Hockley Photography

Last month I noted new photography restrictions at Burger King and noted I’d be voting with my dollars and not supporting their business. I’m now learning of another anti-photographer company which should be avoided: Heineken.

The details are emerging on this Flickr discussion thread but in short, Heineken used a bunch of photographs without permission. When confronted with potential legal action, Heineken sent an insulting response, which I’ll paraphrase as “we don’t think we did anything wrong, but here’s a couple dollars to make you go away.”

As an international megacorp, the folks at Heineken have a big legal department which would probably go after any infringers upon its brand; it’s a shame they’re insulting photographers when their own illegal use is noted. Best of luck to those who have had images stolen; I’d encourage photographers everywhere to vote with your dollars and avoid Heineken’s brands.

My office for my day job is across the street from a Burger King. It’s not the healthiest of options, but I’ll eat there occasionally. Last week I noticed this new sign on the door:

As a private business, Burger King is certainly welcome to set their own policies. But I have to wonder… are they that uptight about lawsuits that they’re going to prohibit photography in a fast food restaurant. I doubt I would’ve been taking many gallery-worthy photos at my local BK, but their policy turns me off as a photographer and as a customer. I’d urge other photographers to choose alternate fast food instead of support a company that won’t allow photography.

Thomas Hawk has written some blog posts recently about the current anti-photography anti-terror campaign in the UK, but it’s not just the cross-Atlantic neighbors to the east that have issues with unreasonable photographer suspicion. Last summer there was quite a buzz surrounding two “Middle-Eastern looking” men who were seen taking pictures on the Washington State Ferries.

Turns out that they weren’t terrorists, but rather ordinary businessmen who were just interested in the ferries.

On an unrelated note, I’m aware there are some issues when attempting to page back through previous blog posts. I’m currently looking into the problem and hope to have it resolved shortly.

Responding to the public outcry over the breadth of licensing conditions in Adobe’s original license for Photoshop Express (previous blog post), Adobe has posted a new Terms of Use Agreement to take effect on April 10th. They removed the part of the license agreement which drew the most ire; users no longer give Adobe the rights to use the images for any purpose whatsoever.

The new terms contain an interesting section about rights given to other users. Take a look at sections 6 and 7… here’s an excerpt:

You hereby grant Other Users a worldwide (because the internet is global), royalty-free (meaning that Other Users do not owe you any money), nonexclusive (meaning you are free to license Your Content to others) license to view, download, print, distribute, publicly perform and publicly display Your Shared Content subject to the limitations in Section 7.

It’s no longer a rights grab by Adobe, but posting any material for viewing apparently lets anyone use your content for any number of purposes. Again, it’s not a license I can agree with for my work.

If you want any sort of control over your work, take a few minutes and read the terms for any services used. Caveat emptor.

Despite the fact that I sell photos for profit as a business, I post a ton of my work to Flickr, where it’s available to be viewed by a community of millions of users from around the globe. Many photographers won’t use sites such as Flickr due to a fear that folks will use the site to obtain and use their work illegally. It’s a valid concern, but not one that prevents me from sharing online.

I’m a strong believer in copyright and the ownership of one’s work. I’m also a strong believer in giving back to a community, and the reality is that no photographer is truly self-taught. We all look at the works of others and improve our technique from what we see. A diverse, large community of photographers (such as that on Flickr or photo.net) provides a great resource for learning. Regardless of your particular photographic interests, equipment, or locations, there’s likely to be a Flickr group for that topic. A Flickr pro membership is only $25/year and the amount of quality work, discussion, and inspirations make it a great investment for any photographer.

I post my photos to Flickr in order to participate and give back to the photo community. The images are of a resolution which looks great on screen but isn’t of a high enough quality to be used for a large print. Flickr provides a good method to easily organize and share a variety of my work, and my Flickr stream has led to quite a few referrals and photo leads (actually just last night I was contacted by someone about licensing a photo they saw on Flickr).

Could someone steal a photo? Potentially. Do I feel that the benefit of the community and potential sales leads outweighs the risk of someone swiping a low-res image? Yes. Until something changes to tip that balance, you’ll continue to find a bunch of my work on Flickr.