Had the good fortune of being featured on Brian Ulrich’s blog Notifbutwhen. He also mentioned another photographer Stephen DiRado and we had a brief exchange in the comments section. Looking at his pictures I get a clearer idea of what I was after, but often could not articulate. The project was not so much about Malls but more about human nature, and also about the emotional weight of the environment. That is something I can really put my finger on now, fifteen years later, but at the time, I really did not know what I was looking for.

Later I will attempt a wrap-up of 2006. Happy holidays.

Update: the newyawkers get to see Brian Ulrich up close at Julie Saul, opening this Thursday, Jan 4 from 6 to 8pm. That was for my five friends who read this…:)

Hope y’all like the redesign, also I moved the writing out of the dot-mac cul de sac that it was in, I give up a little control over design, but the whole functionality is better. Angela says it looks more “professional.” To that I say “thanks” and post the image above:)

In my unofficial poll about appropriation on the internet a resounding 0% of responders had any problem with this. So I decided to ask my friend and editor at the Times what their position was, and I emailed a question as follows:

I got involved in an online blog discussion of usage permissions last week, and I wanted to pose a couple scenarios to you to see what you would have to do to run a photo:

Q: First example is you have a book review in the Arts section on a new monograph by Robert Adams, obviously there is a review copy, and probably the publisher has made available an image from the book. Are there any permission requirements or is it tacitly understood you have permission to run the photo with the review?
A: Publishers often have publicity use approved images, so yes, it is for review… and thus p.r./promotion of the book.

Q: Second example is a subset of the first, say for example the photo critic at the Times wrote an opinion piece about the state of black and white photography, and in the piece he mentions specific photographers, old and new, and for the lead picture the critic wanted to run one picture from a famous collection on work, something that the Times currently does not have rights to. The piece would credit the photographer, obviously, and would cite a book or two from him or her, some are current, some not in print. Would you be required to secure permission from the photographer to run a photo as the lead, or does this fall under some sort of fair use argument? ie; reviewers are serving the public good by talking about the arts and promoting artists. Or there is an educational side to the piece. Logistically, someone would need to get hi res to run in the paper, barring that, the online edition might only run the pic because the pic is “available” on the web. ie; you could “borrow” it. What say you all?

A: Must secure permission, no matter in print or the web. just because other people steal doesn’t mean you can. maybe that other site got permission? But you didn’t.

Q: Third example: a columnist in the metro or city section writes a personal piece about life in the city and an interaction with a bookseller in their neighbourhood, the gist being that a very good book was found amidst the piles and the columnist wanted to share that and remind people about the good work contained in the book. The book happens to be by a famous photographer who is still very alive and working but is difficult to reach. Do you need permission to run a photo from the book as the lead, the picture has significance to the editorial, it makes the point in a beautiful way. Again, a subset, you can’t get hi res except by scanning the book, but the online department can find a version of the pic on the internet. Can they just run it? Can the production department simply scan the book?

A: No, you can show the whole book as object, open to show photo…as for the Times or any other publication, I think photo usage and rights are the same for print and web. there’s no difference when you’re talking about permission to use.

Conclusion: Regardless of what I think about the valuing/devaluing of work on “the screen” and usage issues, there is a change in attitude/morals regarding permissions and appropriation of imagery on the net. Traditional publishing and journalism hews established rules absolutely, part of their credibility depends on it. The blogging world has set out in a different direction. I think this is worth examining.