Thoughts

How many of my photos were stolen?

For the moment, this is a rhetorical question. I’ve been re-thinking the way I publish my photos online in view of the recent and very prominent theft of Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir‘s photos from Flickr. Call me naive, but I really believed, and still would like to believe, that people will wish to stay legal and pay for the right to use my photos, especially for commercial purposes. That’s why I’ve been publishing my photos at full resolution. I wanted folks who weren’t able to pay (developing countries, for instance), or only wanted a nice desktop background, to be able to download a photo of mine and enjoy it without financial obstacles.

But I talked with my brother this morning, and he told me some things that made me think twice about my approach. He’s a professor at a university in Transylvania (Romania), and he does a lot of field research in ethnology and religion. He takes a lot of photos, and shoots a lot of video. When people ask him for copies of his work, he’s very nice about it and does so, hoping they’ll respect his academic work and cite him or ask for his permission when they use it. But he’s been finding out that they don’t. They’ll reuse his photos and his videos, and he won’t hear about it until he sees his work somewhere else. Just recently, someone entered one of his videos in a contest as their own creation, and he found out about it only after that person won. It was very disheartening. He’s now thinking of watermarking both his videos and photos, and of only publishing lower resolution copies on the Internet. He’s tired of constant theft and no attribution.

So I had to ask myself: how many of my photos have already been stolen? I haven’t yet heard of or seen a particular instance, but I also haven’t really looked around to see. It’s probably just a matter of time before I start finding my work in someone else’s portfolio, website or printed materials. When you combine high-resolution photos with people that have no respect whatsoever for someone else’s hard work, you’re asking for trouble. As much as I’d like to believe otherwise, good people, those that respect other people’s property, are few and far between, and it’s best not to tempt the thieves or uneducated ones by making good photos easily available.

I’ve taken some steps already. I used to upload to Flickr at full resolution. Not anymore. Since they offered Rebekkah no help whatsoever, and even deleted the photo where she complained of image theft, along with the thousands of comments that she received there, I’ve lost respect for them. If that’s how they’re going to treat one of their best users, then I sincerely hope they get what’s coming to them, and I hope it’s a wallop.

I may also start to watermark my images. As much as I hate this (it uglifies an image, imo), I’ll do it, just to make it harder to pass my photos around without crediting them properly. I may also start to copyright my photography with the Library of Congress, and pursue damages to the full letter of the law (up to $150,000 per incident).

Finally, I may also stop uploading at full res to Zooomr. I keep waiting for them to push out the Mark III upgrade, and it seems that every time Kris is ready to do it, something happens to stop it. This week was the third time the promised upgrade didn’t materialize, and I’m pretty disappointed. Mark III is supposed to have this really nice image theft prevention built in, so I could continue to upload a full res, but restrict the sizes available to casual visitors or even my contacts at certain resolutions, and only make the full res size available to buyers. But if Mark III doesn’t show up any time soon — and since Zooomr has no photo replace feature like Flickr — I may just delete all of my photos, or make them all private. I do not want to see my hard work go to waste.

It’s a real shame that we can’t function equitably as a society, at the local, state, national or global level. If only everyone would respect other people’s property (physical or intellectual), things would work a lot better. One would think the concept of property has been around long enough for most people and cultures to grasp it…

Standard
Thoughts

The urge to splurge

I really like this photo I got with the E-500. It’s a statement about the American lifestyle, don’t you think?

Urge to splurge

Standard
Thoughts

Beauty redefined?

I received an email from JPG Magazine yesterday, where I’m a registered user. Apparently they’re putting photos together for a new theme, called Beauty Redefined. Quoting from their email:

“Every generation redefines what is beautiful, but ours has taken it to a whole new level. This theme invites you to throw out traditional notions of beauty and start over from scratch, redefining beauty for yourself. This theme is sponsored by SuicideGirls. SuicideGirls mixes the smarts, enthusiasm and DIY attitude of the best music and alternative culture sites with an unapologetic, grassroots approach to sexuality.”

Call me conservative, call me traditional, call me what you will, but I didn’t know immoral women posting naked photos of themselves on the internet is the new beauty standard. I thought that was called porn. But hey, what do I know, I’m only 30 years old and I’m happily married, right? I’m not “with the times”, whatever that means. This message from JPG Magazine really rubbed me the wrong way. Whether these girls realize it or not, when they post their provocative photos on the internet, they open themselves to all sorts of unwelcome treatment. Not only do they lose any sort of expectation of privacy, (since everyone’s seen just about everything they’ve got, and will automatically picture them naked when they see them,) but they attract ridicule and name-calling as well. Be honest, what would your parents or elders call a girl like that? I’ve heard words like slut and hussy before, and I doubt I’m alone in this. If you weren’t drooling over the photos and were in a healthy, committed relationship, what would you call them? I think the term misguided applies very well. Instead of baring their bodies to their lovers, in privacy, they bare them for every moron that’s out there.

Generally speaking, it’s bothersome to me that all kinds of subversive ideas like this are getting pushed around these days. Whatever happened to healthy, loving relationships? Whatever happened to common decency? How about NOT posting naked pictures of ourselves on the internet? What exactly is wrong with covering up our private parts, and only letting our spouses see our naked bodies? And what about NOT piercing various parts of our bodies, including the nether regions, or tattooing every spare inch of skin? Or what about NOT sleeping around? How about waiting for the right person?

But no, in our stupid quest for the extreme, for the fringe, for the alternative, we have to torture our bodies by piercing and tattooing them in all sorts of stupid places, we have to somehow keep an open mind to all the trash that’s out there, we should accept abusive, disrespectful or non-standard relationships as the norm — for example, “open marriage” is probably the biggest oxymoron I’ve ever heard.

Well, if the immoral, the fringe and the bizarre is the new beauty, I want none of it. I’ll stick with the tried and true classics, thank you very much.

Standard
Places

Photos from Rome

In March of 1999 I visited Rome. It was my first trip to Italy and I had a wonderful time. I stayed with my brother, who at the time was on a 3-year fellowship there to do research. He studies myths and religions and does comparisons between deities in various cultures. He also collects folklore: dying traditions and customs. Takes lots of photographs and films them as well. The latter part of his work is exciting. The former puts me to bed. Mille scusi, fratello!

Il mio fratello

Anyway, I had the most wonderful time. Bogdan (my step-brother — he’s pictured above) had his nose buried in dusty books at various libraries in Rome, while I literally walked through the entire Rome on foot, taking photos with my trusty little Canon Elph and consulting the map here and there. The Canon has since become unusable, because APS film is no longer available, but it did help me preserve the wonderful things I saw. Over the years, the photos gathered some dust themselves in my closet, till I finally decided to scan and share them online. Since I don’t have a scanner that will work with APS film, I scanned the photos themselves. I realize that’s a real step down in quality, and given the age of the prints, it really shows, but the digitized photos still serve to convey the beauty and history of the place. Plus, the aged paper gave a nice Sepia effect to the photos that I’d be hard pressed to reproduce in Photoshop.

While I really enjoyed Rome, my experiences with Romans were mixed at best. And I had breathing problems there as well, due to the pollution. But none of that could eclipse the sense of wonder and discovery I had every day as I planned out where I’d go, then get there and take photos. Maybe I’m biased, but I find today’s architecture pathetic. It’s disposable, ugly, flimsy and imitative. Few and far between are the buildings that make a statement. Well, in Rome, as in most European cities, you’ll have no shortage of good architecture. I think that’s what makes them so beautiful.

Here are several of the photos I took during my trip.

Bask in the sun

Walk at night

Classically overdone

Farnese

All mixed up

Expansive

Strike a pose

Pantheon

Center of attention

Piazza Venezia

Congregate

The plight of humanity

 

Standard
Reviews

Two Tickets to Broadway (1951)

Two Tickets to Broadway (1951)The story of this movie is simple, and normally bankable: small town girl makes good in big city. This is a story with plenty of room for nice little twists and turns that make a movie worthwhile. However bankable the story is, the movie feels fake all the way through. Granted it’s a musical, and they’re always a little fake, but still, it’s terrible, and I can point exactly to what’s ruining it: the screenplay. Who wrote this pickle of a screenplay, anyway? Yikes! It’s just not grounded, it goes all over the place and tries to do too much. They should have used it for toilet paper instead of filming it.

It’s a shame, too, because the actors were good, and the singing was good, even great at times. Bugsby Berkeley’s choreography was surprisingly toned down, and it sort of fit in with the atmosphere of the movie. I say sort of, because Bugsby’s stuff never really fits in, it always stands out. When he steps into a movie, it changes. Thank goodness there were none of his usually outlandish dance numbers here, although I have to say the American-Indian dance was too weird. It was just insulting, and I bet it wouldn’t get done nowadays, in our more relaxed culture. What were those people thinking when they left that number in?

Things to watch for if you want to kill some time watching this movie: Janet Leigh is great all the way through, Tony Martin sings beautifully, Ann Miller is her usual self, dancing all over the place and baring her long legs as usual, and the reparte between Charles Dale and Joe Smith, as Leo and Harry, the owners of the deli, is just plain funny.

Standard