August 26th, 2014

Upcoming Grant Deadlines for Emerging Photographers, Photojournalists and First Photo Books

Cover of "Legendary: Inside the House Ballroom Scene" by 2013 CDS/Honickman First Book Prize in Photography winner Gerard H. Gaskin. Published by Duke University Press, 2013.

Cover of “Legendary: Inside the House Ballroom Scene” by 2013 CDS/Honickman First Book Prize in Photography winner Gerard H. Gaskin. Published by Duke University Press, 2013.

Three major photography grants have rapidly approaching deadlines in early September: burn magazine’s Emerging Photographer Fund; the First Book Prize in Photography, offered by the Center for Documentary Studies at Duke University and the Honickman Foundation in Philadelphia; and the Carmignac Foundation’s Carmignac Gestion Photojournalism Award.

Burn magazine—curated by Magnum photographer David Alan Harvey—has extended the deadline for their annual award to 6:00 p.m. EDT September 2, 2014. The grant supports the continuation of a personal project, whether journalistic or artistic, and is funded by anonymous donors. This year’s jurors will include The New York Times’ Lens Blog’s James Estrin and the photojournalist Donna Ferrato.

The competition is open to emerging photographers of any age, and the entry fee is $25. The major prize is $10,000; several smaller, minor prizes have been awarded in recent years. Four grants were awarded in 2013—one major to Diana Markosian for her essay ‘My Father The Stranger,’ and three minors, to Iveta Vaivode for her essay “Somewhere on Disappearing Path,” Oksana Yushko for her essay “Balaklava: The Lost History” and Maciej Pisuk for his essay “Under The Skin. Photographs From Brzeska Street.” To enter, visit burnmagazine.org.

The First Book Prize in Photography is a biennial grant offered to North American photographers who have yet to publish a book-length photo project, and “use their cameras for creative exploration” to make work that is “visually compelling, that bears witness and that has integrity of purpose.” Past judges include Robert Adams, Maria Morris Hambourg, Robert Frank, Mary Ellen Mark, William Eggleston and Deborah Willis. Past winners include Gerald H. Gaskin, for his book Legendary: Inside the House Ballroom Scene, and Jannette Williams for The Bathers.

The prize includes $3,000, publication of a photo book, inclusion in a website showcasing finalists and a solo exhibition at the Archive of Documentary Arts in Duke’s Rubenstein Library. Entrants must submit 40 photos with captions, a one-page artist statement, a one-page CV and $70 by 11:59 pm, September 15.

This year, Joshua Chuang—chief curator of the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona—will confer with a selection committee of accomplished photographers, editors and publishers to choose between 12 and 20 finalists, who will then be asked to submit ten sample prints by December 1, 2014. Sandra S. Philips, senior curator of photography at SFMOMA, will review the finalists, select the winner, and write the introduction to the winner’s published book. To enter, visit firstbookprizephoto.com.

The Carmignac Gestion Photojournalism Award is a competition begun in 2009 to support and promote investigative photography. The Carmignac Foundation hopes to bring light to areas and issues that have not yet captured the world’s attention, but are nonetheless crucial to geopolitics and global freedom of speech and human rights. This year’s theme is “Lawless Areas in France,” focusing on “political, legal or socio-economic no man’s land subject to deregulation—where the authority of the French Republic is challenged.”

Funding in-depth photographic reportage, this year’s prize includes €50,000, financing for a monograph, a touring exhibition through France, Italy, Germany and the U.K. and a guaranteed purchase of four prints by the foundation from the winning photographer. A preselection committee will shortlist between ten and 15 candidates, who will be sent to a jury that will convene in Paris on October 30. The deadline to apply is midnight, GMT, September 28, 2014; the name of the winning candidate will be kept confidential (for security reasons, according to Carmignac) until July 2015. To enter, apply online here.

August 26th, 2014

Free Seminar Alert: David McLain on 4K Video Workflow

David_McLain2(Sponsored) Come see why 4K video is quickly becoming the new standard in video capture and learn about workflow options at this free seminar being conducted by National Geographic veteran photographer & Sony Artisan of Imagery David McLain.  At this seminar (one of three at a day-long event), you’ll experience how McLain used the Sony a7s full-frame interchangeable lens camera to cover the World Cup in Brazil and learn why professional photographers and videographers alike are moving to 4K video. August 28, 2014, 11:00 a.m. at the B&H SuperStore in New York City.

More information at: www.bhphotovideo.com/find/eventDetails.jsp/id/1879

For more on McLain’s filmmaking, see PDN’s “Frames Per Second: Documentary Film Traces the Roots of Play.”

August 22nd, 2014

PDN Video: Gerd Ludwig on Why He’s Risked His Life at Chernobyl

In 1993, photographer Gerd Ludwig began documenting the consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster while on assignment for National Geographic. “I got involved accidentally [while] covering a story about pollution in the [former] Soviet Union,” he says. “I was struck by the post-apocalyptic feel of the whole zone.” He ended up returning nine times over 20 years to tell the story of a human and environmental catastrophe that continues to reverberate, and he recently published The Long Shadow of Chernobyl, a 252-page tri-lingual book about the disaster. In this video, Ludwig describes the challenge and drama of photographing inside the destroyed nuclear reactor, and what drove him to take great personal risk to tell the story.

August 22nd, 2014

Yale Research Group Launches Fascinating Search Platform for 170k FSA-OWI Images

Image caption: Modern riverboat, St. Louis, Missouri, 1940, by John Vachon.

Modern riverboat, St. Louis, Missouri, 1940, by John Vachon.

Screen shot 2014-08-21 at 6.32.37 PM

An image of the Photogrammar’s map tool, which visualizes the quantities of images FSA-OWI photographers made in regions around the country.

A group of researchers at Yale created “a web-based platform for organizing, searching, and visualizing the 170,000 photographs from 1935 to 1945 created by the United States Farm Security Administration and Office of War Information (FSA-OWI).”

The platform, which they’re calling Photogrammar, allows people to use visual tools to search through the digitized photographs from the FSA-OWI archive, which is housed at the Library of Congress. The map tool, for instance, allows users to see the quantity of images made in regions across the United States. One can also use the map to trace the work of individual photographers such as Dorothea Lange, John Collier and Marion Post Wolcott, and see where they worked and produced the most images.

The Treemap, another visualization, uses colored blocks of different sizes to show the number of images of different types FSA-OWI photographers produced in different category topics. Users can drill down into subtopics of the category topics.

The Photogrammar also features a more traditional keyword-driven search function.

Explore the Photogrammar site here. But fair warning: it will suck you in.

Related: 14 Rare Color Photos From the FSA-OWI

August 21st, 2014

Monkey Selfie Not Eligible for Copyright Registration Under New Rules

Monkey selfie, shot with David Slater's camera.

Monkey selfie, shot with David Slater’s camera.

The US Copyright Office has issued a report stating that it will not register works produced by “nature, animals, or plants,” effectively undermining photographer David Slater’s claim that he owns copyright to a selfie made by a monkey with one of his cameras, arstechnica.com reports.

The rule was issued Tuesday as part of a 1,222-page document addressing a variety of administrative practices by the copyright office, according to the tech website.

The photo in question was shot by a monkey that ran off with one of Slater’s cameras while he was on a shoot in Indonesia. The photo went viral in 2011.

A dispute over copyright to the photo erupted earlier this month when Wikimedia Commons, a collection of 22 million public domain images, posted the image without Slater’s permission. Wikimedia indicated in caption information with the photo that the author of a photo owns copyright, not the camera owner, and that only people can claim copyright ownership. Therefore, the monkey selfie was ineligible for copyright–and in the public domain.

Slater had been preparing to sue Wikimedia Commons, according to a report earlier this month in The Telegraph. According to arstechnica.com, Slater may be able to claim intellectual property rights under a provision of UK law, though that provision has never been tested in court.

Related:
That Monkey Selfie: Who Owns the Copyright To It?

August 21st, 2014

Has a Textbook Publisher Trampled Your Copyrights? There’s a Solution for That.

Photographers and stock photo agencies have filed dozens of lawsuits against textbook publishers in recent years, alleging reproductions of photos the far exceed the limits of usage licenses. Courts have ruled in favor of photographers in many of the cases. Robert Frerck, for instance, won summary judgment this month on his copyright claims against Pearson Education, and won a settlement from McGraw-Hill last May on another claim. Despite all the claims and settlements, new claims continue to surface.

Photographer Joel Gordon recently filed his third copyright infringement lawsuit this year against a textbook publisher. The first two claims were against McGraw-Hill and Pearson Eduction; both cases are still pending. Gordon alleges in his newest claim, against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH), that between 1990 and 2008, he granted photo usage licenses that “were expressly limited by number of copies, distribution area, language, duration, and/or media.”

HMH ultimately violated those limitations, according to Gordon’s claim. He does not specify the extent of the alleged infringement, explaining that only HMH has that information. But he cites a previous claim against HMH by photographer Ted Wood, who had limited use of his photographs to 40,000 copies, only to discover that HMH had published more than 1 million copies. Wood won his case on summary judgment.

Gordon goes on to cite another 25 claims of copyright infringement against HMH, and he accuses the publisher of having a business model “built on a foundation of pervasive and willful copyright infringement [that] deprived Gordon and hundreds of other photographers and visual art licensors of their rightful compensation and unjustly enriched HMH.”

He is seeking unspecified monetary damages, and an injunction to bar the publisher from further use of his photographs.

Attorney Maurice Harmon of Harmon & Seidman LLC, the lawfirm that represents Gordon, Frerck and many other photographers for claims against textbook publishers, explained via e-mail why these types of claims persist, and how photographers who believe their copyrights have been violated by textbook publishers can protect themselves.

PDN: Why do these claims by photographers against textbook publishers continue to trickle out?
Maurice Harmon: Photographers have only gradually come to realize their photographs have been infringed. Once they know of the individual infringements, the photographers have three years to file a case.

PDN: Do any publishers make good-faith efforts to settle the claims before photographers sue, or before claims go to trial?
MH: That varies greatly—but we always try to negotiate a fair settlement at every stage and 98% settle before trial.

PDN: What must a photographer be prepared to endure, in terms of an investment of time and money, and/or mental anguish—to take on a textbook publisher with one of these claims?
MH: That also varies greatly. Some cases are resolved quickly without anything more than sending us the invoices. Other cases require more documents and a deposition. We advance all expenses, so there is no out-of-pocket cost to the photographer.

PDN: What is required for a photographer to make a strong claim?
MH: Invoices/licenses with terms that identify the specific licensed photographs that limit the uses a publisher can make of those images. Each photograph must also have been registered or can be registered with the Copyright Office.

PDN: What can photographers expect to recover if they win in court?
MH: That depends on the extent of the unauthorized uses, the license terms and conditions, the registration status of the photographs, etc., but it has proven to be well worth our —and the photographers—time.

PDN: If a photographer never registered his or her image copyright, or registered after a textbook publisher misused them, does that make an infringement claim more difficult than it’s worth? [editor's note: Filing registration before a proven infringement makes copyright holders eligible for statutory damages, which are often much higher than actual damages.]
MH: Sometimes, but not always—it depends on the number of infringements after registration and the license terms and conditions.

PDN: Aren’t these claims subject to a statute of limitations? When is it too late to make a claim?
MH: The photographer has three years from the date he or she knew, or reasonably should have known, about the specifics of the infringement to file a case.

PDN: What percentage of these claims are successful? What are the most common reasons they fail—ie, they’re dismissed by a court, or a photographer recovers little or nothing in the end?
MH: The cases we bring have all been successful unless the plaintiff is determined by the Court to lack standing; that is, to lack ownership of the photographs.

PDN: How have textbook publishers changed their license agreements to avoid these claims in the future?
MH: The textbook publishers are now demanding rights so broad it is almost impossible to overrun the license.

PDN: What’s your parting advice to photographers who license images to textbooks?
MH: Act immediately to find out and protect your rights.

Related:
Appeals Court Upholds Copyright Infringement Damages Award to Louis Psihoyos
Judge Refused to Let Book Publisher Weasel Out of Copyright Lawsuit
 After Flouting Print Run Limits, Publishers Face Dozens of Lawsuits

August 20th, 2014

Aaron Siskind Foundation Announces 2014 Grant Recipients

The Aaron Siskind Foundation announced the five winners of their 2014 Individual Photographer’s Fellowship grants yesterday. The grant recipients are Lucas Foglia, Curran Hatleberg, Gillian Laub, Peter van Agtmael and Tomas van Houtryve. Each of this year’s winners receives an $8,000 award.

There were two rounds of judging for this year’s IPF grants. The first round judges included curator Elisabeth Biondi, Harper’s Magazine Art Director Stacey D. Clarkson and Alexa Dilworth, of the Center for Documentary Studies at Duke University. Photographer Elinor Carucci, Curatorial Assistance CEO Graham Howe, and Morgan Library Curator of Photography Joel Smith were the final round judges.

The IPF program was started in 1991, the same year that the Foundation was created, in keeping with photographer Aaron Siskind’s request that upon his death his estate be used to support and inspire contemporary photography. The grants are open to photographers of all levels who reside in the U.S. and are 21 years of age or older, as long as their work is “based on the idea of the lens-based image,” according to the Foundation’s website. Awards of up to $10,000 have been given every year since the IPF’s inception—with the exception of 1999, 2002, 2003 and 2006. Past recipients have included Gregory Crewdson, Matt Eich, Lisa Elmaleh, Ashley Gilbertson, Ron Jude, Wayne Lawrence, Jenny Riffle and Joshua Lutz.

Related: Out West: Lucas Foglia’s Frontcountry
Tomas van Houtryve Drone Essay Longest Ever Published by Harper’s
Heroes & Mentors: Tina Barney and Gillian Laub

August 19th, 2014

Getty Images Photographer Arrested While Covering Ferguson Protests

Getty Images photographer Scott Olson was arrested yesterday while on assignment in Ferguson, Missouri, where protests and clashes with police continue after the police shooting of a African-American teenager more than a week ago. Oslon has since been released, according to a Yahoo News report.

Getty confirmed his arrest in a statement today from Pancho Bernasconi, VP, News at the agency. “We strongly object to [Olson's] arrest and are committed to ensuring he is able to resume his important work of capturing some of the most iconic images of this news story,” Bernasconi said in the statement.

The protests started in response to the shooting death of Michael Brown, Jr., an unarmed African American teenager, by a white police officer. Police have cracked down hard on the protesters, drawing strong criticism for violation of the protesters’ civil rights, and attracting intense national media coverage.

Olson has been covering the story for several days. A gallery of his images from Ferguson, along with a photograph of police placing him under arrest, has been posted by The Guardian.

According to the Yahoo News report, Olson was one of several journalists among 31 people who were arrested yesterday. At least two other journalists–Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of Huffington Post–were detained previously. Bot were later released. Lowrey had been recording police with a video camera shortly before his arrest.

August 14th, 2014

Philly Paper Swaps Ferguson Riot Photo: Did It Do the Right Thing?

Reading a Philadelphia Magazine report about the decision by editors at the Philadelphia Daily News to change a cover photo in response to some outrage on social media left us wondering:  Did photo editors at the Philadelphia Daily News change their minds because they thought they’d made a mistake? Or did they change their minds to avoid controversy and public outcry?

philly DN covers_555

The Philadelphia Daily News cover in question (above, left) featured a photo from Ferguson, Missouri that showed a protestor about to hurl a burning Molotov cocktail gas canister at police. Protests began in Ferguson over the weekend, after police shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown. The protests began peacefully, and have remained mostly peaceful, but some violence and looting have erupted, and police have been widely criticized for their iron-fisted and highly militarized response to all protestors.

Against that backdrop, the Daily News published a cover photo of a protestor with the Molotov cocktail burning canister over the headline, “Hell Breaks Loose.” The photo drew immediate and harsh criticism on Twitter: Readers said the image could be taken to suggest that the (mostly white) police response was justified because the (mostly black) protestors were being so violent. In response the Daily News put out another edition of the paper with a different photo.

The second cover photo shows a distraught-looking female protestor, holding up a sign demanding answers from police about the shooting of Michael Brown. Police in riot gear can be seen lined up behind the protestor. The Daily News did not change the headline.

And that leads to some larger questions about photo editing in the social media age: Should editors show deference to the instant opinions on Twittering readers, on the theory that input from the public leads to more informed picture choices? Or does deference to the instant opinions on social media undermine photo editors by encouraging readers to constantly demand changes and retractions on coverage of controversial or sensitive topics?

Philadelphia Magazine published Tweets from Daily News readers, followed by a Tweet from a Daily News senior writer who wrote, “Based on reader reaction we’re changing our front page image — so we actually do listen.” That was followed by a Tweet from Daily News assistant city editor David Lee Preston that said: “Big takeaway from tonight should be that a bunch of pros with hearts & souls inhabit this newsroom.”

But it remains unclear why the Daily News changed the cover photo: Did they think they’d made a mistake? Or were they simply bowing to pressure from some angry readers?

Regardless of their motives, we throw open the floor to PDN readers: Did the Daily News make a mistake publishing the Molotov cocktail-throwing protestor? Should the paper have changed the cover photo? Should photo editors let social media reaction influence their decisions, and if so, to what extent?

Note: Earlier version of this story described the burning object in the protester’s hand as a “Molotov cocktail.” Readers noted it was a burning gas canister. We changed it.  In this case, we listened to readers on social media, too.

August 14th, 2014

Judge Upholds $1.2 Million Verdict in Morel v. AFP Copyright Case

A federal judge has upheld a $1.2 million jury award in favor of photographer Daniel Morel, after determining that there was sufficient evidence presented at the trial last year to support the verdict.

Morel won $1.2 million in damages after a federal jury determined that Getty and AFP willfully violated his copyrights by uploading eight of his exclusive news images of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and distributing them without his permission. The award also included an additional $20,000 damages for violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Getty and AFP had appealed the $1.2 million award on the grounds that there was not enough evidence presented at the trial to establish willful copyright infringement. They had asked the court to vacate the jury’s finding of willful infringement, reduce the award to Morel, or grant a new trial.

A federal judge rejected the appeal.

“There was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the defendant’s infringement (and particularly AFP’s) was not just willful but reflected a gross disregard for the rights of copyright holders,” US District Court Judge Alison Nathan wrote in a decision handed down yesterday. She added, “In light of all the consideration that the jury was entitled to consider, [reduction] of the $1.2 million statutory damages award is not required.

“The evidence was plainly sufficient for the jury to conclude that AFP’s infringement was willful under either an actual knowledge or reckless disregard theory,” Nathan said. She said the evidence for willfulness on Getty’s part was “somewhat thin” in comparison to the evidence against AFP. But she went on to say that the evidence of Getty’s willfulness “was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.”

Morel had uploaded his images to Twitter, offering to license them to news outlets. The images were stolen and re-distributed by another Twitter account holder. Judge Nathan cited evidence presented at trial that Vincent Amalvy, AFP’s  Director of Photography for the Americas,  knew or should have known that the images were actually Morel’s, and that AFP didn’t have permission to distribute them.

The evidence against Getty for willful infringement was that it left Morel’s images on its web site under a false credit for more than two weeks after AFP sent a “kill notice” telling Getty to remove the images.

The award was the maximum amount of statutory damages possible under the law.

AFP and Getty had asked the court to reduce the $1.2 million award on the grounds that it was based on a “speculative” figure of actual damages amounting to $275,000 in lost sales. Judge Nathan said that on the basis of actual downloads (1,000 or more) of the image and sale prices, the actual damage estimate was reasonable. But she went on to say that juries aren’t required in any case to base statutory awards on actual damage estimates.

She also rejected arguments that the $1.2 million statutory award was “instinsically excessive.” Noting that courts defer to the prerogative of juries to set damage awards and rarely set them aside unless they “shock the judicial conscience and constitute of denial of justice,” Nathan said AFP’s actions in particular could be seen as “gross disregard for the rights of copyright holders” and let the jury award stand.

At the same time, Nathan upheld a $10,000 jury award against AFP for Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) violations, while vacating a $10,000 award for DMCA violations against Getty.

The DMCA makes it unlawful to intentionally remove or alter copyright management information, or to knowingly provide or distribute false copyright management information with intent to conceal infringement.

Evidence presented at trial showed that Vincent Amalvy, the AFP Director of Photography, knew that Morel’s images were falsely credited to another Twitter user, but  distributed the pictures with the false credit anyway, Judge Nathan wrote in her decision.

Getty violated the DMCA by continuing to distribute the images under a false credit, after receiving notice from AFP to remove the images, the judge said. But Getty was not liable under a DMCA provision for distributing the images with knowledge before the fact that the image credits had been illegally altered.

Related Articles:

Morel v. AFP Copyright Verdict: Defense Strategy to Devalue Photos and Vilify Photographer Backfires

Jury Awards Daniel Morel $1.2 Million in Damages from AFP, Getty Images