<underfire> Copyrights, Bystanders, Image War

[Michael H Goldhaber]

It seems to me that in such discussions, the topic somehow easily  
devolves to the least important. Copyright here is not of much  
significance. No one is going to make much money from these photos,  
or achieve much fame, simply because they are not horrible enough. If  
someone chooses to copy them, is anyone going to take the copier to  
court? In general, though, documentation has a positive value, when  
those who might engage in violence are at all shamable. For this to  
happen, the perpetrators in question have to (a) permit the  
photography and (b) either they or their superiors have to recognize  
that the kinds of things they are doing or might do, if publicized,   
will not be good for their overall "mission." for both conditions a  
and b to hold at once will usually be rare. the Abu Ghraib  
photographers did not think that the photos could cause them trouble.  
But suppose they had been copyrighted. Would anyone have honored the  
copyright or even worried about it? Would anyone have dared sue? as a  
matter of fact, they may well have been automatically copyrighted,  
as , under US law ,anyway, is just about everything posted on the Web.

Best,
Michael

On Dec 6, 2006, at 10:46 AM, NAEEM MOHAIEMEN wrote:

>> "Brother's photo, n.2, 2006 © Bracha L. Ettinger"
>
> To be fair to Bracha Ettinger, the context of the mailing list has
> probably added to people's irritation, questioning and response.
>
> So far, the Under Fire mailing list was discussion based. For the
> most part, people avoided posting portfolios of their work, or
> copying and pasting old essays.
>
> Suddenly, there were this series of photos, with no explanation, or
> accompanying text.  On top of that, the images were sent one by one
> in separate e-mails––which seemed unnecessary given the small size of
> the images (you can always post the whole lot on flickr and include a
> URL). In that context people had no choice but to focus on the
> copyright line, and the tempest in a teacup ensued.
>
> Bracha's offense seems to be to have put the copyright line so boldly
> under the image. But people use images like this all the time in
> gallery walls (perhaps even this week @ Art Basel Miami, which
> Businessweek this week dubbed "the cultural Davos" :-/ ), and because
> they are more coy in the manner in which they present the work, they
> don't get flak.
>
> So perhaps better to talk in macro context, not about this particular
> work.
>
> Thinking of this debate around copyright of images of suffering, I'm
> reminded of Kevin Carter. His image of the vulture stalking the
> famine victim won him a Pulitzer, money, and fame.  The controversy
> over why Carter did not nothing to aid the child was directly
> proportional to the amount of fame he garnered from that one image.
>
> http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/kevin_carter/hungry%20child_1.jpg
>
> The St. Petersburg (Florida) Times wrote "The man adjusting his lens
> to take just the right frame of her suffering, might just as well be
> a predator, another vulture on the scene."
>
> Carter responded in an interview: "I am zooming in on a tight shot of
> the dead guy and a splash of red. Going into his khaki uniform in a
> pool of blood in the sand. The dead man's face is slightly gray. You
> are making a visual here. But inside something is screaming, "My
> God.' But it is time to work. Deal with the rest later. If you can't
> do it, get out of the game."
>
> Was Carter's suicide 3 months later a result of survivor guilt?  His
> suicide note read in part: "I am haunted by the vivid memories of
> killings & corpses & anger & pain ... of starving or wounded
> children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer  
> executioners"
>
> The Carter case came back recently in the reaction the garish media
> coverage of an Islamist activist who was beaten to death by
> opposition activists during the ongoing controversy over Bangladesh's
> 2007 elections.
>
> See the thread "Bleeding Bangladesh" here:
> http://tinyurl.com/y72ue2
>
> Zafa Noor wrote about this media coverage:
>
> "Meanwhile the reporters are doing their job….just reporting….not
> helping the victims…This one was not just another death, this one was
> witnessed by journalists. There were more than half a dozen reporters
> with cameras to shoot the beating. It showed that in the video
> footage. My problem is wouldn’t it have been a more humane thing to
> try to stop those attackers and not worry about how many “good shots”
> they got."
>
> This is a slightly different conversation than the one we started
> with, which was partially about whether you can own copyright over
> suffering, violence, confrontation, etc.  Here the terrain shifts to
> journalism and ideas of "responsibility". But journo code of ethics
> recommend journalists to not get directly “involved” in the situation
> (thus becoming the story or manipulating the outcome) but rather
> continue documenting.  Of course people break this rule based on
> their own momentary reaction all the time, but when they "do not
> help" that provokes a different outrage.
>
> Perhaps we can find a discussion space that explores the convergences
> between the issues of copyright, responsibility and neutrality?
> _______________________________________________
> Under Fire  http://underfire.eyebeam.org
> 16 October - 10 December 2006
> International Biennial of Contemporary Art of Seville
> all writings copyright individual authors
> no commercial use without permission
> to post a message, send an email to:
> underfire at underfire.eyebeam.org
> to unsubscribe, send an email to:
> underfire-leave at underfire.eyebeam.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://underfire.eyebeam.org/pipermail/underfire/attachments/20061206/e307f60e/attachment-0001.html