Boycott Kellogg Co.

Fruit Loop

If you think marijuana should be legal, digg this here.

Kellogg Co. today become the first major company to drop Michael Phelps over the photo that appeared of him smoking marijuana.

“”Michael’s most recent behavior is not consistent with the image of Kellogg. His contract expires at the end of February and we have made a decision not to extend his contract,” spokeswoman Susanne Norwitz said in a statement.”

1. Kellogg Co. is idiotic. Apple Jacks, Cocoa Krispies, Eggo waffles, Froot Loops (yes, you heard that right Froot Loops!), Frosted Flakes, Frosted Mini-Wheats, Cinnamon Marshmallow Scooby-Doo! cereal, Spider-Man Spidey-Berry cereal, SpongeBob SquarePants cereal (say it ain’t so!), Cheez-It crackers, Mother’s Cookies (and I’m talking pink and white frosted animals sailor!), Pop-Tarts, Rice Krispies Treats, and the list goes on. Do those idiots not realize that stoners probably make up at least 50% of their sales?

Fortunately Cap’n Crunch still remains safely owned by by Quaker Oats and their parent, our good friends over at Pepsi (whew! dodged a bullet with that one!).

2. By dropping Michael Phelps for the sole reason of smoking pot, they are making a statement that pot is bad. That pot is evil. That by extension pot ought to be criminalized. In a very public way.

Earlier this week when several of his sponsors announced that they’d be standing by him, I think Dave Winer put it best, “Glad to see some sensibility emerging. Smoking pot is like having a beer. BFD.” And that’s exactly how Kelloggs should look at this as well.

The War on Drugs has cost our country dearly. It’s cost millions of dollars to incarcerate people for doing something that is no different than imbibing in a little alcohol. Instead of legalizing pot, taking the profits away from organized crime and drug dealers, and taxing it to raise much needed revnue, the politicians (along with their friends from the alcohol lobby) would rather just keep wasting money. To this end Kellogg Co. is not part of the solution. And they are very much a part of the problem. And for this reason, as much as it pains me, I’ll be keeping away from my Froot Loops and frosted animal cookies for a while.

Hopefully someone can talk some sense into Kellogg and Co. and have them reverse this horrible decision announced today.

Update: an interesting article from Anthony Citrano. Michael Phelps Should Not Be Sorry.

The Associated Press Says That They Own Famous and Iconic Shepherd Fairey Obama Image, Photographer Mannie Garcia Says, “Not So Fast”

Was the Iconic Shepherd Fairey Obama Hope Image Taken by Freelance Photographer Mannie Garcia?

The Associated Press is out this morning claiming copyright ownership to what will certainly be considered one of the most famous and important images of this century.

The image in question was also one of the most used images in the Barack Obama Presidential Campaign and also now sits in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC. The image was seen all over the United States, from graffiti in San Francisco to dorm rooms in Iowa. And apparently now the Associated Press has decided it wants to muscle in on a little of the ca-ching going on.

From CNN:

““The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission,” the AP’s director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement released Wednesday. “AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey’s attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution.”

Anthony Falzone, Fairey’s attorney, says fair use protects his client’s rights from using the photograph as a basis for his image. The concept of fair use allows breaches of copyright law based on the degree to which the original image is used, among other factors.

Fairey, a Los Angeles street artist, has said he found the image online and created his now-famous depiction in early 2008. He says he has not profited at all from the work, which he donated to the Obama campaign.”

Fairey is claiming fair use rights, but the bigger question really is does the Associated Press even *own* this image at all. If it turns out that they do not, they may come out looking like even more like the idiots that they were painted out as a while back when they decided that they wanted to start going after bloggers for quoting their stories.

Both Shepherd Fairey and the photographer who took the original image, Mannie Garcia, agree that the image was originally taken by Garcia. And now Garcia is saying that he owns copyright on the image not the Associated Press. It also seems that Garcia is a really cool guy and while wanting to be recognized as the original photographer, he isn’t trying to milk this thing for all it’s worth personally like your friends over at AP.

In an interview over at Photo Business Forum, in fact, Garcia has said that the majority of any money due him from this photo at all he’d like to see go to charity.

“Now, monies – monies that might be made by me signing my photograph. I am concerned, that the image out there – I would like very much to figure out a way that my signature on a photograph that I made of then Senator now President Obama, that maybe the monies = most of it – could be donated to the American Red Cross, children’s cancer research, and women’s breast cancer research. This is not about me making money off this, it’s about recognition. I made the most iconic image of our time, and I’d like it to make a difference, not make me money. I’m a blue collar photographer – I am out there on the grind every day. I spend more energy looking for work than doing work. I just want Shepard Fairey to say “alright, you’re the guy. Thank you.””

In terms of the APs claim of ownership of the image, Garcia states that he was not a staffer for the AP when he took it, that he wasn’t even an AP freelancer, but rather a temporary hire with no contract and that the ownership of the disputed image belongs to him.

And I think he just may be right on this. Without a contract with him signing over his rights to his photos to AP, as far as I’m aware Garcia ought to own the rights to his work.

Now there are a lot of ways this might unfold. It might be that it doesn’t matter if the AP or Garcia took the original image, that it’s use might be considered fair use. I’m not an attorney, but I think there is a real case to be made here.

It might also turn out that AP has no rights to the image. They have no contract with Garcia and sans contract any ownership of the image likely would go to him.

Personally I think it’s very unlikely that the AP will get control over this very popular image. Which means that they may end up looking like money grubbing jerks yet again if/when they lose. Even if they win, enough people are probably impressed with the way that Fairey gave all of the money made on the image to the Obama campaign that they’ll still end up looking bad trying to squeeze him.

If the AP were smart, I’d think that they’d be better off right now from the start agreeing that no money would go to them if they do have any coming, and that instead any money raised would go to charity and Garcia. Garcia could of course also choose to give his portion largely to charity as well if they recovered any.

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.

Should You Give Away Your Photos For Nothing To People Who Can Pay?

Neon Griffin

I license all of my photos on Flickr Creative Commons, non-commercial. This basically means that anyone can use them for personal use. It also means that non-profits and others can use them.

What it doesn’t mean is that commercial entities can use them for free.

I get asked almost every single day from people whether or not they can use my photos for things or not. These requests range everywhere from a ten-year-old asking me permission to use one of my lady bug photos for her book report (which is very cute) to major companies asking to use them. Many of the requests fall within the creative commons license, but either people don’t understand that or want to ask anyways.

My own general rule is that I, of course, always say yes to appropriate non-commercial or personal use. When the nature is commercial I generally feel out the situation. A lot of people who ask me to use my images for commercial use are pretty cash strapped. I’ve had unsigned bands ask me to use images for album covers. I’ve had first time authors ask me for permission to use my images for their new book. I’ve had poetry journals want to use them. You get the idea. Generally speaking, I tend to allow commercial use of my images to anyone that I feel can’t easily afford to pay for whatever reason. I consider it good karma.

Oftentimes people that use my photos this way will send me a CD from the band, a copy of a book or publication etc. Once I let this band Science for Girls use my images for free for their CD and Darren Solomon, the producer for the small band, later contacted me with an opportunity to use other images for a commercial project where I was paid. Goes around, comes around. It makes you feel good.

A lot of times I get requests from people though who truly can afford to pay. A law firm once used one my images for their company Holiday card, major corporations have used my photos in print or TV ads. My photos have been used in magazines, for greeting cards, for text books. Really all kinds of use. With these buyers I usually negotiate a price I think is fair based on the use. Sometimes $50, sometimes $100, sometimes $500. It just all sort of depends. I’m pretty flexible.

One thing that does bother me a bit though is when companies that clearly can pay, ask for your images for free. They certainly are free to ask, but generally I say no to these people and it does rub me a bit the wrong way seeing large profitable corporations trying to get something off the backs of a community like Flickr for free. On Monday night on our photowalk I was talking to some of the other photographers about this and Jon Bauer mentioned receiving an email from GQ asking to use his images for free. It seems GQ is the latest company looking to score free images off Flickr.

So today I wasn’t surprised to get my own request on one of my images from GQ (photo above):

The email went like this:

“My name is [redacted], and I work in the GQ magazine photo department. I am trying to acquire images of The Griffin in Las Vegas for use on our website. We are going to launch GQ’s online guide to Las Vegas in two weeks and we would love to include one of your photographs.

Generally, I would never ask for something for nothing. However, at this time we are only able to give credit. If that is okay with you and we can have permission to use one of your images, it would be greatly appreciated.”

Now in GQ’s case I’m going to say no. GQ is owned by Conde Nast. Conde Nast is owned by Advance Publications. Advance publications is owned by the descendents of S.I. Newhouse. These are the mega wealthy of the world. Forbes Magazine ranked Advance Publications as the 41st largest private company in the United States last year. For a major company to try to beg photos for free off of Flickr is bad form in my opinion. And at a minimum they should think about offering a free subscription or something.

I feel that I’m very generous with my photography. Maybe to a fault. And I really like helping people out who I think ought to be helped out. But I’m not so sure that seeing major for profit companies begging photos off Flickr is the best thing for anyone.

My two cents for what it’s worth.

A Humerous Take on Photographer Harassment From the Colbert Report

The Colbert Report had this great and very funny piece on a photographer who was harassed for taking photographs by Amtrak Police when he was trying to take photos for an Amtrak photography contest. Well worth watching.

Thanks, PDXSean!

DeleteMe Uncensored

DeleteMe Uncensored

Earlier today, the only group where I am really active on Flickr DMU was sabotaged when one of it’s administrators made everyone an administrator in the group.

This was done after an argument between admins over the nature of what an uncensored group on Flickr ought to be about. Some of the admins in the group wanted to begin censoring it.

DeleteMe Uncensored was the first uncensored group on Flickr. The idea was to play the game of DeleteMe (where people vote on photographs giving photos either a vote of "save" or "delete"). In that game if you get your photo saved 10x before you get it deleted 10x it goes into a special collection of images.

The catch though is that the game would also be uncensored. Uncensored meant that people can and will say ruthless things when critiquing your photograph that is submitted. Uncensored also meant that people can say anything they want in the threads of the group. Even very, very unpopular things.

An uncensored group is not for everyone on Flickr. Some people do not want harsh criticism on their photos and some people do not want to take part in a forum where people swear and sometimes say truly offensive things. It is not for the thinned skin. On the other hand some of the best political discussions, some of the best fine art discussions, some of the best discussions concerning the news of the day or just random mischef and mayhem took place in that group.

Today I started a new DeleteMe Uncensored group. This was done in order to replace the old group which had been deleted.

I’d like to invite you to join the new group. This new group will be where I spend the vast majority of my group time on Flickr. Be warned that this group is an 18+ group. That means that if you want in you will need to ensure that your account on Flickr has been set to allow you to see restricted content.

Hopefully over the course of the next week this new group will fill in and pick up where the old group left off.

You can join the new group here if you’d like to participate.

Had a Good Time Hanging Out at Last Night’s Photowalk

As the Evening Sky Drew Dark

I had a good time hanging out last night at the Miss Aniela photowalk in San Francisco. We met a the Ferry Building at 6:30pm and about 40 or so of us spent a fair chunk of the time out shooting on Pier 14 at night in the dark. It was a great clear night in San Francisco with a great vantage spot to shoot the city. Afterwards we shot around Jutin Herman Plaza for a while and then headed over to Harrington’s for a little dinner and beer.

We weren’t actually able to make it inside the Ferry Building as I think a group that large sort of spooked the security guards there.

Say For Me That I'm AlrightF MarketAdrift, Plate 2Hey Spider

Thanks to everyone who came out. I enjoyed the company, photography and conversation. These shots are a few of mine from a small set of my images that I put together here. If you have photos from last night’s walk up online please tag them with photowalk020209. Thanks!

Flickr User Asks Flickr to Check if Her Self Moderated Account is OK, Flickr Responds By Deleting the User’s Account Without Warning

Flickr User Asks Flickr to Check if Her Self Moderated Account is OK, Flickr Responds By Deleting the User's Account Without Warning

Last week I blogged about a Flickr user Shéhérazade who without warning saw her self moderated account get permanently deleted. The user was upset about this because they thought that they were abiding by all of the Flickr rules and posted a thread on this in the Flickr Help Forum which was promptly censored and shut down there. A lot of people felt that this was not right.

This week we have another Flickr user who was concerned that her account might not be set up right and so she wrote to Flickr staff asking if they could review her account and provide her input regarding if she had set her account up correctly or not.

Flickr’s response? Rather than respond back to the user and/or direct her on what she might need to do to have her account structured correctly at Flickr, simply without warning just pressed the big fat red delete button wiping out her entire account and all of her content permanently.

From the deleted account:

“I had an adult orientated stream of photos on flickr and was slowly building up a list of contacts, comments and views. All my pics were public and marked restricted except for 1 that contained no nudity and was marked moderate. My account was rated safe.

I have been deleted in the past and had done quite a bit of checking around to make sure I was on the right side of the law. It will make me sound like a bit of an anorak but I spent in excess of 4 hours on this and still was not sure. I got a flickr mail from another user (one of many) which said put all my pics f&f [edit: f&f = friends and family] or I would be deleted and this prompted even more checking and in the end I decided I would try and request flickr for help – primarily because the guidelines are so vague.

My email was nice enough. It contained the information in the first paragraph of this post and then went on to say that I did not want to get my account deleted for doing the wrong thing and that I would appreciate a review of my account to check I was all ok.”

The deleted user goes on to document her reply from Flickr:

“I got a response back within 12 hours

Subject:
[Flickr Case 1054684] Re: Account Review Request

Message:
Hello,

Flickr account “flashergirl77″ was deleted by Flickr staff
for violating our Terms of Service and Community
Guidelines.

http://www.flickr.com/guidelines.gne

Urination.

Flickr reserves the right to terminate your account without
warning at any time.

Regards,
-[edited out by staff]”

Now, Flickr tells people that they are allowed to host adult content as long as it is self moderated. Adult content, nudity, etc. is all over Flickr. The Flickr rules are that if you post that stuff you have to label it as “restricted,” this way people that don’t want to see it (and the default Flickr set up if people don’t bother to say one way or the other) won’t see it. It’s like it doesn’t exist to them.

So why when a Flickr user is playing by the rules and has self moderated all of their explicit photos “restricted,” do they summarily get their account deleted without warning simply for the crime of asking Flickr to review their account and tell them if they are doing everything ok?

Certainly Flickr owes its community more than this. It is the community after all that makes up Flickr. Flickr would be nothing without its community. And yet time and time again, over and over again, they seem to get away with deleting accounts and censoring content with no repercussion. Because Flickr seems to be the 800 pound gorilla and because today this is where the larger photo sharing community largely interacts, they seem to feel that they can just do whatever they feel like without any sort of consequence whatsoever.

And what’s sad, is maybe they’re right. Maybe they can just keep on censoring accounts and deleting accounts on a whim whenever they feel like it. Maybe they can continue destroying years of people’s work, thousands of comments, their uploaded images all without consequence because what are you going to do about it anyways?

But that still don’t make it right.

If you’d like to follow this case in the Flickr help forum you can do that here. Don’t be surprised though if the thread gets shut down shortly.

Update: Heather Champ has responded as follows in the Help Forum thread:

“I just wanted to follow up that I’ve sent an email about an hour ago to flashergirl1977 with an apology for the actions taken by the team in recent days. I’ll leave it up to them as to whether or not they want to share the content here.

That’s why I suspect this particular case is an aberration (not common, accident, etc) or there’s more to the story. The last thing Flickr wants to do is create a sense of distrust among the users. Unfortunately it’s only the cases handled improperly that end up getting any public attention (there’s no “Great Job Flickr!” forum.) and thus leads to public fear, as if that’s how all of their cases are handled.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. I’ve circled round with the team here regarding our process and policies. “

As an aside there are currently 94 threads (most of them closed or locked by Flickr) in the Flickr help forum with the words “censorship” and “mistake” in them. And yet still Flickr doesn’t have a way to undo “accidental” account deletions.

Update, not unsurprising, but Flickr has now permanently closed this thread complaining about their censorship.

Update: Bonus Feature. What to do you do when Flickr deletes your paid Pro account not once but twice?