Two controversies: 1 new; 1 old

 Photo:  Arne Svenson

Update:  8/7/2013 Judge Dismisses Privacy Lawsuit

Arne Svenson's series entitled, The Neighbors and Jill Greenberg's series entitled, "End Times" from 2006 - are two bodies of work creating new controversy and generating old controversy, respectively.

Click on the links above to get the stories and see the work.  You will need to click here to see the images from Svenson's, The Neighbors series (the link above is only an article about the controversy).

The Neighbors series is particularly noteworthy because it challenges what has been defined as street photography.  How many photojournalists have shot images in Africa, Cambodia, etc, with people fully identifiable, no model release, no compensation, and had them either exhibited or published?

As to the Greenberg series, here is a comment as posted on Facebook in response to a post on the series:

Comment (edited):
"What I get is that these images are disturbing. If you didn't know that candy being taken away was the prompt and gimmick used to get these kids so distressed, you'd think they just suffered some devastating loss. I don't particularly care for set-up shots that seem to indicate that the photographer was being cruel solely to get shots that would bother us or provide some sort of shock value or create some controversy. Unlike a photojournalist's shot that may be difficult to look at because of the horror of the reality (i.e., war shots, etc), this is something I have trouble looking at because it is staged - idea:  hey, let's upset some very little kids and make them cry and then, who knows?, let's make them cry for a good 30 minutes ... until we get our shot." 

I posted on her monkey series at one point ... they seem to be emoting, too.  Hmmm. http://kritinaknief.blogspot.com/2012/09/jill-greenberg.html 

And, to tie in these two artists together, how is this for irony?  Arne Svenson's, About Face series from 2011 is a collection of faces with various expressions.  Was a method used to bring out these expressions?  Yes.  Here is a statement from Svenson's site about the series,  "From one perspective the viewer sees only a neutral portrait of the student, while from the other angle one views an open spread, which reveals an expressive image of the student and an accompanying emotional motivator.  Motivators range from an image of kittens at play to a fistfight."  Is there any difference then between this and what Greenberg did?

What do you think?  I welcome and encourage your comments!  All points of view welcome.  :)

This is Lady Gaga’s Photo Release Form

This is Lady Gaga’s Photo Release Form

Photographers unite!

Imagine photographing a supermodel and instead of asking her to sign a release, you instead sign over your copyright to her, thus giving her all rights to do whatever she likes with your photograph. Celebrities like Madonna have freely allowed press photographers to photograph her during her concerts and the photograph remains the property of the photographer. Lady Gaga wants to own the imagery captured by press photographers at her concerts.

Copyright is established once the shutter is clicked. That copyright is held by the photographer. Sure, you can't use someone's likeness in advertising without a release, but documenting celebrities and if used in an editorial, non-slanderous fashion, but, most importantly, in a way that is non-revenue generating (i.e., a fan website or blog) seems tolerated and maybe even endorsed by many celebrities. They don't sign a model release. But, Lady Gaga isn't saying she didn't sign a model release; she is saying she wants to own outright your photographs of her.

When is "substantially similar" a matter of copyright infringement?

There are two articles worth reading on this copyright case: DPreview.com's, "Similar, but not copied, image found to breach copyright" and the one written (with loads of typos!) by Holger Mette, "UK Copyright Case, Different, but Same-Same". Mette's article articulates some facts that are not mentioned in the DPreview article.

For instance, Mette tells us that the original Justin Fielder photograph (top photograph) was used without permission by a tea company. When Fielder approached the company about unauthorized use and then subsequently filed suit, the company withdrew the image from production and then proceeded to hire Nick Houghton to create a "similar" image (bottom photograph).

It was a deliberate act of taking the very specific elements from Fielder's photograph and creating a montage of elements to reproduce an image that was to intentionally look similar -- this alone would seem to warrant a case of copyright infringement. (But, the Court's decision to rule that it was a case of copyright infringement was based on other criteria.)

Had someone stood at the same spot as Fielder and captured all the elements in the shot -- the red bus, Big Ben in the background, a white sky, and then manipulated the image in Photoshop to render the monochromatic background, and had they not seen Fielder's shot, it is my understanding that they would not be guilty of copyright infringement. Case and point: think of how many substantially similar shots there are of Michelangelo's, Statue of David, taken from the same location, same angle, same time of day, same lighting, possibly the same number of tourists wearing red sweaters looking up at David, etc. (I think this would then also touch on the issue of public domain ... but that is another discussion for another time.)

Another case:

Following is a seemingly similar case with a different outcome -- this case was that of the book cover for Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil versus the use of a similar image for the film version of the book and its poster. Here again, there were instructions to create a similar image, but the Court ruled that it was not copyright infringement. Following is a summary of the case from www.advertisinglawyer.ca. And, here is the actual Court Document.

The United States case involves the movie, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, based on the John Berendt book of the same title. Those who have seen the book will readily recall Jack Leigh's jacket photograph of the sculpture in Savannah's Bonaventure Cemetery, known as "the Bird Girl." The sculpture was sculpted in 1938 by Sylvia Shaw Judson, and was placed at that time in the Lucy Trosdal family burial plot.

In 1997, when Warner Bros. was in the midst of filming, Leigh asked if they would be using his photograph in connection with the film's publicity. Warner Bros. declined the invitation, saying that they would be creating their own images of the Bird Girl.

Warner Bros. obtained permission from Judson's heirs to make a replica of the sculpture, applying a weathered finish to it. They encountered problems in obtaining permission from the Trosdal family to place the replica in their plot, and decided to place it in a different location within the cemetery. When all was said and done, the Warner Bros. photograph of the Bird Girl evoked a resemblance to Leigh's photograph, and both had the same eerie look and feel. Leigh sued for copyright infringement.

Since there is no copyright in an idea, only in how one expresses that idea, the use of the same subject matter in two works does not in and of itself result in an infringement of copyright. Two people can therefore photograph the same subject. The protection granted to a photographer is in the posing of the subject, lighting, timing, the shading that evokes a desired expression, the selection and arrangement of costumes, draperies and accessories, the angles photographed from, and other such variants.

Based on these principles, the court first decided that Leigh was not entitled to copyright protection of his choice of subject matter, namely the Bird Girl in Bonaventure Cemetery. The court also said that since the sculpture had been in the same position in the Trosdale plot for some fifty years, Leigh could not claim originality in the background for his photograph. Nor could Leigh claim protection for the pose or expression of the statue, since he did not select these or alter the statue's physical appearance in any way.

The Court also decided that Leigh could not claim that the eerie or spiritual mood of the photograph was capable of protection, saying:

"statues in cemeteries are often photographed in a manner evoking an eerie or spiritual mood and thus these moods can be said to flow naturally from the subject matter… ."

Leigh contended that the statue represented the idea of the final judgment on the main character in the book. To this, the Court said:

"the idea of a forlorn cemetery statue representing final judgment cannot be protected by copyright. (Leigh’s) original expression of that idea, that being the elements of his photograph over which he exerted original creative control can be protected. It is these elements that that must be compared…and not the ideas that they convey."

The Court then looked at the copyrightable elements in Leigh's photograph (lighting, shading, timing, angle, background scenes, etc.) and noted that the Warner Bros. photograph was set farther back, and was slightly off-centre. More headstones, and different headstones, were visible, background trees were much larger, light streams were different and the Warner Bros. photograph had a different tint.

The Court concluded the case this way:

"(Leigh) may be correct in asserting that if it were not for his idea, the Bird Girl would not be associated with (the film). Nevertheless, copyright law does not protect his idea. Warner Bros.' expressions of that idea are original and different from (Leigh's). The only similarity between the images are of the sculpture in the cemetery. This aspect of the images, however, is not copyrightable."

Book cover
Movie Poster

Wistful Thinking

Today I looked at the work of André Kertész (in part to prepare for an upcoming post). Today I also am working on a submission for my stock agency. Today I'm in technical hell while reminded of the genius of the masters and how simplicity ruled. A sort of less is more approach as applied to process. With all the technological advances in photography comes the equal and sometimes more significant issue of frustration.

On top of that comes the issue of greater quantity since digital is more accessible, more forgiving, more prone to causing a willy nilly style of shooting. When in doubt, fire away! And bracket galore! You don't even have to know what you're doing! With all that mass and volume -- the ability to shoot thousands and thousands of images, no worry to the time developing nor the cost, the edits along with the photographers must be whittled down so that competition is sometimes based on the technical alone. This explains the phenomenon of tech geek turned photographer.

What I mean is that if you place two photographs side by side and they are identical, the one with greater resolution will win even if the image is supposed to be, say, underexposed or too contrasty. Reproduction rules even in the realm of photographs intended only for a gallery wall. With film, you could intentionally blow out your whites or block up your blacks.

I miss the darkroom and the endless hours of watching something grow before your eyes. More so, I miss the film -- how shooting it was more deliberate and even, more ceremonial. Revealing your final results was like unveiling a long awaited sculpture. Don't even get me started on the tactile enjoyment of film or that great sound of the film being wrapped around a reel -- how it was at once crisp and yet mellow. (I know, I'm romanticizing.)

As much as I love the immediacy of digital shooting, I miss the fact that quality was almost anything you wanted it to be. If you wanted grain or overexposure, no problem! If you wanted to shoot "low res" through a Coke bottle and a cardboard box or if you wanted to smear Vaseline all over your lens, it was allowed. No matter what you did, you could always chalk it up to art.

I'd like to just pick up my camera, grab a fleeting moment and know that it's going to be judged not on perfection but vision and interpretation of a scene or subject. It's as if all the requirements for technical prowess are stifling creativity. One of the very things we love about digital, the spontaneity, gets kicked in the bum and bogged down by rules and histograms and mega bytes. If you can't blow it up to the size of a billboard, be prepared to re-shoot or forget it.

But don't get me wrong. I do thoroughly appreciate digital -- I love the ease and instant gratification, even the reduced expense on materials. There are the added infinite pleasures of post-production as if Photoshop is the venue for some all-night party and it is, after all, the modern day darkroom. I don't know if I'm wistful or rebellious. I long for the elementary and I get ornery when I feel intimidated. Technical schmechnical. It's just so hard to colour within the lines.

Objectification

Female objectification and objectification in general have probably been around throughout history because even the simple matter of looking your best or dressing to titillate could be construed as objectification. We label it offensive yet we also celebrate it in fashion and in erotica. Let's not forget that attraction is often a catalyst in furthering a species -- it's part of our biology. To objectify would then be a more concentrated, or exaggerated and sometimes distorted derivative.

I may as well add that so far as I know, the ones being exploited (for lack of a better word), the subjects being labeled as sex objects, the objects of desire, those viewed as "eye-candy" don't seem to mind, unless of course they suspect they are valued only for their looks. Instead, it appears that mostly those who are not sex objects, those not interested in upping the volume on appearances, or those who are objectified but not taken seriously are the ones objecting to objectification.

But, this post is about photography not philosophy!

Although that could be debatable, too. Photographs send messages. A portrait can be interpreted as a revealing of the soul. Fashion imagery is less about portraying a person and more about mood and eliciting a response -- we use a model as a mere prop or we catapult her to Goddess status. Either way, the model is objectified.

Here are some images which could spark a debate, the first of which I believe could be the inspiration to the others. My sentimental and personal favorite, an industry pioneer, Helmet Newton pushed boundaries and introduced elements of objectification, bondage and sado-masochism into his imagery consistently. Today, his depictions seem almost tame, much like Nirvana appealing to the easy listening audience. He propelled the provocative into the mainstream of society and today we can see erotica throughout -- from stilettos taking on fetishism to Ellen von Unwerth depicting scenes of her models as dominatrixes or submissive creatures held captive such as in her "Revenge" series.

From David Lachappelle to Tony Ward to the bordering on porn Terry Richardson, erotica has come to grace the face of fashion. Fetishes once relegated to the status of decadence or taboo, can now be seen not only in sub-culture realms, but in the world of fine art. The designer, David Blazquez created human furniture just as forniphilia became a niche in the world of sexual proclivity.

Then again, maybe this is all old news. Afterall, Samal Design has been manufacturing human furniture in Paris, Allen Jones sculpted women as furniture in the 1960s which subsequently led to the photographer, Jemima Stehli posing herself as Allen Jones's furniture in 1999 amidst other recreations of iconic, provocative imagery including that by Helmet Newton. Further back we can trace roots of objectification to Francois-Rupert Carabin who created Art Nouveau depictions of women supporting or clinging from items of utilitarian function in the late 1800s.

(Credits appear below each image -- in the case where a link is not provided above, the link will appear with the credit.)

Helmut Newton (1976)

Ellen von Unwerth

David Blazquez

David Blazquez

Bella Borsodi

Ellen von Unwerth

SAMAL Design

Alva Bernadine

Allen Jones

Allen Jones

David Lachapelle (utilizing model and Allen Jones table)

Jemima Stehli

Jemima Stehli

Francois-Rupert Carabin

Francois-Rupert Carabin

Francois-Rupert Carabin

Ellen von Unwerth (note how this photograph is reminiscent of Francois-Rupert Carabin's Art Nouveau woman supporting a shell vessel from the 1890s)

We know that for at least 200 years, from the 1800s and into the present and undeniably looking to the future, objectification is not just a trend, it is part and parcel of our culture and society at large. Whether embraced and regaled or denounced, it is a fixture in fashion, sexuality, and the subconscious imagination.

Guy Bourdin

My first introduction to Guy Bourdin and probably a notable reference for many photographers is that of his Charles Jourdan shoe campaign of the 1970s. Bourdin's fashion photography defined a style that I think hibernated for awhile and then reemerged to influence perhaps Fiona Apple's "Criminal" music video and maybe even Juergen Teller's current Marc Jacob ads, albeit the Marc Jacob ads seem unrelated and blatantly stark verging on mocking by comparison. But in all, the core is an almost defiant favoring of object and form versus light, and the static versus fluidity.

The camera does not take pictures ...

... the photographer does!

And so goes the age old misconception that great imagery is based solely on the type of camera you have, when, in fact, a camera is just a tool that the photographer uses to capture images. "That camera takes great pictures!". (Think: Guns don't kill people, people do.) You do not need an expensive camera to take great photographs since I know plenty of people who own high end cameras and believe me, they are by no stretch of the imagination photographers nor amateurs. (They are, however, great consumers!)

Afterall, let's not forget the very affordable image making vehicles ... the Kodak Brownie, the Diana, and the Holga. So, in the spirit of this cartoon: the convenient and readily available camera-phone, here are a few shots I took with my cell phone. As you can see, I just disproved my theory -- these are not great pictures since the quality is lacking. But then, I didn't say anything about resolution. : )

I stand by the belief that a great photographer can create a great photograph with even, if necessary, a pinhole camera. (Let's just hope it isn't necessary.)





~~~ + ~~~
© K.L.Knief

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?

Painting by Gerhard Richter, 1966





















Digital Photograph by Michael Somoroff, 2004


















I don't know; what do you think? It might be flattery but it might also be thievery.

the power of a photograph

Immediately after Meghan McCain (daughter of Presidential hopeful, John McCain) posted a self portrait on Twitter, the nation went abuzz and a brouhaha ensued. I have to admit, the scandal (although I can't tell you exactly what the scandal is) prompted me to Google her and then immediately look up The Daily Beast where she is a columnist. The Daily Beast is now bookmarked on my computer.