Your photo might be in use without permission.

Chris101 said:
Fair use is generally taken to be no more than 10% of a given work. This was the standard we worked with in college education material production. It was usually less than one percent. With a photograph though, severe crops are usually worse than not showing anything at all. So in this case, the standard was no more than 10% of a body of work. For example two pictures of a 20 picture exhibition.

Our district lawyers left us with the (unconfirmed) understanding that this would be defensible in court if it ever came to that. To my knowledge it never has.
Click to expand...




Also, for fair use you clearly attribute the creator of the work. The article being discussed here did not do that.
 
Robert Frank’s photographs are remarkable for a number of reasons. At the time they were one of the first serious attempts to explore gritty real life scenes, giving them originally a novelty and today an historical context and value. But pick any one image, and you can be fairly sure that somewhere hidden in the nightmare flood of online images there will be a contemporary shot that expresses the same idea with far greater clarity - it is just a numbers game.

Stanworth’s problem is not “street photography” per say, but photography without any purpose beyond the instant gratification of a like. Good photography is still characterised by having a clear vision and idea to express, and the determination and drive to get in front of subjects to realise that. Robert Frank’s body of work in The Americans embodies this, and is rightly celebrated for that depth in a way that is largely impossible for images embedded in the attention-span-deficit environment that is contemporary social media.
 
The amount of good photography in this world is tiny. I make no pretence to being anything other than someone who can work out an exposure and employ some compositional capability. Rather sadly I have had my photographs published without permission or attribution and one friend even passed off one as his own on social media. I was neither flattered nor pleased - now an ex-friend.

Fair dealing is the UK equivalent and in this case the failure to attribute the photos would be a black mark as to the fairness of the use. However, as Sir James Matthew quipped a century ago, justice, like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all. You just need the substantial means to afford it.

When it comes to criticism I subscribe to the Wagnerian notion (I have no evidence to disprove it) that no one erects a statue to a critic. Studying the works of other photographers is to me far more valuable than hearing the thoughts of those simply knocking. Social media is full of dross, including numerous rants. It gets clicks, purpose achieved.
 
tunalegs said:
I think the true mark of an amateur is freaking out when somebody reuses a work on a blog or something else inconsequential. When people are selling your works on T-shirts and mugs, etc. is when you know you're a pro.:D
Click to expand...

that's unequivocally wrong. It's professionals who are losing their livelihood when works are reproduced illegally and it's therefore professionals who are most zealous about protecting their work. Lots of amateurs, including on here, think it's a compliment when someone steals it.

I've made my living via creative works for 30 years and no one steals my work. Lots of people have tried.

Although, as mentioned by many, this use is acceptable as it falls under criticism and review.
 
These so called "teaching" blogs are pathetic and useless..
Best watch youtube interviews and look and see photographs.
Go to galleries, books, libraries and meet other photographers.
Analyze and question "how" a image made..
Personally "critic" or comment, theft is theft..
I post all images in very small format..max 1200x1600,
usually 640x480.
I have deleted many images from internet and have had mail from FB and google, saying i shouldn't..:angel:
 
Most people seem to just enjoy photography. Well aware that their photography is garbage. Painters and writers etc alike.

The main thing often lacking is originality IMO
 
If you like a genre, you’ll seek out the good. If you don’t like it, you have many examples to support it being bad. It’s like music... But we are suppose to listen to this guy why? He has some credentials but not in street photography. He clearly doesn’t like it so he makes a lazy attempt at making an article to disparage it.
 
Couldn’t care less about who are these image thefts.
Just want to have one of them exposed to image owners.
 
The original blog post is long gone. 99% of all photography is crap. Always has been. The question shouldn't be ripping and trying to clean up others backyards but instead clean up ones own first and when that is perfect then tell others how to clean up theirs.

Everything has been done. With more photos taken in the last 5 years than in the entire history of 2 dimensional work before digital 2000 + years. EVERYTHING has been done. The question then becomes how does one take all of this mix it all up and in some way, make it their own?

What also needs to be taken into account is how does the piece fit into a larger body of work and/or does that piece look like something that photographer would produce? All of that was lost and not taken into consideration by the writer of the original blog.

Some of my thoughts on street photography from a couple of years back from a piece Leica did on my work.
https://www.leica-camera.blog/2016/12/15/spontaneous-relationships/

Thanks Ko and I did post comments to the original blog which also are long gone.
 
olifaunt said:
Those who can create create.

Those who can't create criticize.
Click to expand...

Actually, Thomas Stanworth is an excellent and well renowned photographer, with a significant body of work shot in Afghanistan. Very few people on this site will have anything close to a comparable photographic portfolio.
 
Love this quote by Adams:
"No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit." -Ansel Adams
 
Actually, Thomas Stanworth is an excellent and well renowned photographer, with a significant body of work shot in Afghanistan. Very few people on this site will have anything close to a comparable photographic portfolio.
Click to expand...
Instead of talking about it, show it.
 
:: Mark said:
Actually, Thomas Stanworth is an excellent and well renowned photographer, with a significant body of work shot in Afghanistan. Very few people on this site will have anything close to a comparable photographic portfolio.
Click to expand...

He has some interesting work but is it right to point out one type of photography that he clearly has a bias against? I made the point on his original blog which is no longer up that his title could be said of all photography. Including one area that he had a lot of work his on his blog of his posted, landscape.

I made a point that someone could say if they saw one more landscape, with rocks in the foreground taken at a long exposure with water rushing around them and because of the long exposure a lot of ghosting was happening, they would pull their eyes out. He had at least one of those of his on the blog.

I don't think his work is any more or less cliche than any other work. I said this a few posts ago in this thread. It is all been done. The real hard question is how do you take it all in and make it your own? I say worry about your own work and less about what others are producing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom