Month: April 2008

Flickr: Discussing Okay, you guys win. in We Demand Donuts: April 16 is the Day of the Donut!

Yesterday I blogged on a Flickr protest group that was demanding free doughnuts from Flickr. The story was picked up by CNET’s news.com and subsequently dugg over at digg.

Well it looks like the pro-donut crusaders have won at least this first battle. Matthew Rothenberg, a Flickr employee has agreed to buy any member of the “We Demand Donuts” group a donut at 11am in a to be determined downtown San Francisco location on next Wednesday, April 16th.

From Rothenberg’s post:

“While you have not yet reached your goal of 20K members, we at FlickrHQ have heard of your noble efforts and seek to answer your cries for justice.

Save the date: Wednesday, April 16th, 11:00am at a donut shoppe TBD in downtown San Francisco. I will purchase one (1) free donut for every We Demand Donuts group member who shows up.* (*While supplies last.)

This is not a joke.

Let glazed and jelly-filled freedom ring!”

New Mexico commission orders $6,000 fine for Christian beliefs (OneNewsNow.com)

Earlier this year I blogged on a legal scuffle between two Christian photographers who had a complaint filed against them in the state of New Mexico for refusing to be hired to photograph a New Mexico lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony.

Elaine and Jon Huguenin own a photography studio in Albuquerque New Mexico. Both are Christians. Apparently Vanesa Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission after the Huguenin’s refused to shoot their commitment ceremony.

Earlier this week the commission found the photographers guilty of discrimination under New Mexico state anti-discrimination laws and ordered them to pay $6,000.

While there is no Federal statue that I am aware of providing legal protection to same sex couples, the state of New Mexico does have such a statue on their books. Apparently a Christian law firm is going to appeal the decision.

What do you think? Should the decision stand? Should a Christian photographer be required to shoot something that violates their personal religious beliefs? Is the New Mexico ruling a good verdict and one that protects the rights of same sex couples and helps them to avoid discrimination? How would you feel if the couple had refused to photograph a couple because they were black or too old or handicapped? Would that change your opinion on the decision?

Update: More from Mario Burgos.

Just off the wire, Dish Network has failed to convince an appeals court to overturn TiVo’s earlier patent win against the company. TiVo’s earlier win is upheld.

This means that you very well may be screwed if you use Dish Network and may be seeing your DVR go away very soon. It also means that TiVo gets to keep at least $94 million in damages from Dish and possibly up to $200 million depending on the judge.

Today’s courts decision is the final decision and means that Dish Network can no longer appeal their loss to TiVo.*

It is unlikely that TiVo would negotiate with Dish going forward to allow them to use TiVo’s patented DVR technology. Instead TiVo will enjoy the windfall from the company as well as be able to use Dish as an example when negotiating with other companies.

Two weeks ago on an analysts conference call TiVo CEO Tom Rogers said as much:

“I would say based on our experience with litigation, the cost of litigation are far less than the returns that we are seeing just from the cap side of this equation and I don’t think people have seen the end of what the cap side of that equation is, but just on the basis of damage award, what we’ve spent versus what we’ve gotten back, its been a great business move.

But again, my hope would be that the perception of what we’ve achieved and the value of our intellectual property and the enforcement of an injunction and what the implications of that are will help us significantly to drive forward broader distribution deals than do so without having to litigate.”

My guess is that TiVo will use the muscle and threat behind this recent injunction to force Time Warner, one of the last operators to hold out, to do a deal with TiVo.

Update: TiVo has now issued a direct statement on their website:

“We are extremely pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today denied EchoStar’s petition for a rehearing en banc, upholding the Court’s unanimous ruling in our favor on January 31, 2008, in EchoStar’s appeal of the district court judgment of patent infringement, full award of damages and an order for the injunction to be reinstated.

Today’s ruling brings us closer to resolution of EchoStar’s infringement and reconfirms the strength of TiVo’s Time Warp patent, which is in addition to the other benefits TiVo has to offer. We look forward to full enforcement of our rights in the near term.”

*Update #2: Amazingly, Dish is now saying that they actually will appeal this verdict all the way to the Supreme Court. Good luck with that fellas!

Dish is also saying that this injunction will not require them to turn off any DVRs.

“We are disappointed that the Federal Circuit did not grant our petition for rehearing. The decision, however, will have no effect on our current or future customers because EchoStar’s engineers have developed and deployed ‘next-generation’ DVR software to our customers’ DVRs. This improved software is fully operational, has been automatically downloaded to current customers, and does not infringe the Tivo patent at issue in the Federal Circuit’s ruling.

“All DISH Network customers can continue to use their DVRs without any interruption or changes to the award-winning DVR features and services provided by DISH Network.

“We intend to appeal the Federal Circuit’s ruling to the United States Supreme Court.”

On digg here.

Today I uploaded two photos to my Flickrstream. They are the two photos above. One of the photos was taken at the de Young Museum in San Francisco, one of the pre-eminent fine art museums in the world. The other is graffiti and was taken on Market Street in San Francisco (it’s now been painted over already).

So ask yourself this question. Which one is graffiti and which one is fine art? Would you want one of these paintings hanging in your home over the other?

Post your answer in the comments on my blog post on this and I’ll report back tomorrow with a breakdown of the votes and who was right and who was wrong. C’mon, don’t be chicken, post anonymously if you want. Can you guess which one is which? You might be surprised.

My photoset of paintings here. My photoset on graffiti and street murals here.

Attention Flickr video haters: Try a free doughnut | Underexposed – CNET News.com

My friend Jake has been trying to get Flickr to buy free doughnuts for Flickr users for a long time now. It seems like his tireless tirade for doughnuts has finally hit the big time with CNET reporting on his quest to force the Yahoo photo sharing jugernaut to pony up and give Flickr users the free doughnuts that they deserve.

Help the man out. If you’d like to get free doughnuts from Flickr Digg this post here!

[I’m CEO of Zooomr]

Flickr Users Cry Mutiny Over New Video Feature | The Underwire from Wired.com:

Wired is out with yet another article about the no videos on Flickr movement. Yesterday CNET/Webware and the Register both carried articles covering the protest as well.

In less than 48 hours, two very large anti-video groups on Flickr have gained quite a bit of traction and momentum. We Say NO to Videos on Flickr now has over 23,000 members and No Video on Flickr now has almost 10,000 members.

Now is probably as good a time as any to give my own opinion on the whole video on Flickr thing.

Personally I’m not a big fan of the new video service on Flickr. But then again I’m not a huge fan of 90 second video clips in general either. I rarely use YouTube or other video services. I do have a video up on Vimeo but it’s over 90 seconds.

I think a lot of how I view video on Flickr comes down to how I view Flickr though. I view Flickr as sort of a new world online fine art gallery or museum. I believe that Flickr represents a democratization of fine art photography and a way for new and emerging artists to show their work.

This of course is not how most people who use Flickr view Flickr though. Where a handful of fine art photographers view this as one of the most important functions of the site, others view the site as simply a place to host their photos.

Most Flickr users in fact have no aspirations to be fine art photographers. Sure, they are pleased when their sunset shot gets 5 faves and a little attention, but for the most part most people on Flickr are there to simply share photos, good, bad or indifferent.

The problem is that there are a *ton* of really bad photographs on Flickr. I mean really really really bad photos. As much as the site has become a place where people show their fine art photography it has also been flooded with mediocre photography.

For the person who wants to use Flickr as a place to show and appreciate fine art photography the constant struggle is to wade through all the crap to find the good stuff. And when you find the good stuff, it’s oftentimes very, very good.

Now I believe that good original artistic fine art video is much more difficult to produce than good original fine art photography. That said, what video on Flickr means is that users who are focused on fine art photography will have to wade through that much more crap on the site.

Now on the one hand, so what, big deal. What’s the problem with having to see a bunch of crap video everywhere you go? Just don’t click on it and ignore it — same thing you’ve been doing with the crap photography. But it’s still clutter and I think clutter pulls down the overall clean feel of the Flickr site for many users.

Now, on the other hand, I do recognize that maybe I’m just taking the attitude of the grumpy old man here. Certainly there was resistance to digital photography when it first began to supplant film photography. Maybe rather than oppose video, I should embrace it. Maybe I’d be surprised by the quality of work I’d find. But I’m just not there yet. And maybe I’m not there because to watch a 90 second bad video involves a much greater commitment of time and energy to try and find the truly artistic fine art stuff than simply looking at a page of thumbnails of photos and deciding which ones I’m going to click on and view.

I watched a couple of videos on Flickr yesterday. I’m not going to say whose they were but they were definitely crap. Boring to no end. And my concern is that all this boring video will continue to deluge the site.

To me, the simplest answer is for Flickr to simply offer filtering technology for the new service. Flickr today gives a user an option to opt out of screenshot imagery, why not give the user the same option to opt out of videos. It seems to me that this would be a small price to pay and a way that they could show the Flickr Community that they do listen to them.

Now I do like video, heck, I work on a video show with Robert Scoble. I think video has it’s place out there. But I’m just not sure the place for it for me is Flickr. And mostly when I’m watching video I have no aspirations that I’ll be watching fine art. If I had the option I’d choose to opt out of video on Flickr. But I can’t opt out of video on Flickr today, and that’s the biggest part of the problem.

Empower user choice and you empower your user.

Candid Camera: Trove of Videos Vexes Wal-Mart – WSJ.com

An interesting story over at The Wall Street Journal reminds you how important it is to maintain your rights to whatever it is in the world that you document. The story is about a small video production company, Flagler Industries.

In the 1970s Mike Flagler was hired on a handshake without a contract to produce corporate video for Wal-Mart. The video was used for corporate Wal-Mart events, it’s annual shareholder meeting, sales meetings, etc.

Mike Flagler later sold his video production company (and I assume the IP rights to the video footage that he shot) to two of his co-workers. When Wal-Mart stopped using Flagler Industries for video it resulted in the company scaling back and laying off 16 of their employees.

But now these two employees have the best revenge. And that’s because the Wal-Mart footage may have far greater value to other people than it might to Wal-Mart.

Plantiff attorneys that are suing Wal-Mart are now going back to much of this very candid video footage to try and find footage to bolster their cases against Wal-Mart.

Much of the footage may also have political value. Americans have a love/hate relationship with Wal-Mart. While many people shop at the giant retailer and appreciate the lower prices that they may have, another group hates the big box retailer for what it’s done to American small business and the landscape across countless cities and towns across America. Many cities and towns have passed legislation prohibiting big box stores like Wal-Mart from coming into their neighborhoods.

So it probably comes with a bit of political negativity when footage was recently produced from the Wal-Mart archive showing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on stage with Wal-Mart Founder Sam Walton.

In the footage Hillary says, “I’m so proud of this company and everything it represents,” at a store opening in 1991. In the video Walton responds, “You’re a great associate, Hillary.” Turning to the crowd, he adds: “She’s one of us.”

Now I’m not sure if any Presidential candidate would want to be known as “one of us,” by a controversial major American corporation. Particularly one that is known to have cost many a small business their livelihood.

The treasure trove of Wal-Mart video is interesting. And as photographers and videographers it also shows why you may want to work without a contract or if you do work with a contract to make sure that you always maintain the IP rights to the work that you produce. That photograph or video that you shoot today may seem unimportant and insignificant, but someday it may have much more value than you think it might.

Wal-Mart lawyers of course are looking into this matter and it wouldn’t surprise me to see them try and tie up Flagler Industries in Court. But on the other hand, without a contract, IP ownership over the tapes clearly belongs to the person who created the video and I think that this will be a hard battle for them to fight.

Recently I published the above photo. It’s been a popular photo and was selected yesterday by the TWIP (This Week in Photography) podcast this week as their winner for a recent photo challenge that they did on portrait photography.

The photograph has a lot of meaning for me and I thought I’d use this opportunity to talk about the story behind the photograph. I’m somewhat embarrassed and ashamed about the story behind such a beautiful portrait which is why I haven’t shared the story until now. But the photo has been a learning experience for me and I think and hope that the photo’s impact on me has made me a better person and a better photographer in terms of how I interact with strangers in the future. I hope that by sharing the story I can also encourage others with how they interact with strangers.

Below is the comment I left on the TWIP blog where they announced this photo as this week’s winner with the story behind the photo:

“Hey, thank you for choosing my photo for the photo of the week. I took the photo on a recent trip to Portland. On the trip I was pretty much shooting non-stop for 4 days and nights.

Every so often you take a photograph that has personal impact on your life. This photo is one of those for me.

I took this photo on the Burnside Bridge in Portland. The Burnside Bridge is one of the areas of Portland where homeless people congregate. There are a few homeless shelters there and lots of homeless people hang out just underneath the bridge. I was up shooting the bridge at night and the “Made in Oregon” neon sign that can be seen from the bridge.

While I was shooting I was wearing headphones and listening to music on my iPhone. As I was walking across the bridge this man, this beautiful man, approached me saying something while I had my headphones on.

In a moment that I am very ashamed of I did not remove my headphones. Instead I said back to the man that I didn’t have any money. I said this to the man without having heard what he was asking me. I could tell from his expression that he was annoyed by my response. At this point I took my headphones off to hear what he was saying.

What the man said to me was that he didn’t want my money. That he was not asking me for money, that he was asking me if I would take his photograph. I was very embarrassed. First off, I didn’t even have enough respect for another human being to take my headphones off and hear him out in the first place. And secondly I’d jumped to a conclusion that the man simply was trying to get me to give him money. I felt bad that I’d insulted this man. And I felt ashamed of the way I’d treated another human being.

The lens that I had on for shooting his portrait was not optimal. It was a 14mm ultra wide angle. I was too embarrassed to try and delay the man while I switched lenses so I took the shot with the 14mm. This meant that I had to try and get very very close to him to shoot the portrait. It also meant that I needed to stand far enough away from him so as not to exaggerate his facial features with the lens. To make matters worse I was shooting up on the bridge with a tripod and trying to get a hand held shot in low light with an f/2.8 lens is not easy. I fired off about 6 shots and one of the shots at 1/4 second exposure turned out.

After shooting the man I thanked him and he thanked me.

After our interaction on the bridge I could not get my interaction with this man out of my head for the next few days. I was so ashamed at myself for jumping to the conclusion that I had and for not removing my headphones to speak with the man when he approached me. This beautiful man had approached me and wanted nothing more than to be photographed by a stranger. He was giving his image to me and I felt that I’d treated him so badly. I also felt bad that I didn’t even try to get his name or an address or something afterwards to send him the photograph. I had been taken by surprise by the interaction and was flustered and had acted poorly and thoughtlessly.

After this interaction though I began to imagine that the man was an angel. And that he’d been sent to me by God to confront me about the way that I interact with, or rather the way that I typically avoid other human beings. That I needed to look at people more as human beings worth spending time with and less as annoyances that get in the way of my shooting. This interaction made me decide to try and make a greater effort in the future to connect with strangers on a human level.

I hope someday that I might meet this man again to let him know that our interaction had great meaning for me. And also to give him a copy of the portrait that I’d taken of him. I imagine that I’ll never know who this man is. And maybe he was not a man at all, but as I’d imagined, rather an angel who had shown himself to me only long enough to confront my own callousness and snap a photograph.”

Kathy Johnson did a painted version of this portrait here.