It appears I have a big fan of my Japan photo diary. Big enough that nine of my photos have been incorporated into the site design for this fan’s blog. It’s fairly disconcerting to see your photos plastered all over someone else’s site, and frankly I’ve been a little stymied in exactly how I am to react to such a thing.
Naturally I’m flattered that according to “Chibi Maria” (a self-described 17-year old “short female Anime [etc.] freak in Ocean County, NJ”):
[My photos] are all done by the same fabulous photographer… If you want to see more of his work click the Hmmn… link in the right bar. I swear… THIS is art. I was just shocked that I never seen these pictures before, this guy is a FABULOUS photographer.
Who wouldn’t be happy at such praise? And you know, I’ve always thought I had a pretty liberal attitude about copyright, figuring that as long as someone wasn’t making any money then a picture here or a picture there was about the same as linking to my site.
That said, I have to admit it bothers the heck out of me to see my photos so unabashedly used (admittedly in what is a very flattering site design as well), without my consent being given. “Chibi Maria” writes in her blog that
I tried to contact him if it was all right if I used his pictures in my new design, but his feedback page didn’t work -_-*… So I gave him credit right in the design…
And true enough, there is some small type that says “design photos (c) http://www.easterwood.org/japan02/ (although it would have been nice if that was clickable). As to why my feedback page didn’t work for her, I can’t say (I just tested it and it works fine for me, as well as many other visitors to my site). At any rate, the feedback page (and this blog as well) has my email address prominently displayed. The most basic of effort would have yielded my email address to her, just a tiny fraction of the effort she went through to download my images and retool them for her site. And just a tiny fraction of the effort I had to go through to track down her email address (via WHOIS, and an unusable one at that).
In the end, I posted a comment to her blog, and you can read that yourselves and decide whether I’m being a hardass, or too nice a guy (I basically said I’d let bygones be bygones if she made the “(c)” notice clickable).
The issue has gotten me thinking more seriously about copyrights, not from a legal standpoint, but simply from a personal standpoint. I create these photos (or these words for that matter) and upload them for any old stranger to see, to link to, to download, and to even incorporate into their own personal web site design should they wish. I wonder if I don’t check my “rights” of ownership at the door everytime I hit the “upload” button on whatever part of me I’ve deigned to let the rest of the world look at. I don’t know, frankly. I’m not comfortable with the notion that my work is sacrosanct and therefore belongs to me and me only (again, displaying said work on the Web gives the lie to this concept). Yet I can’t deny that in some way I do feel like I’ve been violated (please excuse the melodramatic overtones of that word).
Further rumination is required. In the meantime, I would love to hear from others on this issue (please click on the “Add comments” link below).
UPDATE: Shortly after I posted this I received a considered and contrite email from Chibi Maria apologizing for the whole episode. I quote from her email (with permission):
As for your request, I immediately made the url in the image linkable so people will be able to click the entire image to view more of your fabulous photographs. I again sincerely apologize, I was careless and inconsiderate and I realize this now. I meant no disrespect, but I did harmful damage that I should of be more cognizant of. Above all, I appreciate your patience with me and you allowing me to showcase your works of art in my design. I can’t draw like others nor can I take photographs like you, so this is how I express myself and my feelings and I appreciate you allowing me to do so. […] thank you for your hard work and dedication [in taking the photos] and apologies for not properly recognizing you for this.
So a happy and satisfying conclusion to the actual episode. I’m still ruminating on the larger issue, and as John Waterman said in his wonderful comment on this post (click the link below), “The conflict between ‘freely given’ and ego is not an easy one to solve and it can ultimately only be resolved internally.”
A voice from the blog wilderness…
I can well relate to your quandry about copyright. I’ve been through that one many times!
It IS your work and you have every right to at least be asked first! Especially with such a brilliant and beautiful collection of images – I appreciate your skill and thank you for sharing it with us.
Hamada Shoji, a folk potter and one of Japan’s national treasures when he lived, was asked how he felt about others copying his work. He replied, “When I am gone people will remember their best work as mine and my worst as theirs!”.
Do I acknowledge the ancient maker of a beautiful Chinese vase, whose work has inspired me so often, with each new pottery piece I make? In a sense, yes. By creating the most beautiful work I am capable of without slavishly copying (an unsuccessful task to say the least!} their ancient style.
A different point of view says that if I don’t want my work to be available, don’t put it on the web!
Conversely, what debt do you owe those who have made it possible to pursue your wonderful photography? The builders of the Tokyo Tower or the Buddha statue probably do not extract a fee from you everytime you create an image of it :~).
Ahhhh…so many ways of looking at this!
The conflict between “freely given” and ego is not an easy one to solve and it can ultimately only be resolved internally.
Krishnamurti, an Indian teacher, observed, “Because flowers are free they cover the earth”.
I like that.
Good wishes :: John
Copyrights things are messy. Yet I think it’s quite natural for you to feel violated this time. She should have made every effort to ask for permission from you before displaying the photos on her site.
That said, it’s clear that she didn’t do those things out of malevolence from the start. I’ve just visited her site and found the copyright link already made clickable. Well done. It’s nice of her to have acted in good faith.
So, I hope this will work out peacefully, Kurt. Oh, and don’t forget I’m also one of the fans of your fabulous photos. 😉
John, and Kiyo–
Thanks for adding your thoughts about this (and for the nice complements on my photos, as well–much appreciated).
Chibi Maria did contact me and was contrite and I’ve updated my post to reflect that. However, my main reason for posting this in the first place was to posit some questions about copyright and ownership and so I’m happy others have added their thoughts.
John commented:
“what debt do you owe those who have made it possible to pursue your wonderful photography? The builders of the Tokyo Tower or the Buddha statue probably do not extract a fee from you everytime you create an image of it :~).”
Nor do I ask the permission of those anonymous people whose pictures I take in the subway, or at festivals, or out on the street. I’ve often wondered how any one of these people might react if by some chance they happened onto my site and saw their picture there. I suspect they would react much the same way I reacted when I came across Chibi Maria’s site yesterday. Violated, shocked, curious, afraid (eg. “maybe I’m being stalked”), angry, and maybe even flattered.
Did Walker Evans have questions like these when he took his surreptitious subway photos (he did apparently wait 20 years to publish them)? Did Garry Winogrand and any number of other “street” photographers have similar questions? Did Atget wonder if his empty Parisian squares had rights? Do fathers and mothers consider that given the ability to voice their opinion, children might say “please don’t take my picture”?
I’ve always thought of copyright as having to do with money. money. and money. and i’ve always thought of photography as generally an appropriation, an exploitation.
several times i’ve found my images other places around the web, and not always to my advantage. sometimes the photographs are used in quite a different context than i orginally intended and, to my taste, in a rather vulgar way. but really what am i to do? just as i get all my stuff from “out there” – whether its manipulating a found image or taking a photo of a person on the street – i have to realize that i am continuing the cycle: i am putting more stuff “out there.” who am i to say what it can become once i let it loose?
that said, it can certainly be disconcerting to run across your work where you least expect it. and of course one wants possession, ownership, control. but is that why you made it? who are the images supposed to profit?
i just try and let it go. other people finding value in what you do by using it is simply another aspect of the whole image world we live in. it ain’t in you anymore. it’s out. it’s gone. it’s seeking to run away from home and set up shop in other people’s hearts and minds.
“This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ours, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
– Woody Guthrie.
I think the key words in the copyright are “Used with permission”. Many clip art sites request that you first ask permission, send the address of the page where the art is used, identify the original artist, and link back to the original artist.
But, Kurt, you were not offering your photos as clip art, so it must have been a shock. On the positive side, Chibi Maria was providing advertising for your site. To her credit, she did not claim your work as her own and she encouraged her readers to check your site out. The one thing missing was getting your permission beforehand.
My site, no doubt, is guilty of some violations. I quote from published works as an encouragement to others to buy and read those works. I indicate what is quoted and provide the publication information. Does this violate copyright law or does it fall under the exception for excerpting within a review of a work?
I also have video clips of Japanese TV shows and Japanese commercials. I include them because I believe they have historical value. But I’m probably on shaky ground here. If I could find the copyright holder (or if they find me), I would love to be able to talk with them.
I don’t agree with the concept that taking a photograph of a sculpture is “copying” the sculpture. A photograph is it’s own work of art. Hundreds of people photographed the collapse of the WTC, and each is an unique work, even though the subject is the same. Also photographs are a thing apart from the WTC, just as paintings of the Seine are a thing apart from the river itself. Finally, copyright covers only published works…not people. You can photograph anyone without violating a copyright. You might be violating their privacy, and you might want to ask permission. But if a person is in a public place, they are fair game (think of all the short-circuit monitoring in public places in countries like the UK).
I’ve been thinking about this some more (Kurt, you have a habit of making me think and think about things). In reviewing Chibi Maria’s site, the thing that bothers me most is the way she incorporates your photos into her design. It’s not like doing a review of your work and using some of your photos as examples.