A couple of days ago I posted a blog. In that blog I included a photo. It was not my photo, and it was not altered by myself or the original photographer. After it was altered it was used in an obituary for a local Vancouver musician, and both the obituary, and the photograph created some controversy. I reposted both in that first blog. That photo has since been taken down, after Fiona Garden filled a complaint with Tumblr.
While I understand and respect her desire to not have that photograph used and shown as it was, Miss Garden failed to acknowledge the larger issue around copyright and fair use. As a photographer she should be willing to enter into this discussion and try to determine when a copyrighted work is being used fairly under the terms of fair use/dealing. Was it used legally with the obituary? I’m not entirely sure. Was it used legally in the article that I wrote? I would argue that it certainly was. Fair use/dealing is in place for just these sorts of events. Where a photographer, or an owner of intellectual property would not give permission for it’s use, but the use is ultimately more beneficial to furthering the discussion of an important issue. I used the photograph in a setting that complied with fair use/dealing articles of copyright law in the United States and Canada. The work as I presented it was used in an editorial setting, I was reporting news, and offering commentary to further intellectual discourse over several issues that arose. I did not, nor did the original obituary’s use of the photograph devalue the work as the work is (to my knowledge) not for sale, and no one is infringing on her rights to profit on the name of a deceased musician.
As someone who fancies herself an educator she should be aware of the issues around copyright, and fair use, and even if she only considers herself a photographer she should still be aware. Given this background Miss Garden should also be willing to participate in the intellectual discussion around this issue instead of falling behind a childish argument that it’s hers and hers alone. While she does retain copyright, she has published the image, after all it was pulled off the internet, and if she desires total protection she should avoid publishing images that may end up on the internet, otherwise she should familiarize herself with copyright law, and fair use, until then I fear the day a critic gives her a negative review.
I also find it amusing that out of all the comments and complaints that were posted on the obituary page, Miss Garden was the only one to fill out the (optional) website section for the comments, making sure to not let an opportunity pass her by to get hits. Talk about shameless self-promotion.
Earlier today I wrote a blog. The subject matter centred on a dispute surrounding a deceased drummer. I felt it important to get online and voice my opinion on this subject matter, not because of my feelings for the drummer, not for my feelings for the writer of the original disputed article. I needed to voice my opinion over the issues that arose from the dispute. These issues included, fair use of imagery, and when a writer has gone too far. However one issue I didn’t touch on, and ultimately the one that dragged me into the tiff was the issue of anonymity on the internet. It started here with an article by Vancouver local Sean Orr.
I understand where he was coming from when he wrote the article, he was incensed, and wanted to know who the writer of the original article was. I however think Sean was in error. The only wrong caused by the hipster designer was ultimately found in the mind of the reader, I read the article, and was not affected by it as some were, after all as a bystander, I had no connection to Devon Clifford, the Hipster Designer was only saying what I and many others were thinking. Because of the tenacity of Sean Orr he discovered the pen behind the words, his anonymity broken, he was exposed for Vancouver to see.
I think Sean should have left the situation alone. The hipster designer was well within his rights to remain anonymous, the internet affords us this right, and as of yet there is no law he has broken to deny him those rights, that is he can say what he pleases. Sean failed to acknowledge the reasons that the hipster designer choose to remain anonymous. It may have provided place to vent, or speak his mind in a way that does not affect his professional life, or personal life, and why should it after all people are entitled to their opinions. Sean in his actions has proven himself to be possibly more disrespectful than the hipster designer. What the hipster designer has said may have offended some people Sean included, it is the belief of not just a single writer but an entire demographic that didn’t know the story as personally as the few who knew Devon. Sean failed to think before posting his article, and given some of the responses became himself a negligent party in this whole dispute, with calls to social ostracism, or even violence, he spurred on a group who was already emotionally attached to the issue, with complete disregard for those close to the hipster designer who may very well be caught in the cross fire so to speak.
I know some may say the Hipster Designer brought it on himself, but thats kind of the point of anonymity, so that a dialogue might be opened with fringe opinions in a way that people don’t actually get hurt. Sean could have said his peace and been done with it, taken the high road so to speak. As much as the hipster designer failed to think before posting, so too did Sean Orr, and he too must accept responsibility for his own actions, the same way he calls for the hipster designer to accept responsibility for his. In fact I also urge Sean Orr to retract his article and delete his facebook posts and put the matter behind, in the hopes that no one actually gets hurt, and perhaps next time think before outing someone.
Lets go to where this all began. Local Vancouver blogger “Hipster Designer” recently posted a eulogy on his blog for Vancouver Indie Drummer, Devon Clifford. Mr. Clifford essentially died on stage of a brain hemorrhage, but he died doing something he loved. However the Hipster Designers comments on the event may have seemed to some to be a little insensitive.
It’s safe to say that music is probably the most important part of a hipster designer’s life, after money, drugs, booze and sex. So today, we’d like to honour our fallen comrade, musician, Devon Clifford, who died on Friday during and all ages show. His frenetic drumming reflected his love of music as much as his love of cocaine and amphetamines.
He played for famous BC hipster band, You Say Party! We Say Die”
If that’s not ironic, we couldn’t tell you what is!
Here’s to you, Devon. Say hi to John and Keith for us!
I’m not sure exactly where the offence comes in. I doubt is the reference to Mr. Clifford joining the likes of John Bonham, or Keith Moon, I know if I was a drummer I would love to be placed on that pedestal. Surely it can’t be the reference to his band, and the whole event being ironic, because it was. Maybe it was people reading and thinking the Hipster Designer was linking Mr. Cliffords death to drugs. Seeing as the post came out before it became clear to most what the cause of death actually was, how is that wrong. I mean we’ve all done it, we’ve all thought someone died because of drugs, and the younger, and more famous, the more realistic the possibility. What were your initial thoughts on the death of Brittany Murphy? Your first thoughts of Heath Ledger? Did Devon Clifford die of drugs? Well no he didn’t, we now know it was a condition he had from birth. Did he do drugs? Nobody has said he hasn’t, so there is a possibility of that, given age, given social demographic, given a certain degree of rock stardom, most signs point to yes. Could that have played a part in his ultimate demise? I don’t know I’m not a doctor. What I do know is that the Hipster Designer never once said that Mr. Cliffords death, and drugs were related. Did he intend a link? I’m not sure, you would have to ask him, and reading the comments on his page, no one else has, they have only assumed.
The page has since been taken down. I’m not sure who took it down, but I doubt it was the Hipster Designer. I don’t think it was taken down for the content, or the wording of the post. Perhaps it was for the the threats of Harassment, or the threats of Violence posted by one commenter. In all reality I think it was the photograph used, which brings me to my next point.
Is something like this acceptable, is it fair dealing? (the photograph would have been here, but Miss Garden forced tumblr to take it down.) The photographer Fiona Garden, asked that the photo be taken down, along with some of the more vocal commenters. However these commenters have all (to my knowledge) attended art school, which means they have all learned of appropriation art, and in fact they themselves have used photos that other people took for their own interests in a public forum without giving credit to the original photographer. They seem to think appropriation is okay when it suits them, but not when it infringes on their own work. What is so different here from a work by Richard Prince. The photo is altered from the original. It’s being used in an editorial or critical setting. Sure perhaps it’s a little cynical, perhaps it’s a little insensitive, but the people arguing for it to be taken down, should be arguing for it to stay up. It’s their rights to freedom of expression that they are ultimately hindering, a point that one of the commenters seems to fight for in his own work through photos of graffiti removal. What we have here is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
What bothers me the most is that through all the venting and complaining, through all the name calling, the challenges to bare-fisted dust-ups in blood alley, the call to arms that the hipster designer be socially ostracized, even the most outspoken of opponents could not even muster up any sort of real intelligent addition to the broader discourse. All that Sean Orr has achieved is to out someone who chose to remain anonymous through all his posts. Whether you want to see the Hipster Designer as being the bad guy, Mr. Clifford is most Certainly the good guy, but where does that leave Mr. Orr, perhaps worse given that his solution seems to encourage illegal behaviour. But thats just my two cents.
