Alex

He may have been the Greatest Portrait photographer of the 20th Century.

There is no doubt in the sheer volume of the important figures that craved the attention a Karsh Portrait gave them. They all knew, at that moment in time, he would record them for History. His brilliance became a reflection of their own genius. Having Karsh do a portrait meant that you had achieved a certain level of importance and greatness, maybe even vanity. For Canada he is a National Treasure, and for the rest of us mere mortal photographers he is a virtuoso with a view camera.

Jim

I worked hard to find a photo viewer for my website, it is not the easiest to work with but protects my work a bit form being , copied, saved as, downloaded, etc. I am still educating myslef to know how I can protect my work and may be I can pass it on to someone.

This is a great follow up to the post on the leak regarding the meeting and formation of new copyright laws. Great read too!

I think that comes with his process. Hot lights, slow film, large format/sdof. Maybe Karsh wanted to control these powerful people, these leaders, have them obey him?

I don’t know. Personally I have never been a fan but I found the trailer interesting and would like to see this film.

Checking out photographer’s blogs/portfolios recently I notice tons (most?) using unlicensed/uncredited music in their videos and slideshows.

I know these same photogs would be pissed to find their unlicensed/uncredited images on a band’s website. So, why do they (we) feel it’s ok to use their music for our own commercial interests?

One important thing to note, however, about the current newspaper-style edition (No. 33) is that it costs $55.00.

http://www.livedinimages.com is a great resource to home and architedture stock photos.

To use a sports analogy: Fans complain all of the time about ridiculous salaries of pro athletes yet we readily hand over sixty bucks a pop to see a game. They are only paid millions of dollars because the millions of dollars are there to be paid.

There’s got to be a breaking point somewhere … I hope anyway.

I don’t think in terms of format it will be much ahead of what the web does already, it may even be worse, but there will be a business model, buying either a whole mag or a story that is preconfigured to run in the magazine / multimedia app. Because it runs in an app, and not on the web, the whole thing dodges the free content issue. Although I assume as with iTunes it can either be free or paid.

The ‘killer’ part of this is the business model. By providing a revenue stream through iTunes, publishers will be able to commit to producing content for the format, and momentum will then take care of the rest. I have also seen discussion of the fact that if the content in the ‘whole mag’ that you can load onto your ‘tablet’ is the same as the print magazine, the ‘whole mag’ on the ‘tablet’ then gets classed as a regular mag purchase and sits in traditional ways of estimating reach for print magazines which means the ads get sold on the back of the print mag CPM which is high rather than a web ad whose CPM is low.

I know music companies would like to have a competitor, so perhaps the publishers will work with Maggwire, to make sure Apple does not have them by the family jewels.

There is already third-party liability for copyright infringement. If you enable someone to infringe copyright and you profit from that enabling, you can be liable.

The DMCA that the bloggers all hate, provides a “safe harbor” for the ISP from that third party liability; if certain procedures are followed, the ISP is not liable for the copyright infringement done by the customer. It is the only reason that YouTube, et. al. can do business. If an international treaty has a similar provision they are safe. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appb.html

Also, nobody is attacking the free sharing of information. They are attacking the sharing of stolen, copyrighted expressions of that information.

If you separate the two concepts- “using other peoples intellectual property to communicate ideas” from “creating your own expression,” you will see that nobody’s right to express themselves is affected by copyright protection. If anything, copyright makes it possible for professional communicators (i.e. professional First Amendment’ers ) to stay in business.

The solution for bloggers is simple. Just restate the information in your own words and your own pictures and you won’t be sued.

@ A Photo Editor. Fair use is unfortunately a balancing test, which means it often escapes clear cut answers. But the four factors considered are these:

- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

-Alicia Wagner Calzada

Why would it not?

If your model relies on a full-time editorial team, paying top dollar for content, 100% newsstand sales at a similar price to mainstream magazines, big subscriber discounts and a big media campaign to launch with, then strong advertising is indeed pretty much the only way you’ll last to issue two and beyond.

Plenty of small magazines find other ways, however, including getting funding from grants, foundations, charging $15 or more an issue and selling direct to their readers, and/or by running them as hobbies until such a day as they may become profitable. Advertisers may need big circulation figures – but not all publications do.

The good thing is, if your idea has to be realized in print, there’s never been a better time to get into it. Ironic, really.