Showing posts with label photography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label photography. Show all posts

Monday, December 5, 2011

Hong Kong TVB Actress Toby Leung and Aaron Wong Wed

Everyone loves a love story - especially when it leads to a wedding. A little Hong Kong celebrity trivia here.

Toby, the daughter of famous TVB producer, Tommy Leung, wed her boyfriend, Aaron Wong, a businessman, last month. The newlyweds are set to hold their wedding banquet at InterContinental Hong Kong on Tuesday night, tonight, I suppose.

Toby Leung cries at hubby's love declaration. The 28-year-old recalled: "I'm very touched when he told me that, 'it's gotta be you'! At that moment I feel like I'm the happiest person in the world!"


Toby Leung officially married her boyfriend, Aaron Wong, on Nov 24.

The couple had earlier flown to Shanghai and Taiwan to take their wedding photographs. Below are three among the Wedding photos of Toby Leung released.


Toby, 28, first entered the music industry in 2004, and was a member of the disbanded Girls' Only Dormitory group. She later joined TVB and was given supporting roles in TV series.

Toby now owns a wedding planner company in Hong Kong and has plans to open a branch in Taiwan next year, and is working with a company to explore the market in China.

Aaron is a businessman specialising in luxury home investments. At only 32, he has earned the nickname of "The Property Investment King" and has assets estimated at HK$200mil (RM79.6mil).

Toby Leung's star-studded wedding

The bridesmaids included Charmaine Sheh, Janet Chow, Angela Tong, Natalie Tong, Florence Kwok, Margaret Chung and more.

Guests at the 53-table wedding banquet at InterContinental Hong Kong Hotel included TVB Chairwoman Mona Fong, new boss Chan Kwok Keung, Norman Leung, Stephen Chan and other executives. Toby’s wedding was surely a star-studded banquet as many artists attended including: Alan Tam, Nick Cheung, Louis Koo, Anita Yuen, Christine Ng, Michael Miu, Jamie Chik, Felix Wong, Nat Chan, Roger Kwok, Cindy Au, Michael Tse, Fala Chen, Raymond Lam, Charmaine Sheh, Tavia Yeung, Kate Tsui, Edwin Siu, Ron Ng, Kevin Cheng, Niki Chow, Amigo Chiu, Natalie Tong, Sharon Chan, Joyce Tang, Derek Kwok, Timmy Hung and many more. It was much more star-studded than the TVB Anniversary!

Image source of the four images above: Asiancrunch

View all images of Celebrity Guests

An earlier related article:
Toby and Aaron rumoured to wed next year. Aaron was said to have given Toby a two-karat engagement ring - worth some six figures.

Image source: The Daily Chilli

Congratulations to the bride and groom!


Sources:
- The Daily Chilli
- AsianCrunch

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Camera Goggles make great Christmas Gifts

Watching documentaries of the beautiful marine life in the oceans around the world makes me appreciate the efforts of the photographers, at the same time marvel at the advancement of technology particularly the camera equipment they use.

Speaking from a layperson's point of view, I suppose with camera goggles, any novice can take pictures under the water although they may turn out a little less professional. What do you think?

Incidentally, Christmas is not too far away but enough time to make an order of such a camera if you are looking for such a gift for a photography enthusiast, be it family member or friend. He or she would be forever grateful for this hands-free camera which can be used for filming or taking digital images. He/she can go snorkeling, spearfishing, free-diving, or scuba diving with it. What fun!


Top Image source

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Monkey See, Monkey Do, Monkey get Copyright, too?

By now it’s all over the twittersphere, the blogosphere and every other made-up sphere on this green and blue sphere.  The monkey that stole a photographer’s camera and got her pictures published in the Daily Mail

Copyright experts and dilettantes alike are going ape trying to analyze who owns the copyright in these images.  Why?  Because the Daily Mail put a copyright notice on two of the pictures in its article.  Most of the analyses I’ve seen are Americans trying to sort it out under American law, which is typical, but not necessary the best approach here.  You see, the monkey is Indonesian.  The work was made in Indonesia.  The photographer who’s camera was taken and the  agency claiming copyright ownership of the photos are British.

The main questions being discussed: Does the monkey get the copyright?  If not, does anyone?

Monkey stole the camera from the camera man

Under Indonesian copyright law an author is “a person or some persons.”  Miss Monkey is ruled out right there I’m afraid.  But what about under British copyright law?  Since it’s a British company claiming copyright, any suit is likely to be brought in the UK.  Indonesia is a member of Berne and TRIPs, so the photos should be treated the same as UK works under UK copyright law.  Unfortunately for the monkey, The UK copyright law also defines author as “the person.”  Sorry monkey, it’s not you.

If not, then who?

It appears the monkey, by virtue of not being a “person,” cannot be the author of the photos.  (…unless there’s a statute somewhere that makes monkeys a person the way corporations are made a person.)  So who gets the copyright? 

The photographer / Carters News

If the photographer did own the copyright, it appears that he transferred his rights to Caters News Agency Ltd based on the copyright notices on the newspaper photos.

There is a clause in Article 7 of the Indonesian copyright law that specifies if a work is designed by one person and worked out by another, then the one who designed the work gets the copyright.  If the photographer had set up the shot and the monkey had just taken the photo, the photographer would likely have the copyright.  But the photographer didn’t design anything here.  He just left his camera.  The monkey did all the designing in the photos, so this article shouldn’t apply.

Indonesia

Perhaps more useful here is Article 9, “If a legal entity announces that a work has originated from it without mentioning a person as the author, then the legal entity shall be deemed to be the author, unless proven otherwise.”  The monkey took the photos in an Indonesian national park.  The Indonesian government presumably owns that park and is a legal entity.  It would seem that if the Indonesian government claimed it was the copyright owner, then it would be.  Except for that “unless proven otherwise bit.”  But this leads us to another question, does the park own the monkey? 

If not having an author as defined under the copyright law is the same as having an unknown author, then Indonesia owns the copyright under Article 10A of the Indonesian copyright law.

No one

The main claim I’ve seen in the US discussions of who should own the copyright is that no one should; the photos should be in the public domain.  And it appears, under UK copyright law, they’re right.  - Now, this is the part where, knowing that there are a great deal of very knowledgeable UK copyright practitioners who read this blog and that the author is not one of them, the author asks for forgiveness and clarification should she get anything wrong.  -

Under Section 153, the work only qualifies for copyright protection if it meets requirements in several different areas including the area of author.  Section 154 outlines the requirements the author must meet in order for the work to receive copyright protection. 

  • Option one, a British citizen.  Pretty sure the Indonesian monkey is not a British citizen.
  • Option two, an individual domiciled or resident in the UK.  Monkey lives in Indonesia.
  • Option three, an individual domiciled or resident in another country to which the relevant provisions of this Part extend.  This seems to include any countries to which the UK must extend national treatment with respect to copyright.  Since Indonesia is a member of Berne and TRIPS, Indonesia would be one of these countries.  It might seem like we need to know if the monkey is an individual, or if it can be domiciled or resident.  But, that doesn’t matter because the first part of Section 154 says “if the author was at the material time a qualifying person.” (emphasis added)

So it appears under UK law, the photos are in the public domain.  Under Indonesian law, the matter is less clear.

Barrels of Fun

Perhaps more fun than the real story are all the different extra facts you can add to make even more puzzlingly-fun scenarios.  What if the monkey belongs to a zoo?  Or a person who taught him to take pictures?  What if the park or zoo where the monkey lives posts a sign that says the copyright of any photographs taken by animals inside the park or zoo belong to the park or zoo?  What if it is not a monkey but one of the gorillas that can speak sign language or otherwise communicate to subjects in a photo how to move?

Personally, I like the position one of my colleagues took: Forget the copyright issue.  The monkey should sue for rights of publicity.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Kodachrome and the Great Depression



Kodachrome and the Great Depression – those are two topics you don’t often hear combined in the same sentence!  Recently, Jonathan Halabi sent me a link to some amazing Depression-era photos taken using Kodachrome, a new film product at the time, first out on the market in 1935. 

(thanks for sending this link, Jonathan)

Here’s another similar one I found, with some different photos

And another one, of slightly more dubious provenance, but with some cool Kodachrome photos:

My first thought when I looked at this link was “Holy crap!  I didn’t even know that they HAD Kodachrome back in the Great Depression era.”  This was a product that I associated so closely with post-WWII life that I never realized that it was around before the war.  All those beautiful photos taken by photographers working under the aegis of various federal government agencies and programs during the 1930's-1940's - we normally think of the amazing photos of the Great Depression as iconic works in black and white, a la Dorothea Lange's seminal series on the dust bowl refugees, migrant farm workers, and rural poverty in general.  She, and other photographers, worked for the USDA’s Farm Security Administration (FSA), traveling around the whole country, their mission being to create photographs to try to persuade Congress that thousands of dispossessed farm families were in desperate need of government assistance.

Examples of the well-known black and white photos

NYT article about the mission to capture / document America’s poverty/misery

For me, when I compare the black and white photos with the much less numerous color photos, the color photos have a more urgent immediacy, they seem more real, less abstracted, I can relate to the people in them as being more like me, more sympathetic, more everyday folks, somehow.  The black and white pictures seem to portray people who are larger than life, heroic beyond what most humans are capable of.  They remind me of those idealized laborers in the WPA murals.  I am not sure if the members of Congress at the time would have had the same reaction, being so used, as they were then, to seeing photos and even movies in black and white.  Color may have seemed very unreal to them, very garish.  Perception and reaction have a lot (everything!) to do with our context and personal backgrounds. 

The black and white photos still pack an incredible punch.  Here are a couple of lesser-known works of Dorothea Lange.

Photo by Dorothea Lange.  Migrant worker photo.  USDA – public domain
Young migratory mother in Edison, Kern County, California, originally from Texas.  On the day before the photograph was made, she and her husband traveled 35 miles each way to pick peas.  They worked 5 hours each and together earned $2.25.  They have two young children…Live in auto camp.  April 1940


Photo by Dorothea Lange.  USDA – public domain
Children of Oklahoma drought refugees on highway near Bakersfield, California. Family of six; no shelter, no food, no money and almost no gasoline. The child using crutches has bone tuberculosis. 1935










OK, THESE people and most Americans who lived through those times, THEY knew suffering, sacrifice, and uncertainty.  It’s a joke to compare our current economic downturn, as horrible as it is for many people, to what went on in the 1930’s.  Check out these maps of conditions in the 1930’s.  Unemployment was as high as 38% in many parts of the country.  In some counties, fully 100% of the banks had failed, with people losing all their life savings.  The national unemployment rate rose from 3.2% in 1929 to 25% in 1933, and a conservative estimate was that one third of the nation was living in poverty by the mid-1930’s.




Map of “Hooverville” where people lived in home-made shacks (these “Hoovervilles” were all over the country, including one in New York City's Central Park, and were named, of course, after the President that many people blamed for the economic collapse.) This one was in Seattle, Washington, where there were eight other Hoovervilles at the time.  Map by Donald Francis Roy, as part of a Master’s degree thesis, 1935.  Hooverville: A Study of a Community of Homeless Men in Seattle

More on Seattle’s Hoovervilles:

(All from the website “Mapping the Great Depression in Washington State”) http://depts.washington.edu/depress/maps_great_depression.shtml

In any event, the Kodachrome color photos are not something that most of us would have associated with the Great Depression, and I wanted to bring them to your attention, first of all because they are incredible, and they document a part of our past that is rapidly turning from lived experience to the mists of history, as more and more of the Depression-era generation passes away each year.  But the other reason I am writing all this is that Kodachrome, the most popular film in the history of photography, and the film that captured more American memories than any other, is no more.  This month marks the end of an era – the last operating Kodachrome processing plant (Dwaynes’ Photos in Parsons, Kansas) will be processing its final rolls of Kodachrome slides.  It was supposed to have shut down Kodachrome processing on December 31, 2010, but due to so many rolls of film arriving at the last minute, it decided to postpone the deadline a bit.  Kodak had already stopped manufacturing the film as well as the chemicals necessary to process Kodachrome in 2009.  A roll of Kodachrome shot by the award-winning photographer Steve McCurry was planned to be the very last roll processed at the plant.  He is the person who took the famous photo of the young Afgani girl that made the cover of National Geographic in 1984. 

The world of Kodachrome: Photography was so different then, before digital cameras.  I suppose in these days of instantaneous Facebook updates of family vacations and the public documentation of every aspect of our lives (e.g. – blogging!) it may seem very quaint, but back in the 1950’s and really right on through the 1980’s, you would invite friends and relatives over to your house for dinner or drinks, and then bring out the old Kodak carousel slide projector, and show slides projected on a white wall of your latest far-flung (or close to home) adventures.  It was entertainment!  People would sit in uncomfortable chairs, stare at the slides, and pay attention! (or pretend to!)  There would be a whole narrative you would weave through the slides.  People (OK, by “people,” I mean ME! But I was not alone in this, trust me!) would spend hours and hours sorting through the slides, editing the collection to the most illustrative 100 or so slides, putting them in the proper story-telling order. 

There was also something rather thrilling about traveling on the plane with two or three little lead-lined film bags, (to protect the rolls of film whilst going through x-ray machine at the airport) and then upon reaching home again, sending out the film to be processed.  So much could go wrong!  The film could have been damaged at any point along the journey.  The light meter could have been not functioning properly, and all the slides might be either under- or over-exposed!  And yes, I was one of those crazies who used a hand-held light meter, spurning a camera with a built in light meter as something beneath my dignity.  This stems from a kind of snobbishness about “real” photography that rubbed off on me from my photography instructor at college, who was an old “Life” magazine photographer and did everything the old fashioned way.  I was the teacher’s pet in that class, because while everyone else had fancy new 35 mm single lens reflex cameras borrowed from their dads, I had an old beat-up Rolleiflex twin lens reflex which used a large format (2 ¼” square) negative.  Lots of advantages to this type of camera (no shutter lag, no blacked-out nano-second during exposure, larger negative to fool around with, great for both action shots and portraits, and also “sneak” shots, since viewers couldn’t tell what you were taking a picture of, plus that fabulous square format) but it did take some getting used to seeing everything upside down and backwards!
 
But I digress!  So the slides would go out for processing, usually to a custom photo shop in the neighborhood, and you would then wait with your heart in your throat until the slides came back.  You never knew what was going to happen!  It isn’t like now, you get instant gratification – now you know right away whether or not you made the shot.  I can remember working with my perspective correction lens and setting up an architectural shot for an hour or more, just trying to get it perfectly (which usually meant waiting for pesky passers-by to get out of the way!) and no matter how many pictures you snapped, there was no guarantee that ANY of them would be good when they were developed.  And these were slides, not prints, so what you snapped was what you got.  The finished product and the “negative” were the same thing.  Not even anything you could do in the darkroom to correct anything, with slides.  It was a one-shot deal.  No do-overs.  No cropping.  No red-eye out.  No Photoshopping in those days!  So I feel a lot of nostalgia over the end of the Kodachrome era.  It was, indeed, a very special slice of a world that is no more. 

Kodachrome, probably the most-used film product in history, figured largely in our cultural heritage for over 7 decades, and was made even more famous by the Paul Simon song of the same name (Kodak even insisting that the little registration symbol be placed next to the song’s title on the album cover!).  This song was not released in Great Britain as a single, nor could it receive radio airplay there, due to the trademarked title!  

Kodachrome lyrics: (written by Paul Simon, on the studio album There Goes Rhymin’ Simon, Columbia Records, 1973)

When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of education
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall

Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

If you took all the girls I knew
When I was single
And brought them all together for one night
I know they'd never match
My sweet imagination
And everything looks worse in black and white

Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away

Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome
Mama, don't take my Kodachrome (away)

But, well, Mama (or someone!) DID take his Kodachrome awaaay-hey-hey-hey!

Simon and Garfunkel performing “Kodachrome” at a free concert in Central Park 1981, attended by over 500,000 people.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Flickr Teaming with Getty – Good for Copyright Holders?

Yesterday, Flickr announced a new program available to its users – licensing through Getty Images.  Through the program, users can add a “Request to License” link next to their photos.  Viewers who click this link are put in contact with Getty Images.  Getty licenses the photo to the viewer on behalf of the Flickr user and transfers payment from the viewer to the Flickr user.

At first glance, this program may seem like a really good opportunity for photographers.  But Flickr users interested in the Getty program need to think carefully before jumping on board. 

Getty Images is a large, professional, photo clearing house that has been in business for a long, long time.  Although working with Flickr is a foray into the future, Getty is still an institution based on old business models.  This means a lot a lot of legal gymnastics for anyone wishing to participate, as a photographer or a licensee.

You can check out the FAQ section for more information on model license requirements, the 2-year exclusive contract required for the program and other program details.

Beneficial?

As one Getty program user and supporter comments,

“The effort is not minimal. Gathering model releases, unloading full size images, doing any post processing required, filling in photo details, having to book the shot date in about three different places, uploading model releases seperately [sic] for every photo even if you have the same release for 5 photos from one shoot.”

With all this work required to submit photos, plus the restrictions of a two-year long exclusive contract that prohibits anyone other than Getty Images from licensing your submitted photos and photos similar to your submitted photos – yes that includes even you – is there really any benefit to participating?

After all, there really isn’t a need for a third-party intermediary for licensing photos on Flickr.  Every photographer can easily be contacted via Flickr Mail.  Why should it be necessary to ask a third-party for permission when you can already ask the copyright holder directly?  Additionally, many photographers have already granted licenses to use their photos, without the need to contact anyone.

The most apparent benefit, currently, appears to be the vetting.  Photos admitted to the Getty program are thoroughly reviewed by Getty Images and approved for admission to the program.  Knowing that the vetting is already done might make some photo users feel better about the search process for the right image.  However, Flickr has a strong community that can also serve as a vetting process based on how many views, uses and comments a photo receives.

In the end, the program seems to be more of a way for Getty to increase the number of photographers in its pool than to really help copyright owners with licensing.  But perhaps this judgment is coming too early.