livebooks blog

When blogs swipe your images, you might get more than traffic coming back to you. ©Lou Lesko

For the last year and a half I’ve been enthusiastically pushing photographers to let their images get swiped for non-advertising online use as long as there is an attribution link back to their site. I anticipate blogs rapidly becoming the main sources for news online, so the more exposure blogs swiping your images get, the more exposure your work will get via attribution. What I didn’t consider initially is the potential guilt-by-association factor if your image is used with a bogus or inflammatory blog post.

There has been a rise in criticism of high profile blogs posting stories that violate expected ethical considerations in the past few months. Popular blogs that have risen to the top through marketing and hiring good writers who are assumed to adhere to a journalistic code of ethics. However, unless stated specifically, there may be no ethics involved at all. And to be fair, even blogs that do subscribe to an ethics code can get it wrong. Blogging is still a young medium — these issues will eventually be resolved but right now they’re still being worked out.

My concern is that a swipe of one of my images could result in my name being associated with a blog post with which I have moral or ethical conflict. I know I can’t have have it both ways. I can’t pray for link exposure and then get pissy when I get it because I don’t like the blog that gave it to me. That’s like lobbying National Geographic for a foreign photo assignment in Russia, then pouting because they send you in the dead of winter.

What are your thoughts? If a blog whose content you disagree with ran an image of yours with a highly contentious story, but you got a lot of exposure, would you be upset, maybe even contact them to have your image removed? Or would you be thrilled to have your online presence elevated because of the huge click-through rate to your site?

• The Fairey/AP lawsuit saga drags on. Last week, the Center for Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford University filed suit against the AP on Fairey’s behalf. Now the CIS is asking the public to send examples of photos that are “like” the Mannie Garcia photo, we assume to prove that Fairey’s image didn’t necessarily come from that one specific photo. For more from Fairey’s side of argument, head over to the New York Public Library (NYPL) on February 26 for a discussion with CIS founder Lawrence Lessig, Shepard Fairey, and author Steven Johnson. The event is jointly sponsored by NYPL and Wired Magazine. Tickets are on sale here. (via Boing Boing)

• Magnum Photos is now accepting submissions for 2009 membership. As you’ve probably heard, Magnum is open for submissions only once a year. And only a talented few, and sometimes none at all, are invited as nominee members. If you’re looking for some inspiration, check out last year’s nominees: Peter van Agtmael and Olivia Arthur. Submission deadline is May 31, 2009.

• Northern Short Course (NSC) McLean, VA is fast approaching, on March 19 – 21. And so is the deadline for its Still Photography and Multimedia Contest. To make things easier for everybody, this year the NSC is accepting all entries electronically, due by February 27, 2009. In addition to more than 20 workshops, The NSC also offers bonus portfolio review sessions in the evenings.

What a difference a day — and 175 million pissed-off users — can make. Yesterday, news circulated that Facebook had changed its Terms of Use to say that even if you delete your account, Facebook still had the right to use the content you uploaded. Facebook would access this content from an archive of your account that is created as soon as you sign up for the first time. This morning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg backed down from his Terms of Use change amid a torrent of outrage from just about everyone who has a voice on the internet. However, the intent behind Mr. Zuckerberg’s terms change may not be as nefarious as you think.

When you sign up for a Facebook account you’re asked to agree to a set of terms governing you and Facebook. It’s that long scrolling text with the I Agree button at the bottom of it. The part of that agreement governing usage of your content, including your photography, gives Facebook the right to do whatever they want with your images. The reason they need such broad rights is so you can share your photos with your friends. Sharing images on Facebook is not like going to someone’s house and showing your portfolio. Facebook is displaying your content in an electronic venue that they own so your friends can have access to it. They can’t do that without permission from you.

The reason for the much maligned changes to the Terms of Use was to keep the links to your shared material active even after you scram from your account. Otherwise your friends are left with a bunch of blank holes where your pictures once existed on their accounts.

The truth about sharing anything on the internet is, once you do, it’s gone. You will have lost control over its web existence forever. It is futile to argue the fairness of this because the web is the web, and to partake it its vast reach and freedom, you must accept the previously stated truth. Kara Swisher has made this point in more detail and I agree with her completely, especially as it regards social networks such as Facebook.

This doesn’t mean that Mr. Zuckerberg is without guilt. Facebook has a dreadful record for disrespecting its users privacy. Indeed, Mr. Zuckerberg’s attempt to change the Terms of Use this last time did not give users who signed up under the original terms an opportunity to opt out and cancel their accounts before the change took place. They just woke up and found themselves bound by a new set of rules. That’s just wrong.

So does this mean you should be an anti-social artists and pray that your friends will email you to say hello since they can’t poke you on Facebook? Oh, heck no. That’s like avoiding a pub to keep from drinking too much. Be smart and you’ll have a lovely time without incurring a hangover. Recognize that anything you place on a social network is no longer yours once you post it. And if you have images that you want share with your friend list, but want to keep away from the Facebook fiefdom, then try something like: “To check out more of my work, please come to my exhibit this weekend or visit my web site at the following URL.”

Every situation you walk into requires a little scrutiny so you can protect yourself and your interests — especially as a photographer. This event at Facebook should not serve as a deterrent from all the fabulous things social networks have to offer. It should serve as the shot of heightened awareness you get after you dodge a bullet. Now you know better. Act appropriately.

Shepard Fairey’s image below has achieved legendary status as one of the most recognizable icons of the now historic Barack Obama presidential campaign. The image above it may become as legendary for being the foundation of a successful copyright infringement suit against one of the most recognizable icons of the Barack Obama presidential campaign. The case for infringement is very strong, but that’s not why I’m pissed off at Shepard Fairey.

Analysis by stevesimula on Flickr of the image by AP photographer Mannie Garcia compared with Shepard Fairey's Obama HOPE poster.

Last year, at the Microsoft Pro Photography Summit, I advocated a policy of letting your online images get swiped for non-advertising use as long as they were accompanied by click-through attribution to your web site. I feel very strongly that there is more value using your images to get exposure on the web versus the money you would earn in selling your photos to blogs and other online entities. This assertion has been heard with differing degrees of shock and appreciation. I have been sure to put my photos where my mouth is with the following paragraph on the “about” page of my website:

“Copyright rules governing the material on this site: As long as you don’t use any of the copyrighted material on this site for advertising purposes or in association with anything illegal, AND you give me attribution in the form of a link back to this site, then grab the goods.”

Before the internet became a quotidian communication medium, Shepard Fairey was a significant figure in the underground art world. However, his huge popularity in the mainstream, especially the popularity of his Obama image, is a direct result of the internet. Acknowledging Mannie Garcia, the photographer who provided the image for his art piece, would have been an extraordinary example of online creative kinship.  The type of creative kinship that fuels the remixing of existing creative works found online, as well as some of the best applications that have ever existed via the open source software movement. (If you’re reading this in a Firefox browser you’re reaping the rewards of this ideal.) Mr. Fairey could have brought Mr. Garcia some significant attention without detracting from his own.

In failing to do so, Mr. Fairey let us all down. He violated the unspoken, inviolate rule of the internet community. Acknowledgment has been expected online community behavior since the pre-browser days of the internet. It is the one continuous thread that makes the evolving internet a successful democracy.

I’m sure Mr. Fairey was totally unaware that his piece was destined for such popularity. I’m also aware that Mr. Fairey is notorious for using his work to challenge established social norms. But the Obama campaign was different. It was one based on change. It offered real hope that the ideals of the rest of us, the public, would finally take precedence over the few with access to power. Mr. Fairey’s failure to recognize the importance of the celebrity of his Obama piece as an endorsement of the true democracy of the internet is a disservice to us all. Especially when one considers how easy it would have been to give credit where credit was due.