livebooks blog

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.

Citizen journalist Janis Krums tweeted this photo minutes after a plane crashed into the Hudson River in January.

I came upon this story and this one the week the plane crashed into the Hudson River. The pictures are solid. As a professional photographer, I might have done a bit better, but I wasn’t there. Which got me thinking about what I would have done if I was. Typically, I would have used my upscale point-and-shoot camera, and then contacted whomever I could get a hold of at the whatever paper or magazine to transmit the image and get a quick sale. A sale that would probably yield anywhere in the range of a $100 to $1,000 — if I got the sale at all.

The competition would be a phalanx of mobile phone shooters all calling the tip lines of all the same publications as me. The photo editor would choose the first “solid” image to come across his or her computer screen in mad dash to scoop all the other publications and blogs.

Now think about a different set of priorities applied to the same scenario. I shoot a quality image, better than the mobile phone shooters, and upload it up to my photography branded twitter stream or blog. The fact that I call myself a photographer in these two internet mediums will already give me a splash of credibility. The subject matter of the photos will guarantee swift dissemination and trackbacks to my site. The trade off for the exposure to my web site is worth more than the money.

Lastly, think long and hard about being a gear snob. A photographer is defined by his or her ability, not by the gear he or she owns. Ultimately I think I would shoot my first few images with my iPhone and send them to the email account that automatically publishes posts to my blog, or I would send them to my Twitter account. Then I would shoot other images with my point and shoot. I’d start calling editors and point them to my blog or Twitter account.

The resolution required for a reasonable reproduction on the internet requires little more than an iPhone camera. It’s not ideal, and it certainly goes against the quality instinct of every shooter out there, but that’s not the point anymore. The world has changed and in these journalistic situations expediency is king. As skilled photographers that might find ourselves in the right place at the right time, understanding and adapting to the new world rather than complaining about it is the best way to get more notoriety.