[JanG]

Thanks Al, a good kick up the butt is indeed what I need! 

What happened in relation to the email, anything come of it?

[cel]

Cel, you're getting a bit of love from Robert Himlers Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=523592974327571&set=a.429605627059640.96107.201673299852875&type=1&theater

Thanks mate

What happened in relation to the email, anything come of it?

I've been doing red carpet events for them since, not very profitable but I'm getting better access than I was before. And I love doing it

[JanG]

I've been doing red carpet events for them since, not very profitable but I'm getting better access than I was before. And I love doing it

Well thats the main thing - great work!

[hydie]

Rota unwittingly uses WRX pics in ads, compensates photog with alloy wheels

In this Great Era of Google, in which practically everything can be downloaded from the Internet, anyone can grab another person's work and pass it off as his very own. Just ask Manny V. Pangilinan: Never hire a speechwriter who has world-class googling skills.

But the practice of using another individual's intellectual property can also be inadvertent at best or merely negligent at worst. That's what recently happened to popular wheel manufacturer Rota, which unwittingly used a couple of photos for its marketing material without the photographer's express permission. Unlike MVP's erstwhile plagiarist wordsmith, Rota's marketing staff had no intentions of ripping somebody off.

The photographer--and hence owner of the photos--is a guy named Marc Abasolo. He contacted us on April 16 to report what he felt was blatant injustice committed by Rota.

"I'm a hobbyist photographer," Abasolo wrote. "And I would like to ask if you could get the attention of Rota Philippines for they have used my photos of a Subaru WRX for their 2015 catalog and magazine print ad without my permission. An explanation would be appreciated."

He sent visual pieces of evidence. We were honestly surprised--"amused" is probably the better word--because we knew the president of the company, Michael Rojas. We also knew that he is one of the nicest people you will ever meet in the industry. Abasolo had no idea how his photos had wound up in Rota's advertising paraphernalia.

The WRX belonged to Abasolo's friend, by the way. He had photographed it just for pleasure.

We then got in touch with Rojas, who was already aware of the situation at the time, calling the incident "a misunderstanding."

"Someone sent us the images, and we thought they were his," Rojas told us. "I want to make things right with the guy. I feel bad for what happened."

To cut the story short: Somebody had downloaded the high-resolution files from Abasolo's blog site and somehow passed them on to Rota, while giving the impression the company could use them however it wished. If there was any fault on the part of Rota's marketing people, it was only their failure to double-check for proper attribution.

And because Rota (or Philippine Aluminum Wheels Inc.) is a professional company, it immediately reached out to the aggrieved photographer and offered to settle the matter. Today, Abasolo met with Rota and agreed to the settlement, which entitles him to a set of alloy wheels of his choice.

According to Abasolo, he will request for 20-inch Rota Grid Off-Road wheels for his Ford Ranger.

"I can say that Rota is very generous and honest for taking quick action and also for apologizing," he acknowledges.

So all is well that ends well. Perhaps Abasolo can now kick off a lucrative career in commercial photography.

As for Rota, huge props for wasting no time to address the issue. More power to the company, and may its wheels keep on turning.

As for the rest of us, let's be more mindful of what we pluck from cyberspace. What may look like a worthless speck in our eyes could be someone else's most cherished possession.

Photos from Marc Abasolo

http://www.topgear.com.ph/news/industry-news/rota-unwittingly-uses-wrx-pics-in-ad-compensates-photog-with-alloy-wheels

[tdc911]

Interesting to see if anything comes out of this Richard Prince fiasco.

[Aircon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/richard-prince-instagram_n_7452634.html

Did you know someone could resell your Instagram pictures for $90,000?

Richard Prince, an established artist who plays with authorship and appropriation, made waves at the Frieze Art Fair a couple of weeks ago with his Instagram paintings.

Prince took screenshots of gorgeous Instagram pictures uploaded by models, celebrities and artists, and added creepy comments underneath, like, “Enjoyed the ride today. Let's do it again. Richard." Then he printed the images on canvas. Last fall, he exhibited them at the Gagosian Gallery, where they sold for $90,000 each.

He took photos of Sky Ferreira, Pamela Anderson and porn stars, as well as Doe Deere, the CEO of Lime Crime. Last week, she Instagrammed a picture from the Frieze exhibition.


You'd think the original Instagrammers could sue Prince for copyright infringement. But because Prince edited the photos to include his own comments, the works count as original pieces of art.

Not everybody agrees Prince's appropriation is artistically valid. Los Angeles-based artist Audrey Wollen, whose reinterpretation of Diego Velázquez’s "The Rokeby Venus" was reprinted, told i-D last fall that she was "really angry" he'd taken her work.

"What Prince is doing is colonising and profiting off a territory of the internet that was created by a community of young girls," she told the outlet.

A critic at ArtNet laid into Prince after the Gagosian show too, writing that it had "thin offerings for anyone who is in possession of a brain."

Some artists, though, appreciate the exposure. Stacy Leigh, whose photo series of sex dolls was featured on The Huffington Post last week, commented on Instagram that Prince "knows a good thing when he see's it" [sic].

Prince had reposted one of her images on his Instagram, which has since been taken down. When another user asked if he printed her image for the exhibition, Leigh replied, "I wish he would!!! I would be honored."

Missy Suicide, the founder of pinup girl website Suicide Girls, had a photo taken of the site's main Instagram account, as well as those of her models.

"I’m not holding a grudge,” she told The Huffington Post. In fact, she noted that it seemed natural Prince was drawn to the Suicide Girls, which has 3 million Instagram followers. “Our girls' portraits are the most compelling on Instagram, so of course he found ours," she said.

Nor is she critical of his work. “He’s starting a conversation about what we put out there in the public, and it’s definitely an interesting conversation to start having," she said. Missy's just surprised people paid $90,000 for the images.

To bring his work down to a more affordable price point, Suicide Girls is turning the reproduction tables back on Prince by reproducing and selling their own reproductions of his reproductions. The profits will be donated to charity.

"We’re just happy to make his art accessible to the kinds of people that he’s featuring,” she said. Ironically, the Gagosian press release  warns that "All images are subject to copyright."

The Gagosian Gallery and Richard Prince did not respond to requests for comment.

[Aircon]

A Melbourne photographer has blasted US artist Richard Prince over allegedly appropriating his photos as part of a controversial show where it is claimed Prince has sold Instagram images that are not his.

Prince's controversial manner of working came to light recently when it emerged the artist had used 37 Instagram images for his New Portraits show in New York, one of which sold for $US90,000 ($115,000).

One of the images, however, apparently belongs to Peter Coulson, a renowned fashion photographer with numerous awards to his name, who says he feels "violated" and is considering legal action.
 
The original: Peter Coulson's image of Alice Kelson. 
The original: Peter Coulson's image of Alice Kelson. Photo: Peter Coulson

"My reaction was the same every time I see someone using my image without my permission," Coulson says. "If you've ever had your house broken into, you know that feeling that you have in your house that you've been violated."

Advertisement


The image, of model Alice Kelson, was taken two years ago, and posted on Instagram by the model, who is reportedly "furious" at its misuse. Coulson says he doesn't have a problem with Kelson posting it, but was alerted to Prince's use of it by one his 113,000 Facebook followers who spotted it in a blog post.

Coulson claims his Instagram tag has been taken off the image and that Prince would have been aware who took the photo.
 
The photographer: Peter Coulson.
The photographer: Peter Coulson.

"If he had done the image and put it up in a gallery not for sale or for sale and donating the profits to a cause that I supported, and credited the people in the shot, the model and myself, I would not have a problem with it," Coulson says.

"But the fact is he wants to hide who the original creators are to create a profit for himself and this controversy is actually allowing him to get bigger so he can charged even more."

The images appeared at the Gagosian Gallery in New York last year, and more recently as part of the Frieze Art Fair in New York, images of which were blogged widely. Coulson has also reacted by calling on his followers to rate Frieze New York with a one-star rating on Facebook. "Please help me send a clear message to Frieze Gallery in New York that it's wrong to display and promote stolen work," Coulson posted.

The episode highlights the increasingly murky waters of copyright and intellectual property ownership in the social media world. Coulson says he has been contacted by several US legal firms over the matter and is considering his options, but he says it's not about the profits.

Coulson says in an era where film companies are suing people who download movies, as in the recent Dallas Buyers Club case, photographers shouldn't differ in matters of copyright.

"I'm not doing it for the money, I'm doing it for the morals of protecting my property and my copyright. If someone does a copy of the Mona Lisa, everyone screams out plagiarism, don't they? So where's the difference for photographers?"

He adds it's not the first time he's had his work used without permissions, with fashion companies, hairdressers, nightclubs and even rock musicians guilty of using his images, he claims.

"The whole thing of 'Oh, if it's on the internet, it's free': I'm sorry it's not," he says.

Coulson says he doesn't want any personal retribution against Prince but adds: "All I want is if you want to use my pictures, ask my permission and pay for it. Or don't use it. That's all I'm asking. Because to me you've bastardised my image - my image isn't meant to be seen blurred and out of focus with Instagram text written around it. You've actually wrecked my picture."

Fairfax has reached out to Richard Prince for comment.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/australian-photographer-peter-coulson-violated-by-richard-prince-instagram-art-scandal-20150528-ghatkt.html#ixzz3bOZVrpru

[mondi]

I'm sure if you could gold plate dog turds, people would pay big money for them...........

[goober]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/richard-prince-instagram_n_7452634.html

Did you know someone could resell your Instagram pictures for $90,000?

Richard Prince, an established artist who plays with authorship and appropriation, made waves at the Frieze Art Fair a couple of weeks ago with his Instagram paintings.

Prince took screenshots of gorgeous Instagram pictures uploaded by models, celebrities and artists, and added creepy comments underneath, like, “Enjoyed the ride today. Let's do it again. Richard." Then he printed the images on canvas. Last fall, he exhibited them at the Gagosian Gallery, where they sold for $90,000 each.

He took photos of Sky Ferreira, Pamela Anderson and porn stars, as well as Doe Deere, the CEO of Lime Crime. Last week, she Instagrammed a picture from the Frieze exhibition.


You'd think the original Instagrammers could sue Prince for copyright infringement. But because Prince edited the photos to include his own comments, the works count as original pieces of art.

Not everybody agrees Prince's appropriation is artistically valid. Los Angeles-based artist Audrey Wollen, whose reinterpretation of Diego Velázquez’s "The Rokeby Venus" was reprinted, told i-D last fall that she was "really angry" he'd taken her work.

"What Prince is doing is colonising and profiting off a territory of the internet that was created by a community of young girls," she told the outlet.

A critic at ArtNet laid into Prince after the Gagosian show too, writing that it had "thin offerings for anyone who is in possession of a brain."

Some artists, though, appreciate the exposure. Stacy Leigh, whose photo series of sex dolls was featured on The Huffington Post last week, commented on Instagram that Prince "knows a good thing when he see's it" [sic].

Prince had reposted one of her images on his Instagram, which has since been taken down. When another user asked if he printed her image for the exhibition, Leigh replied, "I wish he would!!! I would be honored."

Missy Suicide, the founder of pinup girl website Suicide Girls, had a photo taken of the site's main Instagram account, as well as those of her models.

"I’m not holding a grudge,” she told The Huffington Post. In fact, she noted that it seemed natural Prince was drawn to the Suicide Girls, which has 3 million Instagram followers. “Our girls' portraits are the most compelling on Instagram, so of course he found ours," she said.

Nor is she critical of his work. “He’s starting a conversation about what we put out there in the public, and it’s definitely an interesting conversation to start having," she said. Missy's just surprised people paid $90,000 for the images.

To bring his work down to a more affordable price point, Suicide Girls is turning the reproduction tables back on Prince by reproducing and selling their own reproductions of his reproductions. The profits will be donated to charity.

"We’re just happy to make his art accessible to the kinds of people that he’s featuring,” she said. Ironically, the Gagosian press release  warns that "All images are subject to copyright."

The Gagosian Gallery and Richard Prince did not respond to requests for comment.

That photo of you in Gymp costume should fetch a motza

[dkabab]

Got my first complaint from Redbubble today. This was from Porsche.

Dear David,

We have removed the following content from Redbubble in response to past complaints from Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, who has claimed to be the owner or licensee of related intellectual property:

Porsche GT3 RS - City: http://www.redbubble.com/people/epicimagesphoto/works/24005324-porsche-gt3-rs-city
If you believe that removal of the above content is the result of a mistake (for example, that you have authorization to use the relevant content from the content owner) or misidentification, you can send us a counter notice. Such counter notice must provide the following information:

an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the relevant content;

a description of the content which we have removed, including the URL on which the content was located on the Redbubble site;

your address, telephone number, and email address; and

a statement by you that, under penalty of perjury, you have a good faith belief that the content was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

If you would like to send a counter notice please email the required information above to: