note that the comment isn't about Greenberg, so this is highly likely to be an infringement.
(Continued after the Jump)
Note that we did a bit of research and couldn't locate a place where Greenburg's crying baby images were being licensed as stock, and they surely are not a part of a subscription model at any stock agency, so Gizmodo would have had to specifically license the image either through Greenberg, or through wherever they might be individually licensed as stock.
Further, it is reasonable to assume that Greenberg would require photo credit, and further, she would require sign-off on a montage of her images with others, and I am not making a major leap here to believe she wouldn't sign off on the above montage.
This would be where a service like TinEye, PicScout, or others would be of great service in locating infringements of your work, or atleast places where your work appears so you can confirm it's authorized, or not. We showed you how TinEye found one of my images within a montage of others last July (TinEye - Oh My!, 7/18/08). Becoming aware of and comfortable with, image search/recognition technologies will be important, and likely something you should do once a day (if you're doing it manually), or set up a solution to search for your images and report all appearances of your images via e-mails. 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.
With the end of the 110th Congress, all the formal legislative activity that was done regarding Orphan Works is now dead, and a new bill, with new hearings, and new negotiations, with new players, must begin anew. Yes, you can expect the language in the bills on both the House and Senate sides of the process to be the basis for the new legislation, but both have far more pressing issues to contend with.
Every cabinet official and other congressionally confirmed administrative official must make it through the Senate Judiciary Committee, then, all of the appointed judges that were delayed in anticipation of a democratic President must go through the process, so you can expect a very busy Senate schedule as eight years of delayed and lost efforts begin anew for the Democratic Party.
What of the House?
(Continued after the Jump)
In the past session, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, headed up by Chairman Berman of California, handled Orphan Works. It was thought by some that Virginia Congressman Rick Boucher would take over the Chairmanship of the Committee, and by others, that it would be Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York. Instead, the Chaiman, John Conyers, of Michigan, has done away with that subcommittee, and it has been decided that all intellectual property issues will be heard before the full committee, according to a conversation I had today with a Committee staffer, and which was reported by the Washington Post - House Judiciary Chair Conyers Takes Control Of Intellectual Property Issues, 11/13/08.
This means that the issue of Orphan Works must now be fit into the very very busy schedule of the House Judiciary Committee, (including a continued look into the mortgage banking crisis) and all of the needs and wants of those members, as well as the procedural work of all of the other committees. According to GovTrack, "John Conyers has sponsored 191 bills since Jan 5, 1993. of which 159 haven't made it out of committee and 9 were successfully enacted."
The Washington Post article, in discerning how this will affect the owners of intellectual property rights, notes " this one is seen as a win for Hollywood over the consumer electronics industry given that Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va) is perceived as an ally of the latter and might be more sympathetic towards fair use arguments."
So, what's good for protecting the IP of Hollywood suggests a similar slant towards the IP of the music industry and, yes, that of creatives.
"The House Judiciary Committee has unanimously approved the Pro-IP Act, a legislative proposal which aims to impose stronger penalties for copyright infringement. The approval is no surprise, since the bill's chief sponsor is committee chairman Rep. John Conyers."
Further, it was Conyers' bill that created the new position of Copyright Czar (New Intellectual Property Czar Authorized, 10/13/08), and the Pro-IP Act was signed into law on 10/13 by President Bush. The Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review has an interesting series of insights into how this law changes things in a big way - The PRO-IP Act, 11/10/08.
It was believed that the Pro-IP Act and the Orphan Works Act were to be somewhat of a pair of dove-tailed acts cum laws, enhancing significantly IP rights and enforcement options, while freeing up orphaned works in other areas, and that there was a form of a quid-pro-quo amongst the players. The fact that the Pro-IP Act passed, while the Orphan Works Act died in the House, while the House squashed the IP sub-committee that created the Orphan Works House Bill does not sit well with the pro-OW crowd. You can bet that those who were pushing for the OW bill and accepted the Pro-IP bill as a quid-pro quo but who ended up with nothing are none-too-happy about losing the OW battle, and I suspect some feel tricked into allowing the Pro-IP to pass and then not getting their OW bill, so they feel betrayed and will be loaded for bear in the new Congress.
So, a Pro-IP Chairman will be the gate-keeper of Orphan Works in the 111th Congress - certainly much more Pro-IP than Rep. Berman, who was the Orphan Works champion on the committee in the 110th. Things are looking better, but don't count your chickens just yet.
Stay tuned. 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.
As a Washington DC photographer, knowing who the official photographer for the President is (or will be), is a big deal. It's even a bigger deal when the photographer chosen was one of the official photographers for President Reagan. Such is the case as Pete Souza, a friend and colleague, has accepted the offer as White House Photographer for President Obama.
The NPPA's article reporting this cites a very important point - Souza "said he accepted the offer today after...reaching an agreement that the primary function of the White House photography office will be to document Obama's presidency for the sake of history." This point - while nuanced to those who are not photographers, is critical and key from a historical standpoint.
What is being said here, is that the function of the photographer is to document history in the making, and not serve as an arm of the press office. That's not to say that the press office needs won't be exceptionally well fulfilled, but rather, Souza will have the accessibility he needs to record history for generations to come. Following in a long line of photographers who had this approach - David Hume Kennerly, David Valdez, Bob McNeely, and others, making images for the ages, and not the days' news cycle is a remarkable opportunity, and a huge responsibility.
With that, congratulations go out to Pete as we welcome him back to Washington.
(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.
If you are seeing this you may need to upgrade your flash plugin.
Photo Business Forum Flickr Group
Have an idea you'd like me to write about? A question answered? Topic Covered? Click -> E-Mail a Topic Request I can't promise I'll answer everything, but let's see what you're interested in.
For those of you who didn't make the trip to DC to make photographs of the "big day", and who likely enjoyed it from the warm and toasty comfort of your own home, skipping the frigid weather and long hours, here's your chance to see it up-close and personal. 
