The New York Times Magazine commissioned Nadav Kander to photograph “Obama’s People” — 52 full-page color portraits of the vice president-elect and the incoming president’s advisers, aides and cabinet secretaries-designate, along with those legislators who are likely to prove influential in helping to usher into law what the new administration sets out to do. You can see the pictures (here). They also marked this historic occasion–the gravitas of which can only be fully understood by reading the editors letter (here)–with behind the scenes pictures of the shoot (here). I thought you might like to see the real, real behind, behind the scenes so I added in the missing dialogue and thought bubbles.
The picture by Janis Krums of the airplane in the Hudson river (here) is remarkable because there’s nothing like being there first with a camera/phone. The AP should buy Twitter and Twit Pic because they’re proving to be the place where news breaks first.
Photojournalist and World Press Photo 2006 winner Finbarr O’Reilly answered questions sent to him live yesterday in a feed setup by Reuter’s. Really worth a listen as he’s well spoken, tells what it’s like to be a photojournalist in conflict areas with great anecdotes and answers the following questions:
Where do you draw the line between observation and action?
How do you get into the hot zones without putting your life on the line?
I wonder what you think the international community could do to improve the lives of the people of the DRC? What lies at the root of this conflict?
Is shooting sport a welcome break from your other work?
Have you had to apply different skills in Congo as opposed to other places you’ve worked?
How easy is it to work in Congo as a freelancer… costs for transportation, translators and fixers?
Are you intense?
Do you have any hope for the future of Congo based on your experience there?
When everyone has a camera on their mobile phone what is the future for professional photographers?
Isn’t it frustrating that the news gets less media attention?
How has my formal education prepared me to work as a photojournalist?
Photo-eye has a cool interactive list where you can checkout top 10 lists from 17 different people (here) which I discovered on the blog MAO (Modern Art Obsession) and that’s where I discovered the best name I’ve ever seen for a book: “God Spoiled a Perfect Asshole When He Put Teeth in Yer Mouth.” by Dash Snow. Peres Projects.
Patrick Cariou appears to have a better case than I first thought. Take a look at these examples where Richard uses most of the image and then add to that the possibility that Patrick’s images have appeared in a gallery at some point in time. There certainly is a case for harm to the potential market for the original copyrighted work which along with the amount of the image used is the main test for infringement in this case (that’s how I see it anyhow).
Here’s my previous post:
Cityfile has the exclusive (here) on a lawsuit filed by photographer Patrick Cariou against Ricard Prince, Gagosian Gallery, Lawrence Gagosian and Rizzoli International Publications in federal district court (here).
Unlike the most well known instance (here) where Prince appropriated another photographers work for his art, the images he used this time are owned by an individual photographer (from Patrick’s book Yes Rasta) and not a corporation. This should be a very interesting test of fair use because from what I can tell he’s taken only parts of Patrick’s images combined them with other images on a canvas and painted upon them.
I think this is going to be a tough case for Patrick because of the following:
“The fourth fair use factor – effect upon the potential market or value of the copyrighted work – considers the extent of harm to the market or potential market for the copyrighted work caused by the new work. This test evaluates the potential as well as actual financial harm to the original copyrighted work, as well as to current and potential derivative works.
The United States Supreme Court has declared this fair use factor the most important element of fair use. Therefore, those who wish to use another’s copyrighted materials without permission must decide whether or not their utilization of the copyrighted material is going to harm either the present or potential market for the copyrighted work.” (from PubLaw.com)
I’ve tried to argue in the past that photographers enjoy the benefits of fair use all the time when taking pictures that have copyrighted material in them but Richard Prince certainly takes this idea to the extreme every time.
I agree with some of my readers who think this page flipping of digital magazines is a joke but if this is what it takes to get magazines to publish a digital version then by all means, go for it. I think there’s a very small portion of your audience that’s looking for a digital version but is not comfortable with it unless it looks like a magazine and the pages flip. Whatever.
These things seem to be sprouting up everywhere lately:
What I find truly annoying with someone like zinio is that they save the publisher money on printing, paper and postage but still try and charge the same as a printed magazine. I don’t like reading digital flipping magazines in the first place but will do it to save time, money and trees. I would probably subscribe to 40 of these if they were a dollar apiece but if it’s the same price as print I prefer paper. What I really want to do is browse all the magazines and pay to read the articles that interest me. That’s how it works on the newsstand, why don’t they realize that.
“I always feel as though there’s supposed to be some deeper meaning behind my pictures, a meaning other than ‘Something inside me connected with what I saw in front of me, so I pulled out my camera and took a picture.’ That does not seem to fly as an artist statement. Why, I’m not sure.”
Emily Shur (here).
Reminds me of a favorite photography quote:
“I photograph to find out what something will look like photographed.” – Garry Winogrand
I’ve had my fill of the news oriented best pictures of the year lists so I wanted to create my own but I’m a little too lazy to do all the research (the bohemian would agree). Maybe you could give me a hand.
I’ll start off with two amazing covers. Peter Yang’s photo of Obama for Rolling Stone (here) and Platon’s cover of Willie Nelson for Texas Monthly (here). It’s so rare that a great photograph is made into a cover that these really had an impact on me.
Brent Stirton’s Gorilla killing story was one of those pieces that kept popping up everywhere and seems to win an award in every contest it was entered: http://www.brentstirton.com/feature-gorillas.php
Damon Winter deserves an award for breaking out of the pack of heavy political coverage this year. His Obama pictures for the NYTimes are stunning: slideshow here
Roger Ballen is of course an incredibly talented and original photographer but it was his performance/talk at the NY photo festival that had everyone buzzing.
I’m a little surprised by the number of emails I’ve received and the number of blog posts I’ve seen (here, here, here, here, here and here) regarding the demise of JPG magazine. Taking something that works well online and printing it seems kinda like taking a magazine and turning it into a website. Does anyone still think this is a good idea? Sure, I think printing it and charging $20 an issue, (not $2) so the published photographers can have something for the coffee table and also using the printed product to prove some form of legitimacy to advertisers is a good idea. But, anyone who feels like user generated content should be printed and distributed the old way is missing the value of magazines in the first place. Original content.
It all comes down to a fairly common discussion at magazine story and photography meetings. Do we inspire our readers with content where they can say “I could do that” or do we give them aspirational content so they say “I wish I could do that.” A mix is probably closer to the truth but I’ve always been in the aspirational camp and that means running photography that not even my editor understands.
Depiction of a copyrighted work in the background of an image may not be infringement as this court case against Paramount Pictures shows (here).
Chin said that, under the case law, “The observability of the copyrighted work is critical, and courts will consider the length of time the copyrighted work is observable as well as factors such as focus, lighting, camera angles and prominence.”
