it might be slim pickins here for the next couple of weeks as i slog through my paper for the EMP but ill do my best to write every now and then. here is what has been on my mind over the last couple of days.

» i saw “brothers of the head” last night. oh my goodness, its downright brilliant. “hedwig” meets “gimme shelter” meets the mütter museum. the music is totally awesome, too. i was expecting something a bit campy a la “velvet goldmine” but thats not the case. its really dark and sad. best thing that happened to me yesterday, natch.

its out in theatres JULY 28, which means you should totally go see it.

» BOO HOO. POOR FUCKING DIANE VON FURSTENBURG. im so sad about this because you, zac posen and countless other designers totally take time out of your lives to create lines for people who might not be able to plunk down eight million spacebucks on some shitty fashion retread.

and whats that i always hear about designers being “inspired” by street culture? isnt that a simple justification for when you swipe ideas from other artists? like how else do you explain paris hilton donning trucker caps? [and its not just the big fashion houses who are stealing, either. organizations like urban outfitters do this all the time.]

you might want to rethink your argument, ms. von furstenburg, because you sound like an entitled spoiled twat; this whole thing sounds like the internet rumor about lars ulrich trying to copyright an E chord, anyway.

» speaking of copyright, ive been slogging through my own battles. it seems you just cant share some photographs without having someone swipe your work for their website.

now, im well aware of the irony here — an mp3 blogger complaining about copyright. but im not trying to argue that im allowed to continue hosting something when the copyright holder asks me to take something down. if someone wanted their bands song removed, ill do it in a heartbeat and without argument.

i know a couple of you are either lawyers, law students or just well-versed in copyright/IP issues, so ill give you a bit of background information. the photographs in question were taken for a freelance job at sxsw. to archive my work, i use flickr. i like flickr because:

im sure there’s a couple other reasons but for the most part, thats it. in addition to the creative commons license i have on flickr ["all rights reserved"], i register work with the copyright office. [pertains to work done for freelance or anything i might show in a gallery] sometimes it can be a pain to do all the paperwork but i think of it as being part of a freelancer’s job.

anyway, i posted a link to the photographs in question on a messageboard because i thought people might enjoy seeing them. i enjoy sharing work and occasionally receive useful feedback out of the experience. i assume that if someone likes the work, they’ll contact me about using it on their site. depending on who is doing the asking, my agreement might range from a simple credit on their site to a licensing agreement.

so another person posted about more photos being up, and being curious, i checked their site out. needless to say, i wasnt pleased to find it was my work and lacking credit. [i was also bothered by the fact that the only credit for work on the site was a blanket, "Thanks to whomever posted the..."] i sent the person my standard message:

hi there,

i’d like for you to remove my work from your site. you did not ask permission to repost these, nor am i credited anywhere and last [but CERTAINLY not least] they are copyrighted. im a freelance photographer and you’re swiping my work.

you’re more than welcome to link to the work [in addition to providing credit] but not host them on your machines. failure to comply will result in my lawyers sending you and your webhosting company a cease & desist letter.

here is a list of the works in question:

[removed]

thanks - it’s really appreciated!

maria tessa sciarrino

pretty standard procedure in the photo business. some photographers arent even that kind, they’ll send a C&D without blinking. [most record labels will have lawyers deal with it.]

im putting the following responses on another page because i know the suspense kills you.

Hey, no problem… but are you SURE it really matters to you? I’m not selling the pics, or anything, I get MAYBE 10 hits a month on my server anyway, and they are worse quality than the origs, and even the origs are poor quality (ever consider using (fast or pushed) film? I’ve nearly perfected taking pictures in the dark… but a digital camera can’t really do it) . Also, apologies, I didn’t know who took the pics (I just don’t pay attention).

yes, this does matter to me! its MY work. how would you feel if someone took something that you spent time & money on and reposted it somewhere without your consent? when i was a student, id probably be psyched ’til no end if someone acknowledged my photographs. but im not a kid anymore. freelance jobs make up a considerable portion of my earnings and as such, i have a right to protect that.

1. you failed to accquire permission for reproduction. if you dropped me a PM and said, “hey, i have a [name withheld] fan site. id like to include your photos on it. is this possible?”, i would have more than likely said yes, provided that you credited me on your site. hell, i probably would have sent you images with better resolution! i understand that as a fan, this is meaningful to you. a lot of photographers are more than happy to share their work with fans, which is exactly why i posted a link to them on the board. TO SHARE. however, you seem to have conflated “sharing” with “taking”, which are not the same.

2. my photos are tagged “all rights reserved”. this means: all rights granted under existing copyright law [ie. the right to publish a work within a specific area] are retained by the copyright holder [that would be ME] and that legal action may be taken against infringement. i have a right to determine who/where/how my photographs are used. if thats not enough for you, perhaps you’d like to see all my paperwork from registering them with the US copyright office?

3. my initial message to you was standard procedure in this business. feel free to ask any professional photographer about it. some photogs arent even that polite — they’ll make their lawyers immediately send C&D letters. thanks for apologizing and removing the material. it’s appreciated.

Do you have a home page?

do you actually pay attention to the internet or are you too busy with swiping other people’s material to actually notice? i guess we are all just faceless souls on the internet, which means you can shit all over someone without recourse or remorse. perhaps if you thumbed around the flickr site to look at my profile, you’d see a link to one of my sites. and you’d probably notice that the little quicktime video i took was hosted on a personal website. but thats completely beside the point.

what kind of question is this? hypothetically speaking, if ansel adams dropped you a line and wanted his work off your site, would you demand to see his homepage? since when does having a homepage establish legitimacy, anyway?

furthermore, don’t tell me how and where i should display my work. if i want to use a service like flickr [for which i pay], that’s my decision. there are pros and cons to every sort of image management service/software/etc — maybe we can talk about that another time. frankly, im not writing you this email to justify why i use flickr. im not commenting on your web design skills or choice of hosting, now am i?

The only reason I posted them is because the host site you use is a POS and REALLY annoying, as are most picture hosting sites. Waste of everyone’s time and your money. You should really consider having your own site. Hosting is insanely easy, and you’d save yourself oodles of time not having to deal with it, and your customers will love you for it.

why didnt you simply link to the images? i mean, looking around at your site, i can see you know how to use HTML. i can understand if you took the images because you were concerned they’d disappear from the internet [like everything does]. common sense would dictate in a situation like that to contact the owner for copies. but i guess it would be REALLY annoying to do some extra legwork.

Did you get expressed permission to take the pictures? Did you carry a press pass to the show? Can I see the individual copyrights for each pic? Have any documentation to prove that you were working during the show? Who was your client? How about your lawyer’s name and phone number?

In fact, your photos are not copyrighted are they? You GAVE them away. You can’t copyright something after you give them away. There is no copyright notice where they are posted, nothing indicating anything like that. Get your shit straight, girl.

thanks for asking these all too important questions. why would i bother dropping you a line if i didnt have a legitimate claim? its interesting how you’re concered with making sure i’ve covered my ass on the legal end of things, yet clearly take no time for your own. a response like this speaks volumes about how little you know regarding sxsw and its operating procedures.

should you ever find yourself at the festival: you can’t take cameras in venues without having a photo pass [which is affixed to the camera body so that only you can use it]. passes are incredibly limited and you have to practically sign away your first born for one. this is the only way in which photography is permitted.

I’m pulling it down today not because I wish to comply, but because you’ve offended me, really pissed me off, and I want nothing to do with promoting your hack photography career (pathetic… you may as well get married now). Before you go around threatening people with empty legal action, you really ought not to be so entirely full of shit. Making idle legal threats was really not necessary. btw, I’ve got 4 supurb litigators in my immediate family, all grads of one of the top 15 universities, with over 100 years of combined courtroom and legal experience, AND a federal judge to boot. If you want to go broke pursuing this, bring it on. Otherwise, a little tact goes a long, long, long way. Further, quid pro quo, you can go ahead an erase the Alley Katz show that I’ve provided for you. Super. Thanks.

who’s threatening who now?

i dont want to sue you, im not trying to go broke in the process — im looking out for my own work, which, whether you want to accept it or not, i have a legal right to do so.

my original intent remains — i dont want my photographs on your site. since you’re taking them down, i have no reason to seek litigation! what they say is true — all it really does take is one email!

perhaps you should exercise a bit more caution when swiping work in the first place? first rule to being a good thief is to not get caught!

oh, but wait. it gets even better.

screw it!

How much are you selling your photo’s for? How many have you sold from that group so far? Got any published? No? Could it be for lack of effort, or is it the poor quality of they images that stopped their publication?

Well I hope the C & D letter will be worth the money, because I’m putting the photos back up until I get one.

These aren’t gold… their low rez digital pics. Get over yourself (Ansel Adams?!! You REALLY like to stroke yourself, don’t you). I didn’t break into your studio and steal your negatives, and I didn’t hack the flicker site.

And how is ASKING for litigation threatening? YOU threatened. Not me.

Call your attorney. If he doesn’t laugh his ass off, go ahead and spend some money on that letter (is it really worth it?). Then I’ll take the pics down.

This isn’t about you being violated and having something stolen, for which you experience real financial loss. This is about you being a little control freak.

I would have happily given you credit… all over the place. Linking to flicker is unacceptable. It is garbage.

Don’t contact me again.

I’ll be expecting that letter from your attorney.

of course, here’s the kicker — dude totally took down the photos and put this as an explanation, “Sorry, everyone. I pulled the photos because the amatuer [sic] that took them pissed me off.”

note that he only took them down in anger, not because he was violating copyright or even the terms of service with his hosting company! well, at least they’re off there. and it blows that it had to come down to some sort of massive argument like this.

in the meantime, im going to take this dude’s advice and end my photographic career. i mean, i might as well just pack it in! clearly because knowing how to push and pull film in the digital age is the true sign of a real photographer. now i just need to get married [because this is the logical progression...?] — who’s willing to volunteer for that?

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 1st, 2006 at 1:35 pm and is filed under general, internet.