The Balance

We all search for it.  We all long for it.  We all desire it.  Yet not many of us actually achieve it.

Why?

Let's face it.  Especially us American artist are up against a giant wall.  We have to work harder, longer hours, for less earnings, than ever before.

There's several factors for this...but...consider, for one moment...could this be, because of us?!

Outside of all the regular demands of a creative professional, are the internal demands of our perfectionism.

Prime example:  I had a conversation  friend of mine, who often told me she is feels like she's not maximizing her earnings.  We sat down over a cup of coffee and discussed her processes.  Here's what's happening:

She would get paid for something that would take her...say, A hours, to accomplish, X.  Yet the artist/perfectionist in her would want to take B hours, to accomplish Y.

This is the problem with us, creative professionals.

Many times, we become so wrapped up into providing, or, overperforming, with "perfect" work, for clients who aren't willing to pay "perfect" type of rates.

In no way am I excusing providing shit work.  If you are paid to provide a service, you should do so.  To the best of your abilities.  What this post is about is that my good friend, like most of us, was paid, to do something like basic corrections...yet the perfectionist artist in her, wanted to go to the extreme.  As artist, we cannot do that.

We cannot live in a world where we are paid for the basic, yet we provide the extreme.  As we do that, our clients will learn that they can pay us for the basic, while we provide the extreme, no matter the type of creative work we do for them.

How have you crossed this barrier?

Don't hire a wedding photographer.

Vogue Magazine has always been a staple in the fashion industry, with a reputation for having top notch, trend setting style, and photography.  Its history stretches back into the late 1800's.  Recently, Vogue Magazine published an article regarding weddings, and the 10 things you should "ditch."  You can read the article here.

The article was written by the Molly Guy, founder of Stone Fox, a wedding dress boutique specializing in custom wedding dresses, crowns, jewelry.  Interestingly, Ms Guy also has a casual line of clothing labeled "FUCK WEDDINGS."  It is notable to point out that she herself is not married.

The perplexing portion of this article is that Ms Guy, a wedding professional herself, pushes the notion that you should consider not getting wedding rings...yet she has wedding rings on her website, several of which exceed $9,000 each, but, as she notes:

"Historically, they were there to let the world know you were the property of your big strong husband, who was out in the scary mean world skinning bears and slaving away at his important job, while you stayed home, scrubbing the woolen underwear of your six children in the washbasin. Why not get matching tattoos instead? Actually, why get matching anything? Not to get too Stevie Nicks here, but the psychic bond you share is what’s important—not the jewelry."

Now look...I'm not against tattoos.  I agree with the last line...the ring doesn't matter as much as the love, but, it is a beautifully scripted hypocrisy to advocate against readers of a fashion magazine not to buy rings, all while selling rings.  Which one is it?

I won't get into all ten of them as this blog would get much longer than it already will be, very quick, but the ones I won't get into are: The girls, The big reveal, The registry, Something old something new, and feeding each other cake.  These are interesting, to say the least, things to "ditch," but we'll move on.  There are more pressing matters here.

Let's start off with the easiest of the remaining four: the honeymoon.  What I find outright insulting on this one is that the designer who sells $10,000 wedding dresses is lecturing you about how you need to save money and do a staycation, "And while you’re there, ask the hotel manager if the pool could stay open late for a private swim." What?!

Another interesting "suggestion" Guy makes is to skip your first dance.

Sigh.

Look.  I'm a guy's guy.  I drink beer.  And whiskey.  I love me some sports.  As you can tell, I have an undying love of the automobile, and I don't dance...but to take the suggestion to skip the first dance would be outright lunacy.  At the end of it all, you won't remember your newlywed wife's dress nearly as much as you will taking those first steps while a room of loving eyes looks on.  That might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard from a wedding professional, IF NOT FOR:

DON'T WALK DOWN THE AISLE WITH DADDY.  The man who raised you.  The man who taught you what a man should be.  The man who was the #1 man in your life, until you met your husband.  Fuck em, right?  RIGHT?!  It is every man's dream to walk his little girl down the aisle.  One of the most important moments I'd ever experienced in a wedding was at my sister's wedding, when my father walked her down the aisle.  As they reached the end of the aisle, they embraced each other, as they both wept, and there was not a single dry eye in the house.  My father taught my sister what a man was, and as he gave her away to an equally great man, the symbolism was not lost on anyone in attendance.

Ladies...don't be an idiot.  If you have a father or a father-like figure that was there for you, do it.  You won't regret it.  Neither will he.

The last piece of advice, and seemingly the most intrepidly horrid piece of advice, was to NOT HIRE A WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER.

I get it.  I'm a photographer, so of course I will be against this.  Here's what she states:

"It made sense back in the olden days, pre–Facebook albums and Instagram hashtags, when the whole world didn’t have phones with cameras on them. Having the actual leather-bound album on your coffee table seemed like the only evidence that the whole thing actually took place. If social media is not your thing, why not scatter some disposable cameras around the party and let your drunken guests go to town? You’ll end up with hilarious and candid pictures without the pressure of “likes.”'

Here's the thing:

A few years ago, I shot a wedding at a golf club.  Beautiful wedding, beautiful couple and family, everything went off without a glitch.  GREAT.  I got a second wedding, a referral, off of that first wedding, due to the quality of my work.  While at that wedding, I had a quick conversation with a guest, and it went something like this:

"hey, uh, photographer.  Sorry, I don't know your name."
"Hey, how you doin?!  Ramon."  He was the first brides brother, and we knew each other, but since I was running around shooting, we did not have the pleasure of formally introducing ourselves at the first wedding.
"Ramon, my name is ____, I wanted to share something with you."
"Good to see you, brother.  How can I help you?"
"You see, Ramon, a while back, you shot (first wedding), and you took a portrait of me and my family.  My sister showed me the portrait of me, my wife, and kids, and I fell in love with it.  A few months later, Father's day came, and as a present, my kids got me that portrait, in a nice frame.  It meant so much to me.  That was the first time I had cried since my children were born, and I wanted to come up today and thank you for making such a beautiful image of my family."

No mention of the food.
No mention of the dress.
No mention of the DJ.
No mention of the Music.

While ALL of those things matter...the only part left, was that photograph.

Story #2.  I shot another great wedding at one of the local theme park resorts, which I will not name, but it had, um, characters of the, uh, rodent, variety :).  Beautiful wedding at a gorgeous location...what more could you ask for?

While shooting, I made an image of the bride and her grandfather...she was kissing him on the forehead.  He was in a wheelchair, unable to stand.  That was the last image of them together.  Three days after the wedding, the grandfather, on oxygen at the time of the wedding, passed away.

Wanna entrust those moments, those times, that love, that tenderness, to a couple of drunks with disposable cameras, or a few facebook pics?

The outright lack of respect for other wedding pros displayed by Molly Guy and Stone Fox is a serious shame.  Here we have someone who makes her money by selling $10,000 wedding dresses, has crowns adorned with flowers, selling for over $2,000, and $9,000 wedding rings, sells clothing with the words "FUCK WEDDINGS" all over them, devaluing weddings, wedding professionals, and everything about the wedding industry.  Moreover, the company she runs uses professional photographers, not "drunken guest" or "disposable cameras" to sell their clothing and jewelry. That is an outright shame.

To add insult to injury, what the hell was Vogue Magazine thinking, allowing this garbage to be put on their pages?  This is a magazine that has made their reputation on the backs of iconic journalism AND photography.  The annals of vogue boast images made by all the legends.  They don't use "drunken guest."  To allow such a load of rubbish to pollute their pages is to endorse the outright devaluing of what made them such an icon in the fashion world.

I am calling on Vogue Magazine to speak out against this insult to professional photographers, the wedding industry, and other fashion professionals, immediately.  To allow this to stand is nothing less than a slap in the face to all artist around the world.

Time Magazine and their disgraceful attempt at rights grabs

Early last month, Time Magazine decided to put out new agreements for their freelance photographers.  It was pretty disgraceful.  You can read it Here.

For starters, any time the agreement starts out with a letter, and in the first line of the letter, it reads "Since the 1920's and 30's," you already know which direction this is going to go.  Secondly, it is in familiar fashion, an 8 page contract, outlining all of the ins and outs.  The length of the contract, however, is not nearly as important as the content.

Photographers who sign this contract can expect to lose all abilities to earn any type of licensing revenue.  Where us photographers can expect to earn residual income on some of our best images, this contract takes that ability from us, and that's why this is so important.

Not only will signing this contract take all of your potential for future licensing revenue, this rights grab may also stretch across their entire brand, to include:

Time Magazine
Travel and Leisure
Sports Illustrated
Sports Illustrated Kids
Fortune Magazine
People
People En Espanol
And much, much, more.  In fact, you can read the entire list here.

Over 90 different publications.

The sad part is that this isn't the first time this has happened in recent years.  This contract is a very dangerous shot towards not only photographers but other artist.  It is becoming more and more difficult for upcoming photographers to find work that pays proper rights and pay, and this may very well the biggest infringement upon those rights.  It is up to us as artist not only to protect our current and future earnings, but also to make sure that rights grabs such as this don't completely destroy the future of our industry.  We must stand together and unite in order to overcome such dangerous obstacles like this.  The future of our industry is in the balance.

University of Missouri's Press Problem

By now, we've all seen it.  I won't get into my personal beliefs on what's happening in Missouri...that's for a different blog!

If you've been away, let me break it down.  Some huge controversy broke out at the University of Missouri, racism is involved, students started protesting, hunger strikes broke out, nobody really paid much attention...until, of course, the football team decided to go on strike if results weren't achieved.  That's as quick of a breakdown as you'll ever see on this issue.

The more concerning part for us photographers is the video above.  This lady, asking for muscle, physically restraining a photojournalist from covering part of this event, is my concern, and here's why:

1. The photojournalist, is a student photojournalist, Tim Tai(http://timtaiphoto.com/), hired by ESPN to cover the ordeal.  Good on him!  Any photojournalist would be proud to put ESPN on their list of clients, and, by judging his work, he is quite the photographer.  The school should have been more than happy to rally around him and support his accomplishments, instead of what they did.

2.  The lady.  This lady is a professor.  Let me repeat that.  This lady, is not just a lady...she's a professor.  Not only is she a professor, she's a professor in the communications department.  Let me repeat that...she's a professor in the COMMUNICATIONS department.  If anyone is supposed to know better, and behave in a more suitable manner, it's not even a should...it is a MUST.  She cannot in good conscience behave in this manner and continue to carry out her professorial duties.  She incited a crowd of students to get physical and force Tai out of their area.  Can you just imagine if someone had a weapon?  How much worse could this have been?

3.  The law, or rather, the complete ignorance of it.  The campus is public property.  Anybody has the right to stand there, as long as they're not posing an immediate threat to anyone else.  For all intents and purposes, its as if you were to go outside and stand on a public sidewalk.  The protesters, seemingly almost all college students, who should know this, seem to not care.  Bolstered by a professor and other staff/faculty members, the crowd grows even more bold.  That's one part; the second part is Tai's right.  As a photojournalist, hired by a news agency, he has every right to stand, and walk wherever he chose to cover this event.  Again, the crowd, in complete ignorance of the law, blurt out outlandish comments, threaten him with police intervention, seemingly showing no concern that Tai is in complete compliance of the law, again, backed up by a professor that provokes these types of actions.

***Mind you, this is at The University of Missouri, home of America's largest and oldest journalism school.***

The professor, Melissa Click, apparently has already resigned her appointment, but I don't think that is enough.  I think the University of Missouri needs to put a special assembly together, and turn this around, create a moment of healing and proper education, to make sure this never happens again.

More importantly, we, as photographers and artist must stand by Tai's side, and demand further actions be taken to make sure our rights as photojournalist, artist, and press personnel are protected.  We cannot, as a community, allow this kind of erosion of our rights to continue.

The Destruction of Arts in Our Society

Recently, HTC got into a little bit of heat over one of its images of a new phone.  See the image above.

See something interesting?  Yeah...its gold.  Look closer.  Yeah...UEFA Champions League.  Closer.  Is that???

Yes.  It is.

They released an image of their new phone, shot by an Iphone.  Look at the reflection.

As a professional photographer, this bothers me on so many levels.  First, any photographer worth their weight in camera gear would not have a reflection like that in such a shiny object, because as professional photographers, we take great care in our craft to make sure reflections aren't distracting.  It happens more often than not.  Ever seen those NBA finals photographs of the players posing for photographs with the trophy?  Joe Blow is in the background, unshaven, drinking his mocha, and it is visible in the reflections.

More importantly, the larger issue is that some AD or Marketing exec actually convinced someone at HTC that it would be a good idea to just take a snap pic of their brand new phone, and release it, instead of hiring a photographer that would make sure this wouldn't happen.  As a photographer this hits home with me more than it probably does for most, but here's why it should matter to you:

Education.

Arts have been under assault in our education system for years now.  Whether it be Photography, music, drama, or the like.  Despite the fact that study after study has shown that students engaged in some sort of art education are more successful, and have a more well rounded education, scores of students are forced to go with defunded art education in their schools.

If we, as artist, or by larger part, we, as a society, are to make the case to our politicians and legislators that the arts are important on more than just a paycheck level, we have to not only lobby them for continued or increased funding, we also have to strike at these companies who consider it acceptable to devalue our work as artist by not hiring professionals in favor of snapshots from a cell phone.

It is much more than our jobs we are fighting for.  It is the valuation of the arts in our society.  It is the proper education of our children.  We should not allow companies like HTC to take that away from us.  We've got too much riding on this.

****Information for this blog post was gathered from this article: Oops! HTC mishap

Why this lawsuit against the Jumpman Logo won't go anywhere...

There it is.  We all have seen it countless times.  We all know it.  We all love it.  There is a chance...miniscule...yet still a chance, that we may never see it again.


Photographer Jacobus Rentmeester recently filed suit against Nike, citing copyright infringement.  He claims Nike stole the image from him, based off of this image that he shot for Life Magazine:

I say it goes nowhere...here's why:

First off, Rentmeester shot the image in 1984, thirty years ago.  He entered into an agreement with Nike to allow the logo to be used, where Nike agreed to pay him a certain amount of money over two years.  For practical reasons one must ask the question...why now?  Why thirty years later?  While he does retain copyright, he entered into a contract to allow the company to continue usage of the logo, so what gives?

Secondly, when it comes to the issue of copyright infringement, this will turn into a very difficult case for him to prove.  For example, years ago there was a copyright case concerning a photographer and artist.  The original, the photograph, was a well known photograph of a scene in Louisiana.  The second, the Judge ruled, was the same scene, with a few very minute differences.  The painting(second one) had puddles on the ground, and used leaves to frame the image in a slightly different way.  The photographer, who filed suit, lost, because of the fact that the judge ruled that while the images were similar, those few very distinct differences were enough to not constitute a copyright infringement.  

I'm pretty sure Nike will end up giving him some "go away" money, however, we, as photographers, must do all we can to protect ourselves.  In my opinion, which, of course, is only my humble opinion, the burden of responsibility, which in this case, was on the photographer, was not handled in an appropriate manner.  He should consider himself fortunate if Nike settles out of court.