August 2009 – Page 2 – Thomas Hawk Digital Connection

August 18, 2009August 20, 2009

Flickr Censors Political Image Critical of President Obama

“Flickr had removed the Joker image due to copyright-infringement concerns, Alkhateeb says the company told him in an e-mail. A Flickr spokeswoman declined to comment due to a company policy that bars discussing inquiries about individual users.”

There’s an interesting piece over at the Los Angeles Times today about the unmasking of the author of the iconic Obama/Joker photo (left). The photo recently began turning up in Los Angeles with the word “socialism” printed underneath it in similar style to the famous Shepard Fairey Obama HOPE poster and since then has been the subject of considerable debate and online interest.

It turns about that, according to the Times, a 20-year-old college student from Chicago, Firas Alkhateeb, is the artist behind the work. Apparently Alkhateeb made the image using Adobe’s Photoshop software.

After creating the image Alkhateeb posted it to his Flickr account and ended up getting over 20,000 views on it. 20,000 views that is until Flickr pulled the image down censoring him, along with everyone who commented on the image, citing “copyright-infringement concerns,” according to the Times.

Personally I think it’s too bad that Flickr decided to censor this iconic image. Whatever you may or may not think about this image and it’s appropriateness, the image would absolutely and unequivocally be considered parody and parody has always been one of the most effective defenses against any copyright complaint. Parody is why Weird Al gets away with creating a song called “Eat It,” directly to the tune of Michael Jackson’s “Beat It.”

What’s more, in the interest of free speech, political parody *especially* is perhaps given the widest berth of all. This is why Ralph Nader was able to directly rip MasterCard’s “Priceless” campaign and why the courts subsequently ruled in his favor after MasterCard sued him over it. Earlier today, a friend and Flickr contact of mine from DMU, A Boy and His Prime, who is a law student, put it more directly. “If you produce something that is transformative, and not derivative, then it’s fair use (Folsom v Marsh). In Campbell v Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569, Souter seemed to suggest that the main idea is substitutability, and that makes a lot of sense when you consider what copyright protects (i.e. your interest in your own work). The Jokerbama does not replace the original photo in any sense.” I’m not a lawyer myself of course and would be interested if anyone else out there who is would like to add comment as well.

Personally, I think it’s unfortunate that Flickr would embark upon yet another act of censorship when an image was so clearly parody and fair use. What bothers me even more is that this is still another example of Flickr censoring users who are critical of President Obama and his policies. In June Flickr deleted the entire account and photostream of Flickr user Shepherd Johnson after he posted comments critical of the President on the Official White House Photostream. Now I’m actually a Democrat who voted for President Obama and am super happy to see the President using Flickr. But while Flickr’s staff is obviously proud of the fact that they have President Obama’s official photostream on Flickr, I don’t think that this fact ought to be the impetuous for them to censor and delete users who are critical of the President.

I’m also troubled by this censorship in light of the clear pro-Obama bias that Flickr’s staff has shown. If you do a search for the word “Obama” on the flickr blog you get 74 different results, many of them very positive. By contrast a search for “Bush” on the Flickr blog only pulls up 5 results (even though Flickr has existed much longer under President Bush’s presidency than President Obama’s).

Now I have no trouble or problem with anyone on Flickr staff or anyone at Yahoo personally supporting whatever candidate they want. Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz personally contributed to both Bush and McCain and currently serves as a finance co-chair for Republican Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s finance committe. But I think when personal politics begin to take on a bigger role in corporate communications and especially when it begins resulting in politically motivated censorship that things have gone too far in the wrong direction. I hope that Yahoo does in fact consider it a mistake in hindsight to have deleted this clear fair use image critical of the President and that they take steps to ensure that this sort of politically motivated censorship by Flickr Staff is curtailed in the future.

I’ve contacted Alkhateeb about his image deletion and will hopefully be able to report back with more directly from him when I hear back from him.

I’ve also posted the exact same image that Flickr deleted to my own photostream. Let’s see if Flickr decides to censor me as well.

Update: bitchville over at Flickr pointed out that using the Weird Al example is actually a poor one since Weird Al actually had permission from Michael Jackson to record that song. I should have researched that more. A better example of the courts rulling in favor of parody would be that of the band 2 Live Crew and their version of “Pretty Woman.”

From publaw.com:

” The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work. Oh, Pretty Woman is a rock ballad written by Roy Orbison and William Dees. Luther Campbell and his musical rapper group, 2 Live Crew, wrote a rap song entitled Pretty Woman that had substantial similarities to the Orbison/Dees song. 2 Live Crew attempted to obtain permission for their parody from Acuff-Rose, the publisher of Oh, Pretty Woman, but were refused permission. 2 Live Crew then proceeded without permission to release their rap song and accorded Orbison/Dees with authorial credit and listed Acuff-Rose as the publisher. Acuff-Rose then brought a lawsuit, which at the trial court level ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew based upon its fair use parody defense. This decision was reversed on appeal when the Sixth Circuit ruled against the fair use parody defense because of the commercial nature of the 2 Live Crew rendition and the presumption of market harm that the rap rendition might cause for the Orbison/Dees song. The Sixth Circuit’s decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court accepted 2 Live Crew’s song as a parody because the rap song mimicked the original to achieve its message and because it “reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original [Oh, Pretty Woman] or criticizing it, to some degree.””

Update 2: More from The Inquisitor, Read Write Web, and I Think.

Update 3: News Busters points out that there are plenty of anti-Bush Time Magazine covers that are on Flickr that apparently are not “copyright” violations.

Update 4: On Slashdot here.

Update 5: RWW on the NY Times here. Valleywag/Gawker on the issue here and Techmeme here.

Update 6: Flickr is now saying that they received a DMCA takedown notice over this issue. From Heather Champ at Flickr:

“Flickr must be compliant with all local laws within the 21 countries where we are. The Yahoo! Terms of Service in all of those regions outlines what the process is for dealing with infringement of copyright. In this intance, the Yahoo! Copyright Team here in the US received a complete Notice of Infringement as outlined by the DMCA (Digitial Millenium Copyright Act). Under the DMCA, an individual may choose to file a counterclaim.”

It is interesting that prior to this response by Heather that Flickr/Yahoo was stonewalling people on the issue saying that it is their policy not to discuss individual accounts. And yet now they are discussing an individual account after a barrage of negative press.

Heather also points out that “there appears to be a whole lot of makey uppey going in the news and blogosphere about this event.” [my emphasis]. It’s nice to see Flickr treat adults, blogs and news organizations reporting on a serious issue like they are children.

As Flickr has received a DMCA takedown notice, my further questions would be

1. Who filed the takedown notice?

2. Does Flickr take any steps to ensure that takedown notices are valid or do they just blindly remove them 100% of the time (note that WordPress recently defended the Fake Chuck Westall parody blog after Canon Inc., sent them a takedown request where they felt that there was no valid copyright concern).

3. Did they retain a back up copy of both the image and all of the comments that were posted to the image to ensure that they can restore them if the DMCA notice is refuted? If not, why not?

A partial list of additional coverage on this story here:

NY Times
gawker.com/5341295/flickr-deletes-obama-caricature#”>Gawker
www.prisonplanet.com/flickr-censors-obama-joker-image.html”>PrisonPlanet
FastCompany
Techmeme
Slashdot
LA Times
Newsbusters
Read Write Web
I Think
Inquisitor
Instapundit
Flickr Help Forum (I’ve been indefinitely banned from the Flickr Help Forum)
Tech Dirt
Short Form Blog
Samuel’s Blog
Disinter
Right Voices
TechTerminal
ExUrbanLeague
iPenny

In an unrelated case it seems that Flickr has received yet another public criticism in their help forum today over yet another deleted account. Apparently this account had women with bikinis on it who were tagged with the word “babe.” So in addition to shots of men without their shirts on taken by professional photographers, it seems that photos of women in bikinis now also might be forbidden on the site. No word yet if they received a DMCA takedown notice over this one yet or not of if it’s just another one of their attempts to use their vague “don’t be that guy” policy against a user.

August 16, 2009

Still, I Think of You

August 16, 2009August 16, 2009

McHale Defeats Embree, USTA Girls’ 18 National Championship

Christina McHale

Earlier today, Christina McHale of Englewood Cliffs New Jersey defeated Marco Island, Florida’s Lauren Embree in the USTA Girls’ 18 National Championship held at the Berkeley Tennis Club in Berkeley California.

McHale was seeded third in the tournament and her finals victory was quick and decisive winning 6-0, 6-1 over the fourth-seeded Embree.

The USTA Girls’ 18 is for amateur girls 18 and under and is hosted each year by the Berkeley Tennis Club. The winner of this National Tournament secures a spot in the prestigious U.S. Open Tennis Tournament in New York City.

For photos from today’s finals match click through here.

August 15, 2009

What Magic Matters, Plate 2

August 14, 2009August 14, 2009

The Nine Most Terrifying Words in the English Language are “I’m From the Government And I’m Here to Help You”

This afternoon around noon about 50 or so protesters (many wearing Bay Area Patriots t-shirts) took to Justin Herman Plaza in San Francisco protesting the Obama Healthcare plan. Although there were a few cops positioned at the protest to watch things, mostly the protest just involved peaceful assembly with protesters sharing their signs and opinions with people around who would listen.

August 14, 2009August 14, 2009

Think You Can Rip Someone’s Image From the Internet and Use it For Free? Think Again, You Just May End Up Sued and Lose

photo by Christopher Boffoli.

I’ve written a lot in the past about the fact that I don’t get too worked up when people rip my work from the internet and use it. Especially if they are using it for personal or non-commercial use — I have no problem with that personally. But just because I’m pretty lenient with how people use my work, doesn’t mean that there are not repercussions when people do rip work off the web — especially when it’s used for commercial use.

It was interesting to hear yesterday from photographer Christopher Boffoli who has done a lot of freelance work lately for the West Seattle Blog. Boffoli wrote me and told me about a situation where a Seattle based Realtor, Laura Miller with Catalyst Commercial Partners, used an unauthorized photo of his for a real estate listing (photo above) of hers and ended up having to pay him a $1,000 small claims court judgment over it.

I’ll let Boffoli tell part of the story in the email that he sent to me:

“Having contributed features, photographs and video packages to the WSB for a couple of years now I’ve occasionally stumbled upon my work in other places as readers of the WSB have downloaded and re-hosted my images without my permission. I have found these situations to be an unfortunate consequence of working in the medium of digital photography. Most of these situations can be remedied with a polite take-down request. Generally, the violator will apologize and remove the image. In perhaps six instances over the past 2 years I have had to submit one written take-down notice to a blog host. In every case the image was uploaded for a non-commercial use. It is an annoyance to be sure. But I’m a reasonable person so I’m usually satisfied if the person takes responsibility and removes the image. However another situation has arisen which is something quite different: a commercial entity appropriating an image, without permission, for profit.

Last November the WSB reported the closure of a popular local restaurant. I ran out in the cold and dark and grabbed a couple of night shots of the exterior of the restaurant. My image ran at the top of the story on November 6, 2008, just weeks before the restaurant was closed and listed for sale. Many months later, while doing research on a commercial real estate website, I stumbled upon the image I had taken. Someone had apparently downloaded it and posted it to a six-figure commercial real estate listing. This discovery was made more odious by the fact that the website had applied a copyright flag to the corner of my image and was representing it as their own. I immediately sent a polite but firm e-mail to both the listing agent and the webmaster for the site. The webmaster responded almost immediately. She apologized for the violation and told me she’d have the image removed from the site within 24 hours. She also alleged that it had been the listing agent, a woman named Laura Miller, who uploaded the image and in doing so had had to falsify a statement pledging that she owned the image and had the right to use it.

My image came off the site as the webmaster had promised. But the listing agent never even had the courtesy to respond to my e-mail. So feeling a bit annoyed, I generated an invoice and mailed it to her office. The price for the unauthorized use of my image was far less than what a comparable image from Getty or Corbis would cost for six months of similar use. I figured I’d give the real estate agent an opportunity to be responsible for what she had done. I was not surprised when she ignored that too. After 30 days had elapsed with no response I gave her one last opportunity to respond. When it was absolutely clear that she had no intention of being responsible I decided to file a case in small claims court.”

According to Boffoli this issue about unauthorized use was not really about the money to him. He told me that if the agent had simply had the courtesy to respond to his initial email to him professionally saying that it wouldn’t happen again that he would have been satisfied with that. He said that he didn’t even need an apology. But when, according to him, the agent didn’t even have the courtesy to respond to his email, he decided to pursue the case in small claims court.

So yesterday was Boffoli’s big day in court. More from Boffoli:

“I’m delighted to report that my small claims case went very well today. The judge ruled in my favor, awarding me $1,000 (the exact amount I was seeking) plus court costs. The real estate agent’s only defense was that it was her assistant who used my image and they didn’t know where it came from so it was OK to use. I compare that argument to a thief being caught red-handed with stolen property and telling the police “I don’t know where I got this” so I’m not responsible for stealing it.

The case was very quick. The judge just asked if the picture was mine, where it had been published, and if my name was listed as a credit along-side the image. Then she instructed the defendant that “just because something is up on the Web it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s free.” The rest of the conversation was consideration of my supporting materials for the monetary value of the image.”

Now $1,000 for illegally using an image is kind of a lot to pay. But illegal image use can often end up costing the infringer far more than it would have ever cost them to simply license an image correctly in the first place. In fact, I thought it was interesting when putting 68 of my photos into contract with Getty Images as part of the Flickr/Getty deal that one of the potential ways to earn money with your photos over there is actually when Getty finds unauthorized use of these images and recovers money for that use. Getty actually actively scours the internet and encourages people to report unauthorized commercial use of our images that they represent.

In some cases unauthorized use can actually result in far, far, greater penalties. In one case last year in fact, photographer, Liz Ordonez-Dawes, was successfully awarded over $12 million by a Florida Court over unauthorized use (you can buy a lot of Hasselblads with $12 million).

And these days especially it’s getting easier and easier for photographers to find unauthorized commercial use of their photos online. One tool that I’ve played around with a bit in the past is TinEye. A reverse image search engine that allows you to upload your photo and see where else they are able to find it on the web.

So the moral of this case/story? Beware of ripping images off the web and using them commercially. It just may end up costing you far more in the end than had you simply inquired about licensing an image correctly with a photographer in the first place.

By the way, Boffoli in general is pretty flexible about people using his stuff and allows people to use his stuff for personal use and he generally also allows bloggers and others to use his stuff if they are polite enough to ask. Also a lot of the work he’s done for the West Seattle Blog he’s also done for free as a service to his community because he believes in its vision of providing hyper-local news. He also has made a lot of prints for people for cost. But Boffoli’s gear isn’t free and there’s a cost to the work that he does and when it comes to commercial use and especially use the infringer doesn’t step up and take responsibility for the use, he’s not afraid to use the legal resources available to all of us to make his point.

I did contact the realtor, Laura Miller, who was sued by Boffoli in this case to get her side of things, but she responded to me that she’d rather not discuss the case.

August 13, 2009August 13, 2009

An Update on Edelson Flores’ Account Deletion on Flickr

Last week I blogged here about the case of Edelson Flores’ and his recent account deletion on Flickr. You might remember Edelson. He was the professional photographer who had his photographs posted on Flickr that all included watermarks pointing to his image copyrights. While Edelson focuses on male models, as his subject matter, his photos did not include nudity or other prohibited content by Flickr. Edelson had his account nuked by Flickr after Terrence at Flickr alleged that he was posting other people’s copyrighted work — something that Edelson denies.

Apparently Flickr may have reinstated Edelson’s account, but not without him having lost all of his photos, all of his contacts, all of his social activity on the site, and all of the time, work and energy he spent working on his profile, etc.

I received this following update earlier today from Edelson on his account Flickr deletion:

“Tom,

I believe they reinstated my account “adoniel”, but everything is gone and will need to be added and uploaded again. I haven’t even bother to try to login to that account yet, and don’t think I ever will again. Not even my profile was restored as I had hoped it would at least be the case. Considering the amount of time I spent editing my profile, photostreams, editing photos, uploading, adding titles, descriptions and tagging all the photos in my account I don’t think I will be using Flickr ever again out of fear that they may do this to me again. Ironically, I was about to buy a 2-year Pro account the same week they deleted my account. Thank God I did not spent a penny of my hard earned money with Flickr if this is how they treat their very own customers.

I did asked for a 1-year complementary Pro account as compensation and to make up for the inconvenience, aggravation and time I have wasted on this issue, but I have received no reply to that request as of yet. It doesn’t look like I will anyways. All in all it has been a really unpleasant experience and I would not recommend nor encourage anyone in their right mind to support or rely on a company like Flickr and/or Yahoo Inc. They have absolutely no respect for their own customers and deleted my account out of pure unadulterated raw unjustified incompetence. If I may also add, the communication was really slow most of the time, and at times even non existent. The only Flickr employee who showed some willingness to help and sympathy for what they did to me was Zack Sheppard. Feel free to post my message on your blog or anywhere else you would like for that matter and let the world know that Flickr and Yahoo Inc really suck.
Sincerely,

Edelson”

As a result of protesting these sort of account deletions and the fact that flickr has no viable way (nor are they even working on a way) to recover accounts when they mistakenly delete them, and especially for pointing to a new blog which seems to be focusing on an anti-gay account deletion agenda on Flickr’s part, I was called “abusive” and banned from the Flickr help forum yesterday. So much for honest and open communication.

August 12, 2009August 12, 2009

Someone’s Started a Flickr is Fascist Blog, Accuses Flickr of Anti-Gay Censorship Policies

Update: I just got banned from the Flickr help forum for posting a link about the new blog there.

Update #2: the Flickr is Fascist blog has moved to http://saynotoflickr.blogspot.com/

Well it looks like someone’s finally gotten sick and tired enough of Flickr account deletions that they’ve launched a “Flickr is Fascist” blog. And before you ask, no, it wasn’t me.

The blog seems to focus especially on the recent rash of censorship on Flickr dealing with male non-porn gay related photostreams. The new site specifically calls out the fact that flickr censors closed their thread in the help forum entitled “Flickr’s new anti-gay policy” among others.

In addition to the help forum post above being locked by Flickr staff, there have been several recent cases on Flickr where photos showing either non-nude male self portraits, non-nude male models, or photos of men in public have been either recharacterized as “restricted” NIPSA accounts or have been deleted entirely. In one case, a professional photographer who focused on non nude beefcake type male models, Edelson Flores, had his entire photostream deleted with Flickr citing the fact that he was posting other people’s work as their reasoning. Flores has denied that his stream contained photos that were not his and in fact had his own copyright watermark over every photo in his stream.

In a post on the new “Flickr is Fascist” blog they point out specifically what they feel is a double standard when it comes to Flickr’s deletion of candid photos of males in public in the post “Flickr has Issues With the Male Body:”

“A community of �candid� photographers of men in public situations (all of whom have paid for their accounts in good faith) has been displaced and silenced on photo-sharing site Flickr in less than a fortnight. Four prominent photostreams as well as countless photos vanished from July 6th 2009 to July 13th 2009 without warning or right to appeal. At least one site had over a million hits in less than a year. Flickr has stubbornly refused to give a reason for its recent axe-grinding mission against these sites, but one user was given the reason �voyeur content� after more than 8 days of asking for a reason yet that particular site contained pictures of men in public which is legal. Flickr has refused to expand on the reason it gave, but cited its ambiguous and open-ended �Don�t be creepy� clause in its Terms of Service asjustification for terminating at least one photostream. Flickr has also silenced debate about the issue on its Help Forum. When confronted with whether or nor the famous Robert Doisineau candid image of the kissing couple in Paris was voyeur content or simply a candid street photo, Flickr immediately closed the thread and banned the user from challenging Flickr�s inability to define �voyeur content� as opposed to candid content. Disturbingly Flickr has refused to reopen the debate. Another thread � Flickr�s new anti-gay policy� was also closed in a mater of hours. Is it a a coincidence that the many candid men sites were closed within a week? Flickr silent wall of automated e-mails will never let you know.”

It will be interesting to see if this new blog or other public criticism of Flickr’s censorship policies will in fact have any impact on the account deletions that seem to be taking place almost daily on the site.

August 11, 2009

Robert Scoble on the Future of FriendFeed

The downside for me? I invest time in things that WILL BE not that are. That’s always been what keeps my interest and now that I know that FriendFeed probably will not be, even if it takes five years to totally die, I’ve lost a great deal of interest in it. – Robert Scoble

Robert Scoble: So Who is Leaving FriendFeed.

An interesting thread yesterday from my friend Robert Scoble on Friendfeed. Having reflected more on the Facebook acquisition I can see Scoble’s point. Scoble’s always been an early adopter’s early adopter. He’s always been about going where the ball is headed, not where it’s at.

After sleeping on the acquisition news I have two thoughts.

1. Maybe, just maybe, enough of the really good FriendFeed features will somehow make their way into Facebook and Facebook will actually get tolerable enough to use. Actually I’m not optimistic, but I will begin spending more time and using Facebook more because of this. I logged on yesterday for the first time in a while and I’ll probably be spending at least some time there every day now.

2. The FriendFeed acquisition creates a vacuum for a kick-ass life-streaming service. I signed up earlier today and played around with Posterious, but it felt nothing like Friendfeed to me. Last night Scoble suggested Ning. He also said it may end up being Google Wave. If anyone knows how I can try out Google Wave I’d be interested. But actually I think the real opportunity very well may be for, of all things, Scoble himself to create the new place to be online. Scoble’s got a big enough web presence to create the seed necessary to start a vibrant community and he’s got a good jump start with this with his new Building43 efforts. It would be really great to see someone with his vision turn Building 43 into the next FriendFeed.

August 11, 2009August 11, 2009

DMU Launches DMU Magazine

One of the places that I’ve spent a lot of time online over the past few years is in the Flickr Group DeleteMe Uncensored. DeleteMe Uncensored is a group on Flickr where users submit photos to a voting pool and group members then offer brief critiques of these photos along with a vote to either save or delete the photo. If a photo gets 10 “saves” before 10 “deletes” it is put into a portfolio of images called “The Lightbox.”

There are probably two things to me that set DMU apart from other groups on Flickr.

First, it is one of the few (and was the first) “uncensored” group on Flickr. This means that admins don’t ban members, censor forum threads, lock threads, lock the entire group, etc. Along with the voting game there is a vibrant community of photographers who generally engage in all kinds of discussion from the super important to the super inane. Thoughtful threads about politics, photography, art, music and life are mixed in with immature threads about bad music videos, bad craigslist adverts, threads devoted to animated gifs, and well, you get the idea.

Second, the photo critiques in DMU are meant to be constructive, but no-holds-barred. Sometimes on Flickr you’ll post a photo and end up with a litany of “great shot” “wonderful” “beautiful” “nice” etc. type comments. And while those are pleasant and there is certainly nothing wrong with those, sometimes it’s also interesting to get more constructive criticism — even if negative, even if brutally honest. Having members point out your dust spots on your photo, or your bad crop, or your wrong angle, aren’t simply meant to talk down your photography, they’re meant to provide you criticism as a mechanism to improve.

What really makes DMU work more than anything else though is that it is a tight knit group of community photographers on the web. I’ve found that more than anyplace else I’ve seen on the web, people really get to know each other in this group. Many have met each other in real life. Many spend many hours a day hanging out in the group and chatting.

DMU Magazine Cover, by Ivan Makarov.

So I was super excited when one of the DMU Members, Ivan Makarov, proposed launching a DMU Magazine. There is something about seeing photos in print that makes them even so much more vibrant than what you see on the web. And after several months of planning and hard work, issue number one of DMU Magazine is launching today. I personally contributed a lot of photography to issue number 1. It’s probably the first time so much of my own work has ever been printed in one place. That was super exciting to me. In addition to a profile on my work as one of the top Lightbox contributers, I also contributed some other photos and the editors also included a feature section on my $2 portrait project.

The magazine itself is 72 pages long and is printed on full color paper in large format magazine quality. 26 different photographers from DMU contributed to it and it also features profile pieces on the top four contributors to the group’s “Lightbox.” The magazine is chock full of interesting photos by many outstanding emerging photographers. It’s exciting to me that in today’s DYI world that something like this is possible. Issue one of the magazine costs $13.99. It’s published by HP’s MagCloud and can be shipped anywhere in the U.S., Cananda or the U.K. The quality of the MagCloud magazines are very high. HP is really one of the top names in color printing today and they’ve put together a really top notch offering with this magazine service. The $13.99 price involves no profit for anyone involved in the publication of this effort. This is simply a labor of love by a bunch of talented photographers to publish our work. If you like photography I’d encourage you to purchase a copy and take a look at what we’ve produced. I’ve already purchased my copy and if you’d like to purchase one as well you can do that here.

A lot of credit goes to those who helped put this magazine together. In addition to all 26 photographic contributors (along with many people not featured in this issue, but who provided valuable advice and feedback during the development process) Ivan Makarov deserves a lot of recognition as the one who really drove this project from the beginning. In addition to Ivan, Charlotte Reynolds worked as the magazine’s designer, and Ingo Meckmann, Mo Tabesh, Wendy Martyn and Pierre Honeyman all worked as co-editors and publishers.

If you’d like to learn more about DMU Magazine, also be sure to check out its website dmumag.com.