Take a few minutes to learn some more about remotes, and Scott.
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?
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.
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?
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:
Colbert: OK, so, I could take your book, right here, and just change the "Remix" into "Memix"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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Related links:
Behind the Scenes at the State of the Union, 2008
Behind the Scenes - John McCain's Virginia Win, 2008
