American Photo Steps Up

Well, just when I thought the spirit of free speech had left the US publishing environment, American Photo magazine steps up to the plate. This month they have a cover story on controversial photography and matched the article by printing a selection of the work – including on the cover itself.

Now, these are not pornographic or even nudes, which turn up regularly in photographic magazines. These are controversial for all the right reasons, they expose a view that others may find uncomfortable or they portray the human condition in a less favorable light. In other words, they force us to look at ourselves or think about things we would rather pretend didn’t exist.

What I was also impressed with is they explained the background behind the photograph and sometimes the price the photographer paid for presenting the work.

One of the most moving pieces is a picture of a little starving African girl trying to make it to a feeding station. A short distance behind her is a vulture waiting for her to fail. It’s a disturbing picture of what is probably an all too common occurrence in some parts of the world. After the shot, the photographer chased off the vulture and carried the girl into the station. This was not a posed work, but rather what he saw there – and this was not the only staving person in the area.

For his efforts, he received a well deserved Pulitzer Prize, but also an unusual amount of abuse. For many people seemed to want to kill the messenger and blamed him for the situation, as if he was responsible for girl’s plight. Personally, I think people just hated being shown something they wanted to ignore, which is fact that a lot of people on this planet are starving to death. To deal with this reality, people sent him death threats, nasty letters, and many other forms of scorn. Unfortunately, it turned out to be too much for him and he committed suicide less than a year later.

Photojournalists have a difficult job. They need to travel horrible locations and face horrible situations with enough human compassion to capture a photograph that explains to the rest of us what’s happening there. Besides the physical risks involved, it also requires them to risk a lot of physiological damage. Conflict photographers are just as likely to get PSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) as combat veterans.

American Photo is to be commended for presenting this work in a fair and balanced manner. To present it all is probably a challenge, as I expect they will be receiving nasty letters from a variety of special interest groups. Hopefully, they will continue to step up and show this type of work.

The self-censorship of the modern press is disturbing and dangerous. The desire to avoid controversial subjects or views in the interests of maintaining audiences or market share or advertisers risk losing the freedom of the press that was fought for in the first place. It’s not safe speech, commonly held views, or government approved statements that need to be protected – even the most repressive regime allows this already. It’s the dangerous speech, the speech that offends some and makes others think that needs to be defended. This is the type of speech that needs a Charter of rights and freedoms or a bill of or rights or the protection of high courts. This is the speech that tells us what’s actually happening and makes us consider what should happen. This is the speech that gives us the knowledge to vote properly and forms the foundations of a free and just society. Without it, we are nothing.

As Voltaire said a long time ago “I may not agree with what you’re saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”.

Here’s to American Photo for doing their bit to maintaining this freedom and this tradition.

Canadian Copyright Law under review

The Canadian Government is in the process of reviewing the existing copyright laws with the intention of "correcting" them. They have started a consultation process with the public and the following is my response:

1. How do Canada’s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernized?

As a professional photographer, my only value to a client is my skill, training, and experience. My only asset is the photographs I create and my only protection from abuse is the copyright laws. My clients are larger, better financed, and better able to endure a legal process that an individual such as myself. Even if in the right, I am unable to sustain an extended legal process without destroying my business and the people who depend on me. They are many and I am one, so they can steal from me without some form of protection.

Canadian copyright laws need to be modernized and improved, but they need to remember and reinforce their purpose. That purpose is not to protect the interests of large corporations, but to protect the individual creator from abuse from both individuals and groups, such as corporations. Canadian copyright law currently fails in this mission, as registration does not use a sample of the work, copyright infringement is difficult to detect and to punish, and there is no support in the legal process for enforcement or restitution. Willful infringement, which should suffer the most penalties, is not even recognized properly. To protect my work, I am forced to register my copyright in the US and use the Berne convention to protect myself in my own country. It has forced me to turn to the American legal system for protection in my own country. This is wrong and a complete failure of the system - this is what needs to be corrected.

2. Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time

The laws must be changed to use the strength of the state, in the form of the legal system, to protect the individual creator. Of all the parties involved, they are the most vulnerable and the most underrepresented. This is not the individual who copies materials, as this requires neither skill not artistic talent, but rather the individual who can create art and intellectual property. This person strengthens our country with every creation and this person deserves the protection of copyright laws with strength and focus.

3. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?

4. What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?

5. What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?

All three of these questions are answered in the same response.

A true registration process that includes a sample of the work to be protected and a certificate. Infringement against registered copyrights should have mandatory penalties of a magnitude that is noticed by the largest infringer - corporations. Each infringement should be fined individually and legal services at a free or reduced cost should be made available to individual content creators.

J.R Rowlings created an industry unto itself and one of the most successful book series in history. She would have failed had she not been able to protect her work through copyrights. Most poetry, painting, and photography is created by individuals (although some photography is created by a team led by an individual). Without copyright laws, there would be no value in our creations and there would be no reason for us to focus on the effort. The result would be a grey and mediocre world full of endless slight variations of the same idea. The ease of copying does not increase the creativity of the copier, it simply weakens the efforts of the creator. This is the very reason copyright laws must ecist.

The value if the individual creator is rarely noticed, except in hindsight, but it is their creative efforts that bring true value to the world. The arts are often how the value of a society is measured and without individual creators there would be no arts, with solid and strong copyright laws there are no true creators, just copies.

Regards,
--

Scott MacQuarrie, CPP
Certified Professional Photographer (www.certifiedphotographer.com)
ZWCX Photography     www.zwcx.com
99 Bronte Rd, Suite 123
Oakville, Ontario, Canada   L6L 3B7
416-818-4449               scott@zwcx.com

Insurance

Are you insured properly?

Well, I ran into an interesting set of problems recently that taught me a few things about managing my business. I have equipment insurance and business liability insurance, but I never really looked at the medical side. Not medical insurance, which I have, but what happens to my affairs and my business if I have a medical issue?

I hit a few medical problems that became a little more serious than I expected and resulted in me spending a few days in the hospital, having a healthy bit of surgery, and a few more days recovering at home. I'm fine now, although I still have some more tests to get done, but they are just followup tests.

I'm not writing this post to talk about my medical adventures, but rather a risk to my business. How's that? Isn't my business separate from myself. Isn't that why I formed a company? Well, not quite, as you are unlikely to be able to completely separate yourself from your business. In the legal sense, your company is separate from your business, but not in the practical sense. Why? You are likely the most valuable asset in your business and the primary means for generating income.

Life gets interesting if something goes wrong with that business asset that is you.

What happens if you get sick or, even worse, pass away? Most single people think this is non-issue, as they have no dependents (usually), but that's wrong. Let's walk around this one.

Suppose you are sick, injured, or otherwise incapacitated, who makes medical decisions for you? I'm not talking about life or death ER decisions. I'm talking about the advocating for you while you're there and deciding between treatment options.

If you're married, this person is likely your wife or husband. If you're living with someone, regardless of how long, they are NOT able to make these decisions. I know this because I'm in that situation and I talked to my lawyer (ask yours). You need a medical power of attorney document, signed and witnessed, to make sure your significant other can watch out for you.

Same situation, how does your wife, husband, or person you're living with pay the bills, both for your business and the household itself. If you can't sign things and you haven't dealt with this, bad things can happen. You need ANOTHER document, called property power of attorney (or sometimes just power of attorney) to make sure someone is allowed to make financial decisions for yourself and your company. Some people use their spouse, some people use their attorney, some people use their business partner (you can limit to just personal or business or even both). In any case, someone needs to be assigned this or your business will come to a grinding halt.

Worst case scenario - you die. If you don't have a will, the state assigns someone to decide what to do with you assets. There is a good chance you would not like their decisions. You need a will. Not a home kit form like I had, but a real will, written by a lawyer, signed by you and witnessed. You do not get a second chance with these things, so do it right.

If you have a spouse (married or living together), typically you give everything to the other. However, you may have some specific things you want to give to specific people. This goes in your will. Fine, but what happens to your business? This REALLY needs to go into your will. What happens if your spouse passes away first or at the same time? Morbid thought, but this REALLY needs to go in your will.

The legal issues are different in different areas, so talk to your lawyer (If you don't have one, get one).You need to look into:

- Medical power of attorney
- property power of attorney
- your will

I had to take care of this while under fire and dealing with significant medical issues . If you don't have these three documents, I urge you to take the time now to address this issue and get it done. These are like parachutes. If you wait until you really need them, it's probably too late.

Free at Last.....Free at last

Canadian Copyright Revision

Today, after many years of lobbying by the Professional Photographers of Canada (PPOC) (www.ppoc.ca) and the Canadian Association of Photographers and Illustrators (CAPIC) (www.capic.org) have worked together to repeal section 13 (2) of the Canadian Copyright Act.

Photographers outside (and some inside) Canada will be shocked to hear that in Canada the copyright for assignment photography goes to the hiring agency by default. Yep, unlike the rest of the civilized world, unless you have a contract that specifically states you retain the copyright, it's automatically given to whoever hired you. Yes, all photographic rights are lost unless you get it in writing to keep them. (I know there are some Canadian shooters staring at the screen in shock, but I'm not kidding).

Today, Bill C-61 was entered into the House of Commons to append the Canadian Copyright act. You can read a summary of the bill here:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01163e.html

Of course, people are also upset because this will also interfere with copying music, movies, and other electronic entertainments, but I have no problem with it. There are also mummers that this may be like the DMCA laws in the US. Hogwash, most people complaining about this have no understanding of US or Canadian copyright laws. Basically you don't get to use someone else's work for whatever you want, which means Canada will finally be in compliance with a treaty it signed in 1996.

Personally, I also have no problem with these laws. If you try to remove copyright information, you violate the law. If you post copyrighted material to a website, I want to be able to send a takedown notice to the ISP and have it removed. No lawyers, no hassle, I email the notice to them, identifying myself as the copyright holder and it's done.

Yes, this means you will no longer be able to trade copies of the transformer movie with your friends - go buy or rent a copy. It also means you can't steal my work. Copyright was designed specially to protect the individual artist of limited resources from larger organizations who want to steal it and use it.

All of the changes in this bill are good things. It reinforces that when someone creates something, they both own and control it. For the individual, this also means someone can't steal you photographs off facebook or myspace and use them at will. Too many people think these changes are for the benefit of corporations, but this actually benefits individual artists.

As a professional photographer, my copyright is my greatest asset. I'm ecstatic to hear that finally my copyright will remain with me by default as well as other protection. It means that a client cannot use my work in other mediums, like a website or video podcast, without my permission.

The Writer's strike in the US was about EXACTLY this issue. They wanted to be paid when a studio decided to release a movie on DVD, podcast, or itunes. A lot of people endured a lot of financial hardship in that strike for just this issue. Do you think the writer's were doing this to protect a corporation - no, they were protecting themselves.

I'm standing and applauding this bill. It's about time.

Pay the Writer

One of my favorite writers, Harlan Ellison, was recording discussing the common habit of publishers to expect content for free. Harlan had some choice comments for both the publishers who expect this and the writers who are stupid enough to comply.

Although he is discussing writers, it is just as applicable (if not more so) to photographers. It's the amateurs who make it difficult for the professionals.

Transcript
" a young woman calls me" about the a video interview he's done about his role on Babylon 5, and he recounts "she says 'we'd like to use it on the DVD, can that be arranged', I said, absolutely, all you've got to do is pay me, and she says 'what?', I said you gotta pay me, she said 'well, everyone else is just doing it for nothing', and I said 'everybody else may be an a*shole, but I'm not, I said, 'by what right would you call me and ask me to work for nothing, do you get a paycheck?" 'well yes' (she responded)....'how dare you call me and want me to work for nothing', 'well it would be good publicity' (she responded), 'lady, tell that to someone a little older than you who has just fallen off the turnip truck, there is no publicity value in my being on the DVD...the only value for me is to put money in my hand..."




Hopefully, this will provide a bit of guidance for the next time you're asked to donate your work.

Scott MacQuarrie