I went out to photograph today. Unlike my last foray this past Saturday, the weather was nice and remained so. But like my last foray, the excursion yielded only one image. Odd, maybe so. Or maybe not so much. More and more I’ve found when working on personal projects that images often come on their own in between everything that makes up a day. Getting from point A to point B for other reasons.
Today I opted to go south into the Pine Barrens. A place known for its desert of scrub pines, its sandy soil, its folklore including the Jersey Devil, and its strong military presence. I took many back roads and dirt roads, surprised to see that I was passing dozens of Fort Dix’s shooting ranges, each right on the road, no fences, nothing.
I was born in Fort Dix but have little connection with it beyond that. It’s a place of ghosts. My father was stationed there when I was born. I remember driving my friend Leonard there in his parents’ Volkswagen Rabbit so that he could catch a military flight.
When I was a kid I spent a lot of time in the Pine Barrens camping, hiking, and canoeing. Lately, it has been a place we pass through as we go to the beach.
New Egypt, Hockamik, Cookstown, Browns Mills, Hanover Furnace, Whitesbog, Upton, McDonald, and Four Mile. Towns small and smaller. Some doing fine, some barely functioning, and some historic sites with little else. I was on my way to Chatsworth. I don’t know why. It was stuck in my head when I mapped out the route. Maybe it had been the starting point for a hike or a canoe trip? Or maybe it was from John McPhee’s book, read back in high school. In Chatsworth I found my one photo and moved on.
East along Rte. 72 to see if I could get an image of the expanse of pines from the hilltop while others rushed to and from Long Beach Island – I couldn’t. A quick jaunt south to Warren Grove but our discovery from last summer, Lucille’s Country Cooking, was closed. So, north, west, and north; the back way through Woodmansie, Bullock, and Wheatland. No signs of towns, just deep woods with houses set back deeper, barely visible. A possible photo here or there but the internal debate of stopping or not always taking over.
A second straight version, still deciding which I like better.
i like the straight version.
btw, where do you stand on the shepard fairey/ap/ freelance photographer debate?
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/obama-poster-photographer-says-he-owns-the-picture/
CMR
From the sounds of it Mannie Garcia (the photographer) owns the copyright to the photo. He was never a full-time employee of the AP so unless he signed his rights away then the copyright is his. The law is very clear on this.
AP’s claim sounds like a huge reach and they have yet to produce any paperwork. In the absence of any paperwork there’s no question that the ownership would be in Garcia’s favor. For a court to rule otherwise would overturn the Copyright Act – that’s not likely to happen.
Some more info:
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/07/13/mannie-garcia-seeks-intervention-in-ap-v-shepard-fairey/#comments
Beyond that is Fairey’s use of Garcia’s image “fair use?” I’m not sure but I could see it going either way.
From what I’ve read, though, from Garcia’s quotes, he’s never clamored to get in the way of Fairey’s use of the image. At least initially, all he wanted was official recognition of his image as the source material and a donation to be made to a charity.
I think he’s forced to sue the AP. If he doesn’t then it sets a precedent where any photographer who works for any one, for any length of time no matter how short, can have their copyright taken away.
In the best of all possible worlds this would be settled out of court between Fairey and Garcia. Garcia would get his credit, a charity would get some money, and all would be good with the world.
Fairey seems to have knack for legal issues that keep his name in the press. This was the case recently with his show in Boston. Same deal with seems to be happening regarding the Obama poster.
Here’s an interview with Garcia:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2009/02/10-questions-for-mannie-garcia.html
“5) In the future, artwork carrying your signature along with that of Fairey could be very valuable. What are your thoughts on this? Any plans?
I realize, based upon conversations I’ve had with people at the AP and Danziger studio, that the photograph that I made of then Junior Senator from Illinois Barack Obama, that it has significant value with my signature. Now, monies – monies that might be made by me signing my photograph. I am concerned, that the image out there – I would like very much to figure out a way that my signature on a photograph that I made of then Senator now President Obama, that maybe the monies – most of it – could be donated to the American Red Cross, children’s cancer research, and women’s breast cancer research. This is not about me making money off this, it’s about recognition. I made the most iconic image of our time, and I’d like it to make a difference, not make me money. I’m a blue collar photographer – I am out there on the grind every day. I spend more energy looking for work than doing work. I just want Shepard Fairey to say “alright, you’re the guy. Thank you.””
I like the tilted one :) well…. they both seem tilted (maybe correct the horizon, or I’ll have to set my laptop down on a table). But the image with the tilt effect applied seems to isolate your subject quite nicely.
Either way, I think both are superb.
Thanks Mark.
I’m leaning toward the t/s one, too. That building is from 1833 so nothing on it is 100% true. Beyond that, yeah, put the laptop on a table…
I like your site, especially the logging series. Some of those images look like Emmet Gowin’s or Frank Gohlke’s photos of the destruction after Mt. St. Helens.