Lifestyle magazine Modern Luxury Dallas recently featured one of my photographs, along with a short interview, in their December issue.
Scott Kelby’s annual Worldwide Photo Walk is this Saturday, October 5th. I’ve participated the last few years and have had a great time. To sign up, go to WorldwidePhotoWalk.com and find your local photo walk.
I, like many photographers, routinely use Google’s Image Search in order to find people that have stolen my photos in order to issue DMCA takedown notices. Recently, I came across a weird situation.
Several years ago, I took this photo depicting some “found” artwork at the site of the then-soon-to-be-demolished Good-Latimer tunnel in Dallas’ Deep Ellum neighborhood:
I photoblogged it in October of 2007 (and note that I don’t sell prints of it) and kind of forgot about it (that was almost six years and ~2,000 photos ago!).
So, imagine my surprise when Google Image Search returned a hit that showed some charlatan had taken my image, cleaned it up and made a (admittedly cool-looking) t-shirt from it:
And here’s an imperfect overlay of both. The oblique angle that I took the photo at is apparent in the t-shirt…the other variations are obviously from cleaning up the photo a bit and vectorizing it.
Normally, I would’ve fired off a DMCA notice to Redbubble and had the t-shirt removed, but in this case, my photo is of another’s artwork, so it’s a grey-area. The original work doesn’t exist anymore, having been demolished in late 2007 along with the rest of the graffiti-covered Good-Latimer Tunnel and determining the original artist would be nigh-impossible. And, since I don’t own the copyright to the original work, going after this image thief would be a pointless endeavour. So, instead it looks like I get to sit back and watch someone else make money off a derivative of my work that was originally a derivative work to begin with.
And it makes me damn angry.
And if I make my own t-shirt of this design, what’re my rights?
Trying to figure out why this photo has such a high score on 500px. It’s a pretty damn good photo, until you start looking at it and notice that the photographer has ruined it by Photoshopping a shark into it.
Stupid ‘shopped in addition close-up:
It’s shit like this, 500px, that makes it hard to take your community seriously. You’re starting to go down the Flickr rabbit hole of blind praise without critical thinking, circle-jerking and, eventually, irrelevance. How long before “Award” comments become a common sight?
I routinely submit my photos to both 500px and Pixoto, mainly for my own smug satisfaction of racking up high image scores on both sites. Earlier today, I uploaded my recent “Merge” photo to both sites. Afterwards, while viewing their scoring progress, I noticed that while the 500px copy of the image is as crisp as it was on my own site, the Pixoto version was apparently down-rezzed. What’s going on, Pixoto?
Here are screencaps:
I regularly peruse the photography subreddit on Reddit.Com and earlier tonight, while taking a break from day job-related stuff that overflowed into my non day-job timeframe, I came across a post from a fellow Redditor asking for help reconstructing a RAW file. Specifically, he asked posted the following:
So I gave it a shot in Lightroom 4. No dice. Then I remember that I’d played around a bit with an app called Raw Photo Processor. So I loaded it up, imported the file and…
I converted the file to a jpg, uploaded to imgur and posted the link.
Sadly, my fellow Redditor didn’t recognize the subject of the photo, so who knows what or where it came from…it’s just some random kid:
Update! It might be the father’s ex-girlfriend’s kid!
Last year, Kien Lam did what many of us dream of doing—he quit his job in San Francisco, packed his bags and camera and headed out on a ’round the world trip. This is the video he put together of that long journey.
Remember when your mom told you “if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all?” Well, apparently some small-minded guy with a holier-than-thou smug attitude that goes by matahpi on 500px didn’t listen to his mom, because he felt the need to post this jerky comment on Ricardo Bevilaqua’s photo:
Here’s the photo he was
trashing commenting on:
Ashi Lake, Japan by Ricardo Bevilaqua
If you use Flickr, you probably get these kind of comments, wherein someone just copy and pastes some nonce about having seen your photo in some group. What the hell is that all about? I get these comments and am like “Good for you! You saw a photo!”. I usually delete them and block the person, because if you’re not going to give me at least a real comment, then don’t bother. I don’t care if/where you saw the photo.
And, while I’m on the subject, I’m not participating in any of your stupid “Award/Comment” things.
I regularly troll the local (DFW) Craigslist photo page looking for potential bargains to add to my kit. Unfortunately, I’ve never found anything that seemed like something I’d want to spend my money on. And that’s probably because almost everything on there is being sold by people that have unrealistic expectations of the valuation of their gear. I’m sorry, but just because you spent $900 on a Canon Rebel XTi with the kit lens four years ago doesn’t mean that it’s still worth $900. Anyhow, I thought I’d share a few of the dumber ads that I found today.
Well, that’s nice and generic. No description or model number or anything…just a demand for you to email them and fork over $250. I’m sorry, but I can pick up a Canon 35mm camera on eBay for less that $50. The only way I’d spend more than that on a Canon film camera is if it were a EOS 1, 3 or 1v (which is Canon’s last film camera and currently runs for $1,700, in which case, if you have one, I’ll take if for $250). But I’m guessing, since you didn’t include any information in your ad, either you’re clueless about photography or are a scammer of some sort.
This one is confusing, because in the header, they have the price as $250, but in the body, they’re asking for $300. But it doesn’t matter…you can buy this lens brand-new for $200. “But their price includes a hood!” you say. So what? That hood is only $25. Or get a perfectly fine knockoff for less than $5. So why would I want to pay a premium for a lens that you’ve probably dropped a couple of times and violated in other ways?
© 1993-2016 Matt Harvey/75Central Photography - All Rights Reserved • Contact email@example.com for image licensing and other queries.