Steve McCurry photo in rated 2.5/7 in critique forum

[amirali]

<p>Hey guys,<br /> I made a test and I am going to explain why in a second. I took a photo from steve mccurry website and I posted the photo here :<br /> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00Xt3B&photo_id=12120812&photo_sel_index=0<br /> I particularly chose this photo because it looks like a snap shot ! Until now after around a day or 24 hours (Im not sure when did I post it.) It got two ratings averaging 2.5/7 and 27 views. I have some questions from different audiences so please feel free to answer any of the following or to post you suggestion regardless of the questions.<br /> 1.What is wrong or right with this photo from the master photographer (works in both Magnum and National Geographic). He posted this photo in his website and I do not think he did not have enough amazing shots instead of this. so why this photo ?<br /> 2.Why this rating ? I confess that if would pass on this photo and if I was forced to rate it I would rate it 4 or 3. My measures are, this photo does not have any particular color, light, very interesting gesture (the gesture is an everyday seen gesture) or any particular story attached to it. It does not have the best composition as well.<br /> I am puzzled, maybe he wanted shake the foundation our established knowledge of photography in order to open ourselves to new views ! I should state that I am also a fan of his work, but I am still puzzled !</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Copyright violation. Your willingness to do that is going to be more important to many people than the conversation at hand, and it should be.</p>

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

<p>it will be removed by the moderators very soon. pnet rules do not allow you to post a photo that is not yours.</p>

<p>even if he is a "master photographer" the photo is boring at best.</p>

 

[amirali]

<p>I stated under the photo that this photo is not mine, I do not care if it is going to be removed I just wanted to see people's opinion. I did not gain any profit from this photo and I did not claim that this photo is mine.</p>

<p>My willingness to do what ? to explicitly state under the photo that this photo is not mine ?! I think you are making the conversion a little bit biased. What I wanted was unbiased opinion of people about a photo. I do not know if that is a violation of photo.net or not. If it is I am sorry. but I got my answer somehow. :)</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Well, whether or not you care, it's a copyright and site rules violation. Saying it's not your photo doesn't excuse either of those.</p>

<p>Also, I'm not sure what this exercise is for. It's true that not all shots shot by pros are technical achievements or high art - sometimes they're just something the photographer liked. If two unknown users didn't like the photo enough to give it a high rating, that doesn't mean very much.</p>

[amirali]

<p>Fair enough, If it is a violation, I am deeply sorry. However no one even cared about answering !</p>

[kevin_flossner]

<p>Perhaps he was playing with the audience. It gets tiring to post great photo after great photo. So he posts a regular snapshot and then chuckles at the hoards of critics that find subtle post-modern interpretations. </p>

<p>It's also possible he liked it. As the world population is not composed of Steve's clones, not everyone necessarily likes the same picture. </p>

<p>On the rating: statistically speaking, drawing conclusions from a sample of <em>two</em> ratings is utterly unwarranted. It's as if you go out on the street and the first two people you meet are a pair of elderly, from which you conclude the average age of the population is at least 80. This is certainly not a scientific study, but even then, 2 ratings are not enough.</p>

[amirali]

<p>@Kevin, thanks for the response. I am not relying really on the ratings but more on my own opinion of the photo and what I have seen to get good rating during the 4 years that I have been here</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>goes to prove that some people, not sure which, judge a book by it's cover</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Amir,</p>

<p>I admire your interest in attempting to show up some constraints of the rating system and the critiquers. I believe Photo.Net to be a very friendly and engaging place (generally, ...notwithstanding some of the forgoing comments), one to seek new information and to share yours with peers, a fine place to post images for your friends or those interested in your approach, but not the best place to seek a serious image or portfolio review. Best "ratings" for me are in fact the few comments that demonstrate constructive criticism rather than the bland use of superlatives or the very negative ratings without qualification. Would you prefer to have your images critiqued by photographers who do not qualify their appraisal and who often remain anonymous, or by those who have exhibited a certain experience in the medium and who are ready to explain their appraisal rather than simply and rapidly rate your image? The rating system is what it is, what it can be in the context of a mass site, and really no more. I would rather look for the serious evaluation of a photo above any rating system, and look for those photographers who have the humility to receive serious comment on their images and respond to it, as well as those who are intrigued enough by your approach to attempt to understand it, even if your choice of images contains no glowing sunsets or Rocky Mountains.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Rizwan, The fact that you consider McCurry a master and that you're concerned about the concept of ratings indicates directly that your issue is popularity.</p>

<p>McCurry's work is wildly popular, of course. He's one of the few "names" that seem to occur to people, with Galen Rowell, Ansel Adams, HCB etc. They're like the Beatles, their work will be eternal, they're all fine photographers, but... </p>

<p>I watched the crowd that attended a large show of exquisite McCurry prints. It had been promoted with "Afghan Girl," and most of the conversation centered on her blue eyes...a racial oddity (I spent some time next to that print, listening). In other words, appreciation of McCurry as a photographer seemed not to be involved any more than enthusiasm for Beatles indicated appreciation of music. </p>

<p>I think the ratings system mostly measures how closely a photographer addresses popular taste... Not a bad thing, depending.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>It is a copyright violation</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doesn't US law have a fair use exception for criticism/review?Most countries do.</p>

<p>Did you see one of Henri Cartier Bresson's most famous photos getting a thumbs down <a href=" a similar thread on Flickr</a>? It was hilarious.</p>

<p>I've never dared look in Photonet's galleries, as having seen the way that photos are rated on other photography sites (as a rule the most awful manipulated saturated derivative crap gets high marks and interesting photography is ignored) I assumed it would be depressing. Maybe that's a wrong assumption. But I think any system that allows photos to be rated by democratic vote of users is doomed to push the crap to the top. It wouldn't surprise me if Steve McCurry's imagery was ignored. Do you have a link to the photo on his website that you posted?</p>

 

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Doesn't US law have a fair use exception for criticism/review?Most countries do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photo.net itself does not allow posting of images other than ones you have created. It is a matter of respect for other photographers and wanting to set a good example in an age where copyright and intellectual property is becoming less and less respected.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>That's understood about the forum rules, and they're a <em>good thing</em>. But the poster was also being accused of stealing and breach of copyright:-</p>

<blockquote><ol>

<li>It is called stealing.</li>

<li>It is a copyright violation.</li>

<li>It is against photonet rules.</li>

</ol></blockquote>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>That's understood about the forum rules, and they're a <em>good thing</em>. But the poster was also being accused of stealing and breach of copyright:-</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am no lawyer, so this should not be construed as a legal opinion. But when someone presents something to the critique forum, there is a "this is my photo" aspect involved. And claiming ownership of an image, even in a small way, is a copyright violation.</p>

<p>As such, I highly doubt that you could make a case that posting someone elses image on the photo.net critique forum under your own name would fall under any "fair use" test, even if that was the standard used to allow posting images on PN. Which, as I said earlier, is not the case.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>It's likely that the posting actually is a copyright violation, but to determine whether it is would require some interpretation of the the criticism exception. To really figure that out would require a case in court, which is unlikely to actually happen, but however you figure it it is unwise to post another photographer's image - particularly a professional who is likely to have legal representation and to subscribe to one of those services that scans images on the web for copies - in a way that is a legal gray area, and without attribution. And it's a violation of site rules.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I would have thought that the OP's intention was to reveal who the author of the photo was. In fact, he did so, it's just that there was just a brief delay.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<p>p.s. not saying that he was right to break forum rules, or even that he should have posted the picture, just that it is possible to get over-excited about it. The HC-B image on Flickr is also no doubt copyright protected and there was also briefly no attribution, but no one seemed to get excited about that there. The more interesting issue is probably the one that the OP raised in the first place.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It was funny when <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html">Mike Johnston did it - in 2006</a>. Now it's just derivative. Wait a decade or so and mocking popular taste in photography will have acquired a sort of retro chic.</p>

<p>Taking a respected artist's creative output and removing it from context to prove that popular taste is insipid seems to be a rite of passage for every budding elitist. The next step in the evolution of the oh-so-ironic social commentator usually involves some parody of familiar Christian iconography (Madonna and Child; Pieta; Crucifixtion) - which is so safe these parodies in themselves are now a cliche.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"The more interesting issue is probably the one that the OP raised in the first place."</p>

<p>Agree with that, although it is also unfortunate that he broke the Photo.Net rules, possibly without having been fully familiar with them. I am not a professional photographer in the sense of making a living with photography, and haven't seen the posted picture (which may also not be one of the photographer's favourite choices), but on the limited occasions I have asked for a critique on Photo.Net it has happened that an image that had won the top prize in a yearly salon has garnered only a few points (2, or at best 3); some that never made it to the judge's table have been highly rated. I think what is important by this OP is that any internet rating system, other than a highly dedicated and reviewed one, is going to produce wide variations. Constructive comments are I believe the best critique. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Doesn't US law have a fair use exception for criticism/review?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair use laws have specific applications. There is a "four part test" that is generally used to determine if the usage is fair use. It can be found in lay terminology<a href="http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html"> here.</a> It's unfortunate that people just claim "fair use" for so many postings.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Flickr</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Flickr and photo.net are two different entities. Photo.net is run for photographers and has rules that are designed to protect photographers and enforces those rules. Flickr is a general consumer site for photography - that's a very different thing - and doesn't seem to bother enforcing anything other than the most extreme violations.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>stealing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you go to court over it, it's not for theft. It's for copyright infringement.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Now it's just derivative. Wait a decade or so and mocking popular taste in photography will have acquired a sort of retro chic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like the idea of a forum post having retro chic or being derivative. Personally I aspire to a post-post-modernist style of comment with perhaps just a hint of surrealism.</p>

 

[amirali]

<p>Thanks everyone for few responses on the original matter which is photography and tons of responses on copyright. I have to clarify again and again:<br>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

<strong>I CLEARLY STATED UNDER THE PHOTO, AS THE PHOTO TITLE WHEN YOU POST FOR CRITIQUE FORUM, THAT THIS PHOTO IS NOT MINE ! I DID NOT GAIN ANY PROFIT, I EVEN SAID THAT I WILL REVEAL THE NAME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER AFTER A SHORT WHILE.</strong><br>

That is being said, I am surprised ! I was expecting more photography talk. And friends <strong>accusing people of stealing is a great insult when it is not stealing</strong>. It is honest and unbiased opinion seeking. So please be respectful of others.<br>

Thanks for the people who have defended the cause. One the friends said that these people are famous like Beatles, I have to both agree and disagree. I have started another forum thread somehow about this : http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00XtFb . it is not about the photographers, mostly about the types of photography.<br>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

This photo is the 9th photo in Japan's gallery of Steve McCurry. However, I found something interesting. He somehow was aware of this photo and some other photos lack of what we expect from him so I am quoting him here if that is not considered to be stealing ! I did not by any means claim to write this text my self ! This is written near his Japan gallery :<br>

"It is said that if you can understand Wabi Sabi, the aesthetic of finding beauty in imperfection, you will understand Japan and the Japanese"<br>

By this statement and his photos he states that I found Wabi Sabi and if you find these photos not interesting, the reason is that you did not find Wabi Sabi. What do you guys think about this statement and the photo.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I CLEARLY STATED UNDER THE PHOTO, AS THE PHOTO TITLE WHEN YOU POST FOR CRITIQUE FORUM, THAT THIS PHOTO IS NOT MINE ! I DID NOT GAIN ANY PROFIT, I EVEN SAID THAT I WILL REVEAL THE NAME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER AFTER A SHORT WHILE.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>None of this matters. You posted something that was not yours. At a minimum, you violated photo.net Terms of Service, as has been pointed out numerous times. You have also committed copyright infringement since you have not used met the four conditions for fair use. You would be better off apologizing and not talking about it any more.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Nevertheless the OP's point is interesting. I do suspect that many people would rate a photograph differently if it is known to emanate from a well-known or popular photographer. A parallel example. I used to attend wine tastings run by the Uk's Wine Society. Some of these were blind and some were open. The open ratings were clearly broadly proportional to the price and reputation of the participating wines. The blind ones weren't. I wonder how ratings on Photo.net might differ if photographs were initially uploaded blind?</p>