I'm floored by how little is changed from the photos (I have a few screen shots of the mural).
You'll also notice the mainstreetmurals.org site no longer shows who their sponsors are. They used to wave that all over the place. I think what they have done to Barstow, the high desert, the art community is despicable--this all could have been such a beautiful thing- Meaningful to so many people and a positive experience for a long time to come. Instead, Jane and Kathy have 'pansed' the entire community.
-
THere's always google cache, or the way back machine. Hard to make things disappear these days.
Just how much does need to be changed from a photo if it doesn't have a creative commons license?
I'm sure it goes without saying that there are many local photographers that would have photos of these animals they would have lent to the project, with attribution. Or landscapes, or plants. Many locals would have felt the same as the painter, who talks about how she 'gets' to do the sets for her church, many would have liked to have 'gotten' their photos used. They probably wouldn't have been as well done as your landscape. Or they could have gone for a truly artistic route, and used artist's photos for a fee with attribution, and advertised the heck out of the art angle.
Or do what the NPS does, and run a photo contest, with the fine print saying that they can use any contributed photos for the mural.
In theater we had rules about how much we had to alter costumes that inspired new costumes. Best thing would have been one of the options above, but say the muralist had 5 mountain lion photos, and was painting from them as inspiration, how much would the final photo have had to have been changed from any individual photo for it to truly be 'fair use', or strictly legal? I remember the discussion 4 years ago about the Obama hope poster and thinking that I thought that was a stretch of the 'fair use' claim. I'd have liked to have seen the settlement on that one.
I have had funding from the Desert Legacy grant, they have a good program, I dislike seeing other recipients be so careless with their money, but if you have little education in the matter.... Hard to believe in the days of the internet that people could remain so oblivious, but if you don't go looking for the information, it's easy to avoid seeing what you don't want to see.
So, according to the .pdf referenced for the grant funding in 2010, is Jane Laraman-Brockhurst married to David Brockhurst? Brother/sister? Husband/wife? Seems a bit odd the Project Director (Jane Laraman-Brockhurst) would be related to the Project Designer (David Brockhurst) of the same name. ie: One gets $$$/one receives $$$ and I'd seriously doubt the work is all pro-bono at the design level Off Limits Design appears to create.
Re: the ADA issue, apparently all the work was completed based on the following. They even mention ADA violations in their grant proposal, but they're not completed? Might be worth a trip down to check it out and photograph?
Source: http://www.desertdiscoverycenter.com/ In 2010 work began on a $700,000 renovation project to refit the building with a new roof, a new HAVC system, and re-design and construct a new classroom for the center. This project is set to be complete by the summer of 2011
I still believe your best bet is to go straight for the fraud 'artist' Kathy Fierro. She's the one ultimately responsible for the location, theft and subsequent use of your copyrighted artwork without permission or payment. I see now that MSM has removed the link to her "Animals of the Mojave Desert" mural, so I'm quite sure they are attempting to distance themselves from her. If she's a professional artist, she most probably has a liability insurance policy of some type, or would fall back to residing under one of MSM or one of the related organizations.
From what I'm gathering, this is first about payment for your copyrighted and subsequently stolen work of art (photo), secondly, getting MSM and related organizations to be more informed about copyright law, and finally, securing the proper ADA upgrades to the facility which has received a considerable amount of grant funding to do, but hasn't been done. Right?
A quick update--notice the website has replaced the wildlife mural photo with Jane and Kathy and the kids at the installation site with one of just the kids and the mural panels at the Desert Discovery Center.
A quick update--notice the website has replaced the wildlife mural photo with Jane and Kathy and the kids at the installation site with one of just the kids and the mural panels at the Desert Discovery Center.
At least they didn't use one of your reflection lake photos for the ice age mural
Although, it would be nice to see one of the actual ranges on the ice age mural, the ranges haven't changed significantly since the mega-fauna walked here. I also think that it would have been a pinyon-juniper forest up to the shorelines and river edges back then. I wonder if they consulted with Marith Reheis or anybody about what it would have looked like.
This has been a great educational experience. Thanks for posting all of the details so we can all learn.
Is there an easy way to use google to search on a similar image? For example, if I have an image that I want to find all occurances of on the net, is that possible?
This has been a great educational experience. Thanks for posting all of the details so we can all learn.
Is there an easy way to use google to search on a similar image? For example, if I have an image that I want to find all occurances of on the net, is that possible?
Thanks, Jim
I think you would have to find it in image search first, then click on 'similar images' once it's found. That's how the bobcat photo image worked. Whoever shot that missed out by uploading the original somewhere, it went viral and is now all over the place without credit. Beautiful photo. I'd hope that would be the photographer's original intention, to put it in the public domain. I wouldn't/couldn't do that. But I'm not sure--I'm astounded at what's been found.
My thoughts on a photo like the bobcat being used in a mural such as the wildlife mural, are that if you can't find the original author to get written authorization and provide proper credit, then it shouldn't be used. I've seen a lot of bobcat photos not only on the net, but in private collections where the photographer would be thrilled to have their shot be included, and receive a stipend for it. What a great way that would be to encourage participation--credit the photographers and invite them to the ribbon cutting. The way the MSM program is being run now is, IMO, self-centered.
link
This is a photo of the wildlife mural on public display in downtown Barstow.
Actually I'm thinking the mountain on that mural looks like Cowhole Mountain at the far end of Soda Lake- so it may be authentic.
Stay tuned. Her attorney called again today and said wait another week.
Cowhole has two mounds, a much wider aspect ratio, and Old Dad Mountain is not that rugged, even back adding a few tens or hundred thousand years of erosion.
Only way that looks anything like Soda Lake it is if you look at it in Google Earth with vertical exaggeration cranked to the max, and besides, where's the lake?
They just run hot and cold on these murals huh? Either producing a nice mural by copycatting other people's work, or a poor mural without. Better course would be to use legal inspiration, like you said, there are many people out there with sourcework that would have been pleased to contribute, with attribution, plus or minus payment.
Cowhole has two mounds, a much wider aspect ratio, and Old Dad Mountain is not that rugged, even back adding a few tens or hundred thousand years of erosion.
Only way that looks anything like Soda Lake it is if you look at it in Google Earth with vertical exaggeration cranked to the max, and besides, where's the lake?
They just run hot and cold on these murals huh? Either producing a nice mural by copycatting other people's work, or a poor mural without. Better course would be to use legal inspiration, like you said, there are many people out there with sourcework that would have been pleased to contribute, with attribution, plus or minus payment.
I think I got my mountains and holes mixed up. Cowhole, sheephole, owlhole, ... I know what holes I've been stuck though, and which way to go when I get unstuck.
The mural being worked on now, is one of the cold ones. In her letter to me she said they were going to use "another photo." It must be the next one- this isn't using the same technique- at all.
For $6k-$8k I wonder how many authentic muralists, decent ones, would make their way to town? I believe the bidding process is,... stagnant.
In response to something mentioned earlier, now that I think about it, I've never said I wasn't going after the painter. I'll have to see what happens.
This program could have been such a good thing, and I even thought it was when I heard about it at the OST symposium a few years ago. I believe that was about the time the original program director left.
There are certain phrases that reverberate poorly in my head; "Master Artist", "to beautify Barstow", "non-profit", "for the children." I'm seeing little more than a conflict of interest. I wonder if they'll get paid to replace the mural that they took down?
Next week should be interesting. I'll continue my research.
At this time I've removed all but the comparison photo of the mural to my original image. This may, or may not be temporary. The situation has not been resolved as of this posting. ;-)
At this time I've removed all but the comparison photo of the mural to my original image. This may, or may not be temporary. The situation has not been resolved as of this posting. ;-)
Wow. When you say removed, you weren't kidding. :-)
I'm guessing your well documented chronology of this began to rattle some nerves and has worked out to a satisfactory financial agreement?
And just because it's off that page doesn't mean it's gone from the internet.
Wow. When you say removed, you weren't kidding. :-)
I'm guessing your well documented chronology of this began to rattle some nerves and has worked out to a satisfactory financial agreement?
And just because it's off that page doesn't mean it's gone from the internet.
.
I did leave the photo comparing the mural to my original work. It has been, and will continue to be interesting. Who's to say what turns the future may take?
I noticed a little while ago in the system log that the attorney came through and took a look-see at the page. I feel like flicking it back on-and off-and on-and-off,...
-*fnurk*-
Crazy! Does everyone simply not care about copyrights anymore?!?
It seems so sometimes. I've been reconsidering the way I use my photos, the way I share, and the way I publish online. I've also been registering my work and registering my work before publishing anywhere. Nobody will care about my work unless I do first. This has happened before, it is happening now, and I'm fairly sure this will happen again. I'm thinking the key elements are to be right, and tenacious. I believe a good working knowledge of copyright law, real copyright law, is just as invaluable to a photographer as a knowledge of business practices--both allow us to make choices and control our work, our creativity.
It seems so sometimes. I've been reconsidering the way I use my photos, the way I share, and the way I publish online. I've also been registering my work and registering my work before publishing anywhere. Nobody will care about my work unless I do first. This has happened before, it is happening now, and I'm fairly sure this will happen again. I'm thinking the key elements are to be right, and tenacious. I believe a good working knowledge of copyright law, real copyright law, is just as invaluable to a photographer as a knowledge of business practices--both allow us to make choices and control our work, our creativity.
It's amazing how much of a burden protecting the work has become these days. Sometimes it's right up there with the operation of the business itself.
But I admire your persistence. Most give up like I did.
It's amazing how much of a burden protecting the work has become these days. Sometimes it's right up there with the operation of the business itself.
But I admire your persistence. Most give up like I did.
The more I learn about it, the more necessary protecting one's work seems to be, however, I don't think it will be such a burden as the system is learned and acclimated to. It will become part of the process, the documentation, the registration of the work. Then the defense of your work becomes an active defense, and it may be easier to stick with it.
This particular situation I'm dealing with has brought the whole copyright issue to a head for me. I've realized that like it or not, inconvenient or not, or intentional or not, it's part of our modern reality. If I don't protect my work, nobody else will.
The U.S. Copyright Office is making things easier, and submissions for certain types of work can be made electronically. They keep changing things. Improving. There were some modifications made last night in fact. As time goes on I'll be trying to keep up with the process for myself, others in my little art group I hang with and those in the virtual world.
I agree that it's getting easier to protect yourself. The electronic filing with the copyright office definitely helped streamline the process. And sites like tin eye are definitely helping as well.
As the reality of enforcement comes to head for publishers, the protection process will be easier for us too.
Do I read correctly that to file a copyright it presently cost $35.00 per image?
If so, that could really get expensive!
No- you can submit multiple images from what I understand. I put about a dozen in my first batch and have twice that in the second. I'm hoping to develop a system where I can keep a file open and submit every two months of the previous three months work. That way they fit into the 90 day requirement. Now, something I just found out is that to electronically submit, they cannot have been published any other way than electronically or they will not be accepted electronically and have to have 2 physical copies sent in. I think they just started the ECO late last spring so the bugs are still being worked out. I figure it will cost anywhere from to $140/yr (if quarterly) - $210/yr (if every other month) to have the advantage of copyright registration. It may not stop anything, but it allows a judgement to include statutory damages- and that's some juice to encourage a settlement or for an attorney to become involved if need be.
No- you can submit multiple images from what I understand. I put about a dozen in my first batch and have twice that in the second. I'm hoping to develop a system where I can keep a file open and submit every two months of the previous three months work. That way they fit into the 90 day requirement. Now, something I just found out is that to electronically submit, they cannot have been published any other way than electronically or they will not be accepted electronically and have to have 2 physical copies sent in. I think they just started the ECO late last spring so the bugs are still being worked out. I figure it will cost anywhere from to $140/yr (if quarterly) - $210/yr (if every other month) to have the advantage of copyright registration. It may not stop anything, but it allows a judgement to include statutory damages- and that's some juice to encourage a settlement or for an attorney to become involved if need be.
On matters otherwise: A call from the attorney today confirmed more delay- Things have been mighty quiet, but that is in no way meant to imply things have died down or are over.
So, nearly a month later-- There have been some very interesting developments, and I refuse to let this go. I didn't want this thread to drop off into oblivion just yet.
Do I read correctly that to file a copyright it presently cost $35.00 per image?
If so, that could really get expensive!
no.....my old forms / notes that I have (5-7 yrs) say one disk (CD at a time and that was approx 750 images....the images had to be numbered or titled in some way.....but if you changed a title for some reason the "new" image would need to be re-filed with the new name...electronically when I actually called and talked with them it was about the same....
I would like to thank everyone for their support and hard work in this matter. This situation has been satisfactorily resolved and we will be working in a positive direction in the future. May Barstow and the entire High Desert area be a better place for the efforts expended. Again, thank you to everyone!
Comments
Just how much does need to be changed from a photo if it doesn't have a creative commons license?
I'm sure it goes without saying that there are many local photographers that would have photos of these animals they would have lent to the project, with attribution. Or landscapes, or plants. Many locals would have felt the same as the painter, who talks about how she 'gets' to do the sets for her church, many would have liked to have 'gotten' their photos used. They probably wouldn't have been as well done as your landscape. Or they could have gone for a truly artistic route, and used artist's photos for a fee with attribution, and advertised the heck out of the art angle.
Or do what the NPS does, and run a photo contest, with the fine print saying that they can use any contributed photos for the mural.
In theater we had rules about how much we had to alter costumes that inspired new costumes. Best thing would have been one of the options above, but say the muralist had 5 mountain lion photos, and was painting from them as inspiration, how much would the final photo have had to have been changed from any individual photo for it to truly be 'fair use', or strictly legal? I remember the discussion 4 years ago about the Obama hope poster and thinking that I thought that was a stretch of the 'fair use' claim. I'd have liked to have seen the settlement on that one.
I have had funding from the Desert Legacy grant, they have a good program, I dislike seeing other recipients be so careless with their money, but if you have little education in the matter.... Hard to believe in the days of the internet that people could remain so oblivious, but if you don't go looking for the information, it's easy to avoid seeing what you don't want to see.
Re: the ADA issue, apparently all the work was completed based on the following. They even mention ADA violations in their grant proposal, but they're not completed? Might be worth a trip down to check it out and photograph?
Source: http://www.desertdiscoverycenter.com/
In 2010 work began on a $700,000 renovation project to refit the building with a new roof, a new HAVC system, and re-design and construct a new classroom for the center. This project is set to be complete by the summer of 2011
I still believe your best bet is to go straight for the fraud 'artist' Kathy Fierro. She's the one ultimately responsible for the location, theft and subsequent use of your copyrighted artwork without permission or payment. I see now that MSM has removed the link to her "Animals of the Mojave Desert" mural, so I'm quite sure they are attempting to distance themselves from her. If she's a professional artist, she most probably has a liability insurance policy of some type, or would fall back to residing under one of MSM or one of the related organizations.
From what I'm gathering, this is first about payment for your copyrighted and subsequently stolen work of art (photo), secondly, getting MSM and related organizations to be more informed about copyright law, and finally, securing the proper ADA upgrades to the facility which has received a considerable amount of grant funding to do, but hasn't been done. Right?
.
Barstow is a great town to visit just about anytime.
-
http://www.mainstreetmurals.com/
At least they didn't use one of your reflection lake photos for the ice age mural
Although, it would be nice to see one of the actual ranges on the ice age mural, the ranges haven't changed significantly since the mega-fauna walked here. I also think that it would have been a pinyon-juniper forest up to the shorelines and river edges back then. I wonder if they consulted with Marith Reheis or anybody about what it would have looked like.
Stay tuned. Her attorney called again today and said wait another week.
Is there an easy way to use google to search on a similar image? For example, if I have an image that I want to find all occurances of on the net, is that possible?
Thanks, Jim
I think you would have to find it in image search first, then click on 'similar images' once it's found. That's how the bobcat photo image worked. Whoever shot that missed out by uploading the original somewhere, it went viral and is now all over the place without credit. Beautiful photo. I'd hope that would be the photographer's original intention, to put it in the public domain. I wouldn't/couldn't do that. But I'm not sure--I'm astounded at what's been found.
-
link
This is a photo of the wildlife mural on public display in downtown Barstow.
-
Cowhole has two mounds, a much wider aspect ratio, and Old Dad Mountain is not that rugged, even back adding a few tens or hundred thousand years of erosion.
Only way that looks anything like Soda Lake it is if you look at it in Google Earth with vertical exaggeration cranked to the max, and besides, where's the lake?
They just run hot and cold on these murals huh? Either producing a nice mural by copycatting other people's work, or a poor mural without. Better course would be to use legal inspiration, like you said, there are many people out there with sourcework that would have been pleased to contribute, with attribution, plus or minus payment.
I think I got my mountains and holes mixed up. Cowhole, sheephole, owlhole, ... I know what holes I've been stuck though, and which way to go when I get unstuck.
The mural being worked on now, is one of the cold ones. In her letter to me she said they were going to use "another photo." It must be the next one- this isn't using the same technique- at all.
For $6k-$8k I wonder how many authentic muralists, decent ones, would make their way to town? I believe the bidding process is,... stagnant.
In response to something mentioned earlier, now that I think about it, I've never said I wasn't going after the painter. I'll have to see what happens.
This program could have been such a good thing, and I even thought it was when I heard about it at the OST symposium a few years ago. I believe that was about the time the original program director left.
There are certain phrases that reverberate poorly in my head; "Master Artist", "to beautify Barstow", "non-profit", "for the children." I'm seeing little more than a conflict of interest. I wonder if they'll get paid to replace the mural that they took down?
Next week should be interesting. I'll continue my research.
-
http://oasisofmurals.com/
There've been a few of these I've enjoyed while eating a sloppy burrito in the parking lot.
Wow. When you say removed, you weren't kidding. :-)
I'm guessing your well documented chronology of this began to rattle some nerves and has worked out to a satisfactory financial agreement?
And just because it's off that page doesn't mean it's gone from the internet.
.
I did leave the photo comparing the mural to my original work. It has been, and will continue to be interesting. Who's to say what turns the future may take?
-*fnurk*-
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
It seems so sometimes. I've been reconsidering the way I use my photos, the way I share, and the way I publish online. I've also been registering my work and registering my work before publishing anywhere. Nobody will care about my work unless I do first. This has happened before, it is happening now, and I'm fairly sure this will happen again. I'm thinking the key elements are to be right, and tenacious. I believe a good working knowledge of copyright law, real copyright law, is just as invaluable to a photographer as a knowledge of business practices--both allow us to make choices and control our work, our creativity.
But I admire your persistence. Most give up like I did.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
The more I learn about it, the more necessary protecting one's work seems to be, however, I don't think it will be such a burden as the system is learned and acclimated to. It will become part of the process, the documentation, the registration of the work. Then the defense of your work becomes an active defense, and it may be easier to stick with it.
This particular situation I'm dealing with has brought the whole copyright issue to a head for me. I've realized that like it or not, inconvenient or not, or intentional or not, it's part of our modern reality. If I don't protect my work, nobody else will.
The U.S. Copyright Office is making things easier, and submissions for certain types of work can be made electronically. They keep changing things. Improving. There were some modifications made last night in fact. As time goes on I'll be trying to keep up with the process for myself, others in my little art group I hang with and those in the virtual world.
http://aeve.com/copyright/
The real deal is at
http://copyright.gov/
-w
As the reality of enforcement comes to head for publishers, the protection process will be easier for us too.
Want faster uploading? Vote for FTP!
Do I read correctly that to file a copyright it presently cost $35.00 per image?
If so, that could really get expensive!
No- you can submit multiple images from what I understand. I put about a dozen in my first batch and have twice that in the second. I'm hoping to develop a system where I can keep a file open and submit every two months of the previous three months work. That way they fit into the 90 day requirement. Now, something I just found out is that to electronically submit, they cannot have been published any other way than electronically or they will not be accepted electronically and have to have 2 physical copies sent in. I think they just started the ECO late last spring so the bugs are still being worked out. I figure it will cost anywhere from to $140/yr (if quarterly) - $210/yr (if every other month) to have the advantage of copyright registration. It may not stop anything, but it allows a judgement to include statutory damages- and that's some juice to encourage a settlement or for an attorney to become involved if need be.
BTW, I looked at your website. You have very nice work there
On matters otherwise: A call from the attorney today confirmed more delay- Things have been mighty quiet, but that is in no way meant to imply things have died down or are over.
no.....my old forms / notes that I have (5-7 yrs) say one disk (CD at a time and that was approx 750 images....the images had to be numbered or titled in some way.....but if you changed a title for some reason the "new" image would need to be re-filed with the new name...electronically when I actually called and talked with them it was about the same....
Hope that Helps...