This thread is useless without pics (seriously). Which one was it?

I ranted at my blog...

It was a cropped photo that appeared for about one second in a three minute video, but it was enough to throw a photographer who specializes in not-all-that-candid portraits of web-based hipsters in their unnatural environment (including geek parties and Burning Man) into an absolute hissy fit. And thusly, there is a small-print “We’re sorry, this video is no longer available.” message where the “Here Comes another Bubble” video (one of the few things I’ve ever felt GOOD about embedding from YouTube) used to be.

Maybe it’s because I am an aficionado of Animation, the art of creating one sometimes-wonderful work of art out of a few thousand individual still pictures, but I don’t hold still photographers in that high a level of esteem. Or maybe it’s because the most valuable stills being taken these days are upskirt shots of genuinely unimportant female celebrities without panties.

I must concede that getting good-looking pictures out of the flawed photographic process in non-optional lighting conditions is a skill bordering on art (or magic). But I must also note that I have never seen the benefit of using Flickr to store your visual assets (or YouTube for your video), unless you’re (a) somewhat exhibitionist AND (b) too cheap to cover the bandwidth cost of displaying it from your own webspace.

Anyway, I think Lane Hartwell is being a complete ass, (while Matt H. and the Richter Scales were only half-ass) so please enjoy this disrespectfully altered self-portrait of the photographic artiste with full acknowledgment of her contribution.

≡ Click to see image ≡

This Wired news thingy shows the alleged picture.

And here's the only thing she left 'public' at Flickr.

I'm confused. What's the problem here? A photographer didn't want her photo used in something because she retained the copyright. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

but I don’t hold still photographers in that high a level of esteem
But I must also note that I have never seen the benefit of using Flickr to store your visual assets...unless you’re (a) somewhat exhibitionist AND (b) too cheap to cover the bandwidth cost of displaying it from your own webspace.

As a photojournalist-hopeful who stores his photos on Flickr and wouldn't want any of them used in something without his permission, I'm sorry you feel that way.

*takes all his images private just to please wendell*

Is there a batch file that'll do this for me?

From her remaining flickr photo:

In no small part due to this effort to keep things out of the public eye, certain people, rather imaginatively, have filled in their own details and jumped to some pretty wild conclusions.

Well, duh, that's what happens when you try to keep things out of the public eye that are already in it. It's amazing that this surprises people.

My man is a photographer. I fully understand a photographers right to keep their rights. If only half the times he took a shot was properly paid for or credited, I wouldn't be the one covering the damn rent every month. The climate is such now that one can't as a pro kick up a fuss for obvious infringes for fear of loosing the next (minimally paid) assignment. This is shit for anyone who creates anything - design, write, sing, illustrations, knitting patterns you name it baby. In the end, don't we want those who create stuff to be able to control their stuff? He might have said "sure, include the shot but link me in the credits" had anyone bothered to ask him. It's not about the money, it's about the rights.

though I do avoid flickr for precisly the reason wendell says - people think flickr means free for all. Not that hosting your own stuff makes it any harder to 'save image as'

err, make "him" "her" in that first comment.

dabitch, this is why so many pro photographer's sites use [annoying] flash interfaces... not that that stops people from using 'print screen' and 'paint'.

xactly, but god I hate those sites for a myriad of other reasons.

ad-peeps are no better though, at my last gig we were encouraged to (more or less forced to) sketch with copyrighted images and then we'd mimic the shot using another photographer. Soo icky. So wrong. In sooo many ways.

...and youknow, looking at it from a PR point of view, she basically had to get this video (of all videos) taken down. Sure, she could have been all good-internetizen and posted the video on her own blog sharing that some of her work was used in the video "and gotte goodwill from that" as I see some blogs have stated - but who would even notice?
By getting a major internet-meme-funny all blacked out she's gotten more press than she ever could any other way. And for those saying "yah but it's not GOOD press" how often would YOU have paid her for a shoot? She's probably not trying to talk to you. Plus, she's putting the spotlight on a pretty sore issue for photographers these days - copyrights aren't just for Disney you know.

dabitch, I suspected from the start that it was a rather intentional publicity stunt from a photographer whose own personal site contains no examples of her work (and considering the Wired followup story included that picture of her, copyright her, that I was irresistably drawn to defacing). And her current gripe is that "news outlets" are misinterpreting her hiring of a copyright lawyer to negotiate on her behalf and to be quoted by Wired News as an intent to "sue the Richter Scales." And yet, 'negotiations' continue 5 days after she got YouTube to nuke the video... I don't know why the Scales haven't edited out that picture, throwing in one of the other pics of Valleywag's Owen Thomas on the web to replace it and get the show back on the Web (unless they see a value in the publicity too - ah cynicism).

My apologies to any aspiring Photojournalists out there, but copyright-ignoring-bastards are not the only thing you have to worry about... the image of the obnoxious paparazzi in your ranks (and the multiplication of their ranks, making it look like they're the only 'photojournalists' out there), the frequent scandals over 'Photoshop Fraud' and that really fuzzy line (as seen by those outside your profession) between retouching and fakery, and the continuing decline of the Print Media coupled with the increasing use in the 'New Media' of video instead of still pictures are making Photojournalism (as opposed to Videojournalism) one of those careers I wouldn't recommend getting into and would be suspicious of anyone pursuing (I'm watching you, CF12...)

So, and I'm totally serious about this, why haven't 24-or-32-frames-a-second video cameras totally replaced the professional still cameras by now (now you see what an uninformed ninny I am on the subject)?