DailyDirt: Popular Wedding Photos

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Summer is here, and with it, comes some of the most popular months for weddings. (June, August, September and October are apparently the most popular wedding months.) If you've ever been involved in a wedding, you know that photography is a significant part of the event -- with standard family poses and slightly goofier "everybody jump!" shots. Until recently, couples were satisfied with simple photoshop airbrushing to eliminate facial blemishes, but now... there are some slightly more advanced techniques for a young couple's wedding album. Here are just a few examples.

• In case you haven't seen the being-chased-by-a-dinosaur meme, check out this wedding party being chased by a T-Rex. Remember groomsmen, you don't have to outrun a dinosaur, you just have to outrun the bridesmaid you're paired up with. [url]
• Inspired by that T-Rex wedding photo, another photographer created a squadron of Imperial AT-AT walkers to chase a recently married couple and their closest friends. Star Wars themed weddings should be performed every May 4th (but watch out for your C&D from Disney). [url]
• This "being chased" photoshop trend is going to jump the shark pretty soon. But it'll probably be replaced with full green-screen videography -- so that you, too, can have your wedding set in a hobbit village (unless you have a few million to actually construct dwellings in a real redwood forest). [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: dinosaur, effects, meme, photography, photoshop, sean parker, t-rex, viral photos, weddings

This Week's Bad Photoshopping Lesson Comes From Scientology

from the the-thetans-did-it dept

The universe has a sense of humor. I'm convinced of it. See, as someone who believes that humor is a wonderful way to deal with otherwise disheartening topics, I'm amazed at how often the world around me will give me something to laugh at when I'm feeling blue. Take the world's current climate on the topic of religion, for instance. It'd be very easy to get down in the dumps over the Westboro Baptist Church, religious fundamentalists engaging in acts of terror, and the never-ending saga known as the Middle East "peace" process. None of those things are laughing matters. But then, reading the forlorn expression on my face, the universe sends me another story from the Church of Scientology.

The Tom-Cruise-iest religion on the planet took a break from their attempt to destroy free speech to celebrate the grand-mega opening of their new ironically named Ideal Organization in Portland by producing the worst photoshopped picture this side of the Iranian military.

The crowd was around 450-750 people. But the church claims it was more like 2,500, and it Photoshopped in the proof. Except the proof is about as convincing as your thetan's origin story. In reality, there were no people in the right-hand side of the photo. There was actually a line of rented trees set up to block the view of people not so friendly to Scientology (see the photo below), as well as police blocking off a four-block radius for the event. And it's not just that the picture was doctored, it's that it was done quite poorly. They added people right on top of the trees in the altered section.

Tony Ortega has the two photos that demonstrate this. First was the "official" photo from the Church which is clearly photoshopped. And then a shot from a different angle showing that the people on the right section above aren't actually there. What was an attempt to make turnout of the "event" look bigger than it was resulted in, at best, Scientology looking silly yet again for their combination of secretiveness and lying about their own events. Or, at worst, it suggests that Scientology turns human beings into a kind of hybrid tree-people, in which case we're all going to be subject to an aphid plague that may undo all of humanity. Ahhhh!

So a word of friendly advice to my Scientologist friends: brainwashed graphic designers are a better asset than brainwashed Tom Cruises. For ever and ever. Amen.

Filed Under: exaggeration, photography, photoshop, scientology
Companies: scientology

No, The UK Did Not Just Abolish Copyright, Despite What Photographers Seem To Think

from the know-your-enemy dept

The photographers are freaking out again. After last year's excitement with Instagram's changes to its terms of service, now it's the UK's Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ERR) Act that's getting people worked up. Here, for example, is a post on the site of Stop43, a photographers group which successfully fought against the inclusion of orphan works in the UK's Digital Economy Act, with the title: "The Enterprise And Regulatory Reform Act Has Reversed The Normal Workings Of Copyright":

Normal copyright law as agreed in international copyright treaties, to which the UK is signatory, grant copyright owners 'the exclusive right of authorizing the reproduction of [their] works, in any manner or form.' Creators don't have to apply for this right: it is theirs automatically and without formality. This means that unless the work is used under one of the narrowly-defined Fair Dealing exceptions to copyright allowed by these treaties, it is illegal to exploit a copyright work without the permission of its owner.

The EAA Act changes all that. Under its provisions it will be legal to exploit a copyright work - photograph, film, text, song, whatever -- without the knowledge, permission, or payment to its owner.

As with the 2010 Digital Economy Act, the bone of contention for photographers is how orphan works will be treated under UK law. The ERR Act has not yet been published, but here's a good summary of what it says, from Out-Law.com:

Under the Government's plans, organisations that wish to use orphan works would have to conduct a 'diligent search' for the owner of orphan works before they could use the material. The searches would have to be verified as diligent by independent authorising bodies. In addition, organisations would have to pay a "market rate" to use orphan works so as rights holders could be recompensed for the use of the works if they were later identified.

Sounds pretty reasonable: works would only be regarded as orphans after a "diligent search". Contrary to what some are saying, it will not be possible for companies to conduct any old kind of search, and claim that it was "diligent": there will be independent authorizing bodies that will check the search was diligent enough, and not just perfunctory. Moreover, even if a work is classed as an orphan, those using it must still pay a fee at the market rate that is held on account in case the owner turns up. So there's no question of works being used for nothing, or of owners not getting paid if they want claim their works.

The big problem turns out to be metadata -- or, rather, the absence of it. Google's Tim Bray explains the concept in a usefully calm post looking at the new UK orphan regulations:

It turns out that electronic photograph files contain not just the pixels that form the image, but also textual fields containing "metadata", information about the picture. This is generally referred to as Exif, and it identifies some or all of: the camera, lens, date, location (if there's a GPS), size, aperture, and lots of other arcane photographic details. Plus, crucially, the name of the creator.

Important stuff. But when photos are uploaded to certain sites, some or all of the metadata is stripped out. Here's what happened when Bray uploaded a photo to Twitter as a test:

I took the picture above, made sure it had my name in the Artist, By-line, and Creator fields, and posted it to Twitter using the Web interface. Then I downloaded the picture and checked the Exif, and sure enough Twitter had nuked it. There were 245 lines of Exif info going in, 58 coming out, and none of them included my name.

According to Bray, other popular online services similarly strip out metadata. This is why photographers are concerned about the new orphan legislation in the UK. They fear that if their photos are available on such sites with little or no metadata, publishers will be able to claim that they couldn't find the creators, and so turn any of those images into orphans.

But this overlooks a number of points. Just because the metadata is absent from photos stored on certain sites does not mean that publishers will be able to claim that they couldn't find the creators as a result. Remember, they must carry out a diligent search, and simply looking at the metadata clearly doesn't qualify. In addition, they will need to look widely elsewhere in order to check whether there is an identifiable creator.

One obvious way to do that is using a search engine. For example, I downloaded the image that Bray uses in his post, and which he discovered had lost its metadata, even on his own site. Then I used Google's image search, which lets you upload images about which you want information. It not only found Bray's original, but also the page on which it is used. Now, it might be argued that Bray's site is quite well known, and therefore not representative, but this trivial experiment does suggest a relatively simple way to address the photographers' concerns.

Provided photographers store somewhere online an image along with their contact details, it is almost certain that Google and other search engines will find it. So an obvious way to avoid having their creations orphaned is to place them in some kind of image repository. This might be set up by photographers' associations for their members, or by independent companies offering a dedicated service. The price of storage is so low now that such a repository would cost very little to use, even for thousands of photos. The availability of images with attribution details would ensure that even a relatively cursory search will locate the owner of the work, thus blocking its use as an orphan.

Ironically, then, it may well be that Google, so often the object of hatred for photographers that see it as feeding parasitically off their work by providing easy access to their online images, will also offer them with the easiest way to avoid the problems with orphan works.

But there's another important issue here. The real threat to photographers and their livelihoods is not the UK's new orphan works legislation; it is the unauthorized stripping away of metadata from uploaded photos. Instead of attacking the new law, photographers should be fighting for full metadata to be retained wherever and however they upload their pictures, at least as an option. That seems entirely justified -- unlike the current moves to brand a reasonable framework to liberate millions of "hostage works" as an attempt to "abolish copyright".

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: photography, uk

American Photographic Artists Join The Lawsuit Against Google Books

from the but-of-course dept

For all the talk of how the MPAA and RIAA are extreme copyright maximalists, in my experience the one group of copyright maximalists who are the most extreme and unreasonable (and, often, uninformed) are photographers. This, of course, does not apply across the board. There are many, many photographers who are reasonable and clueful when it comes to copyright issues. However, in stories dealing with photographers, they often stake out the absolute most extreme positions, which is only marginally ironic, given that photographers often have some of the weakest claims on copyright around, given that the copyright only applies to the creative elements of their photographs, and for things like landscapes, that may only apply to things like framing and angle. Perhaps it's because their copyrights tend to be so thin that some of them stake out such extreme positions (for example, they tend to be vehemently against any sort of orphan works legislation -- an area of copyright law that many other copyright maximalists seem at least open to exploring).

Given that, the only thing really surprising about the news that the American Photographic Artists (APA) have joined the lawsuit against Google's book scanning project (sent in by Brig C. McCoy) is the fact that it took them this long to get around to it.

American Photographic Artists (APA) is joining the 15 plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Google. By joining the suit, APA alleges the “Google Book Search” program violates the copyrights of numerous photographers and other visual artists. The lead plaintiffs include: The American Society of Media Photographers, Graphic Artists Guild, Picture Archive Council of America, North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America, National Press Photographers Association, Leif Skoogfors , Al Satterwhite , Morton Beebe , Ed Kashi , John Schmelzer , Simms Taback and Gail Kuenstler Taback Living Trust, Leland Bobbe , John Francis, Ficara, and David W. Moser.

[Clip]

Copyright protection and licensing images are two elements that ensure the sustainability of a professional photographer’s career,” notes APA National President, Theresa Raffetto. “APA membership consists of professional photographers who rely on these elements and is why APA advocates fearlessly for copyright protection. Holding Google Books responsible for their flagrant copyright infringement is something APA has been working on and we’re pleased to continue this fight in conjunction with the other plaintiffs.”

And, yes, I certainly recognize that seeing a single photograph in a book means that Google's book scan may show the whole thing, but that's because the photographer likely already licensed that image for the book in question. And, if you've ever seen the scans from Google books, you'd know, quite well, that there's no way anyone would consider such a scan a reasonable substitute for the original image. For example, I looked at the scans from this photography book, and the quality is quite low. This is no substitute for the original in any way, shape or form. This just seems like a case of piling on based on copyright aggressiveness.

Filed Under: photography
Companies: apa, google

DailyDirt: More Trendy Photos

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The news of several portrait studios shutting down marks an end of an era. Families used to get all dressed up to go to a special corner of Sears where a professional photographer would stage a nice portrait, and fuzzy warm photos would be sold in a respectably-sized frame. Sure, there are still plenty of other places to get your own image held hostage by copyright, but it's just not the same. Digital photography has brought photo-taking to the masses, and almost anyone can take a nice looking (staged) picture. Here are just a few examples of what kids these days are doing with their cameras.

• Fake Dragonball attacks seem to be a growing trend in staged photography these days. Even if you haven't seen the Dragonball anime that inspired these photos, the concept of being able to blow up stuff via telekinesis is a pretty widespread meme nowadays. [url]
• Vadering is another fad where you make it look like you're a Sith lord choking various people. I find your lack of faith disturbing.... [url]
• Owling was a spin-off of the more popular meme of planking. Unfortunately, it didn't catch on and elucidate how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie roll Tootsie pop.[url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: dragonball, fads, owling, photographers, photography, photos, picture studios, planking, portraits, star wars, vadering
Companies: cpi, sears

Carlos Miller Arrested (Again) For Perfectly Legal Photography

from the producing-excessive-noise? dept

Thanks to an enforced climate of fear, law enforcement and security agencies remain deeply suspicious of photography in public places. Despite the fact that most public places are now covered in cameras erected by law enforcement and security, the prevailing view seems to be that a member of the public "armed" with a camera is a threat that should be dealt with immediately. The law is rarely on the side of those doing the law enforcement, oddly enough, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

Armed with ignorance, along with guns, tasers, nightsticks and the safety of numbers, these enforcers continue to violate the rights of citizens, often destroying evidence of their misguided actions in the process.

Carlos Miller is one of those fighting back against these attempts to curb rights solely through intimidation. Petapixel reports on Miller's latest run-in with the law, or rather the Miami Metrorail security force, 50 State.

Photographer, blogger, and photographers rights’ activist Carlos Miller has made headlines quite a few times over the past few years with his legal rumbles with authorities over photography in public places. Miller, who often instigates the disputes for the purpose of bringing photographers’ rights into the spotlight, recently had another big confrontation with authorities in Miami (it’s not the first time it has happened).

According to Miller, his friend was photographing Dade County Courthouse from the rail platform and he was photographing his friend... Miller says that they were spotted by a security guard and warned over a loudspeaker to stop shooting photographs. When they didn’t put their cameras away, security guards arrived to confront them.

As is usually the case when the enforcement agency is operating on little more than a combination of gut instinct and vague directives, the security guards spent a bit of time shuffling through their deck of possible charges in hopes of making one stick.


First, they told Miller that it was illegal to photograph the rail portion of the train, something that is completely false. According to Eric Muntan, Chief of Safety and Security of the metro, noncommercial photography is "perfectly fine." (Which didn't stop Miller from receiving a completely unenforceable "lifetime ban" from the Metrorail.)

When challenged on this claim, the responding guard switched over to accusing Miller of being drunk because he smelled alcohol on his breath. Again, there's nothing illegal in Miami about being drunk in public (Miller states he had three drinks in two hours while watching a football game) -- one has to be considered a "threat to public safety" before it's considered a crime.

At that point, they decided trespassing might be the way to go, considering they'd asked Miller to leave and he hadn't. When nothing else worked, the guards wrestled him to the ground, seized his camera, seized the camera his friend was holding (temporarily), before cuffing them both and turning them over to the Miami PD. Miller notes that the guards "surprisingly" returned both phones before releasing them to Miami-Dade law enforcement.

At that point, the police began arguing about what to charge the pair with (while making it a point to mention that they hadn't deleted the footage captured earlier -- Miller is rather well known in the Miami law enforcement community), finally deciding on "producing loud or excessive noise" and released Miller and his friend, but not before handing out a $100 citation.

So, the end result is nothing illegal occurred and yet, two people were cuffed and delivered to the police department and handed a $100 fine for "loud noise," most of which was actually created by the three security guards. While no one expects a third-party security team to be familiar with all the legal aspects of their coverage area, one would at the very least expect them to know what comprises legal photography, especially considering the safety chief's directive. This sort of thing applies directly to 50 State's security responsibilities. The fact that this whole situation began with a loudspeaker announcement directing the pair to "stop taking pictures" gives it another layer of unseemly Big Brother-ish state-ordained paranoia. There was no legal basis for the stop and no evidence of any wrongdoing, but those "securing" the Metrorail went ahead and shut them down anyway, because that's the attitude fostered all the way up the line to the DHS. 

Filed Under: arrested, carlos miller, photography

Photography Advocate/Journalist Acquitted After Arrest Over Filming Police; Intends To Sue Back

from the good-for-him dept

We've linked to the blog, PhotographyIsNotACrime.com (PINAC), a few times in the past (it recently moved locations). Its author, Carlos Miller, not only covered a number of cases involving photographers being arrested or harassed for photographing buildings, police or something else, but was a defendant in just such a case himself. Miller was arrested back in January while videotaping police at an "Occupy Miami" event. Not only was he arrested, but his camera was confiscated and the police deleted footage from the camera -- including footage of the encounter that led to his arrest. The police claimed that Miller had disobeyed an order by the police to "clear the area." However, the videotaped footage -- which Miller was able to recover despite the deletion -- showed a different story. It showed a clearly-aware-of-his-rights Miller making the case that he was doing nothing wrong. Furthermore, other journalists were allowed to stay in the area, and one of those journalists, Miami Herald reporter Glenn Garvin, testified at the trial about how he was allowed to stay. In fact, he went to the officer who arrested Miller and asked her if he needed to move, and she told him he was "under no threat of getting arrested."

It also turned out that police were specifically on the lookout for Miller:

An e-mail disclosed during the trial showed the police had been monitoring Miller's Facebook page and had sent out a notice warning officers in charge of evicting the Occupy Miami protestors that Miller was planning to cover the process.

Given all that, it's not too surprising that the jury wasted little time in finding him not guilty. But the case isn't over just yet. Miller is vowing to sue, claiming the arrest and (attempted) deletion from his camera violated his constitutional rights. And he's got some precedent on his side. As we've noted, Boston recently had to pay Simon Glik $170,000 after an appeals court ruled, in a similar case, that his arrest for filming police was a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments -- though that was based on wiretap laws, so it was slightly different. Either way, Miller's follow up suit should be worth watching.

Filed Under: carlos miller, civil liberties, photography

Photography In Public Is Not A Crime

from the protecting-the-first-amendment dept

Sadly, we talk way too often about police arresting people for doing nothing other than taking a picture or filming them. The police officers being filmed and photographed make these arrests using various excuses, but frequently the charges get dropped for lack of merit. The reason charges rarely stick when an officer is filmed is because filming police, or anyone in a public space, is not illegal. Some people may not like it, but it is a fact.

The New York Times is waking up to this fact that photography is not a crime. In an interview with Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counselor for the National Press Photographers Association, they get down to the nitty gritty of the legalities surrounding this age old tradition. They also talk a bit about just why such arrests are happening more frequently.

Since 9/11, there’s been an incredible number of incidents where photographers are being interfered with and arrested for doing nothing other than taking pictures or recording video in public places.

It’s not just news photographers who should be concerned with this. I think every citizen should be concerned. Tourists taking pictures are being told by police, security guards and sometimes other citizens, “Sorry, you can’t take a picture here.” When asked why, they say, “Well, don’t you remember 9/11?”

I haven't really thought of criminalizing photography as something to do with 9/11 before. I know that a lot of our rights have been eroded since that day, but the photography aspect never really clicked until now. Just as Mickey can't make heads nor tails of this argument, I am struggling to find a connection here. I don't recall cameras being a part of the plots to destroy the Twin Towers, Pentagon or White House.

Of course there could be more reasons for this increase in arresting photographers. Mickey suspects that part of the reason is the proliferation of the camera. Pretty much everyone with a smart phone has a camera capable of taking some very high quality pictures. Prior to this boom, the police had some modicum of control over the press. They knew the press wasn't going to be everywhere and were used to not being under constant recordable surveillance by the public. Now that anyone could be filming them or taking their picture, they are more on edge and more prone to lashing out.

When this happens, it is important for those accused to know their rights. However, it is also important for the police to know the public's rights as well. While you, as a photographer, may know that you have the right to take pictures or film in a public space, some officers may not know or may have forgotten that fact. That is why the Mickey and others have been working with police to keep officers reminded of that right.

Q. After photographers were stopped from photographing the police clearing Occupy Wall Street protestors from Zuccotti Park, you and representatives of a media coalition including The Times, met with the police commissioner Ray Kelly. What happened at that meeting?

A. It was on Nov. 23. I asked the commissioner if he would reissue the “finest message” from 1999 that dealt with the police cooperating with the press. He did that. It was read at 10 consecutive roll calls in every single station house and precinct.

The finest message is a policy statement on police interactions with the press. It states that officers are not to interfere with videotaping and photographing in public places. It also reminds officers that they have an obligation to assist the press whenever possible. This is very similar to the recent news when the DC police chief laid down the law on filming of officers.

Hopefully, continually repeating this message will help slow down this barrage of arrests for photographing the police. As more officers are reminded of the rights of the cameras-wielding public, we will hopefully start to see fewer future incidents. It would be great if other police departments across the nation follow the lead of NY and DC police in proactively spreading the word about the rights of the public to record and photograph the police.

Filed Under: crime, education, photography, police

DailyDirt: Cool-Looking Photography

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Digital photography has created a massive amount of incredible images. Although professional photography has and always will require quite a bit of skill, the rise of amateur photographers is unmistakable. We've pointed out some cool photography before, and here are just a few more examples.

• Family portraits aren't usually made from collages, but when family members are spread out all over the globe, combining Skype video stills will have to suffice. Rear projectors would be a bit better for this.... [url]
• People riding bikes without bikes are just floating above the street. It's just so easy to photoshop things out of a picture nowadays. [url]
• New moms often enjoy taking a lot of photos of their babies, but some moms also like to see their kid fly. Maybe in a few years, these "floating people" pictures will look like a dated image filter. [url]
• Let sleeping babies sleep.. and then take pictures of them in creative ways. Try this at home. [url]
• What can you do with a leaf blower and some good indoor lighting? Take some cool pictures or insert joke here. [url]

If you have some more free time, check out this unrelated, non-random Techdirt post.

Filed Under: babies, collage, lighting, photography, photoshop, photoshopping, portraiture

Is Photographing A Meal 'Taking Intellectual Property Away' From A Chef?

from the not-getting-the-point dept

Via Rob Hyndman, we discover that at least one chef believes that taking photos of food he cooks, and then posting them on the internet, is "taking" his "intellectual property." We've discussed in the past how restaurants are yet another area where a lack of copyright protection has actually helped innovation thrive. But, that doesn't mean that some chefs don't still feel excessive levels of ownership over certain aspects of what they do. We've occasionally seen lawsuits between similar restaurants, but could you take it even further?

The article linked above, from Eater, talks to a number of different chefs to get their opinion on diners photographing the food that they're served. Most seem to have a grudging acceptance of the practice. The first chef, Sean Brock (from Husk and McCrady's in Charleston, South Carolina) appears to be the most enthusiastic, saying that he actually loves it when diners photograph the menu, because it even helps remind him what they made and also puts more pressure on the cooking staff to make sure the plates look good. However, a couple chefs down, there's RJ Cooper (from Rogue 24 in DC). He admits that they allow (non-flash) photography, mainly because he can't really stop it. But he's certainly not happy about it. After being asked if his opinion about people photographing dinner had changed, he said:

No, I still have the feeling. You're there for the dining experience with your companion, not to take photos of food. They publish food photos without your consent, which is taking intellectual property away from the restaurant. And also, generally, the photographs are terrible.

I'm curious how this is "taking intellectual property away from the restaurant." Unfortunately, it seems like yet another sign of the kind of "ownership culture" that is being spread by copyright maximalists these days -- encouraging the world to think they have "ownership" over things they have absolutely no rights to. The restaurant can legally refuse to serve someone, or kick someone out of their restaurant for taking a photograph if they wanted (though, that would likely hurt the restaurant's reputation), but there simply is no serious intellectual property issue in having someone take a photograph of the dinner they were served. Is there a lawyer crazy enough to make an argument that the cooking and plating process creates enough creativity in a "fixed" manner that it deserves copyright? Perhaps, but even then I'd have a hard time believing the photograph was not perfectly legitimate fair use.

All in all, I think it's unfortunate that we keep seeing more and more examples of people believing they "own" aspects of culture and can prevent others from sharing them, and regret that this is what our culture has become in an era where kids are being (incorrectly) taught that copyright is just like "property" for things you create. It leads people into thinking they "own" anything they do.

Filed Under: food, husk and mcrady's, photography, rj cooper, rogue 24, sean brock