The Crime of Photography

In this morning’s Post, more examples of the conflict between photographers and security people who don’t understand that yes, they can take pictures here.

The situation is especially bad here in the DC area where we have a higher than average number of the paranoid who also don’t know what they’re talking about.

However, one specific sentence in the story pretty much says it all.

Photographers say police need to be told explicitly not to prohibit photography, because officers often don’t respond well to impromptu citizen lectures on constitutional law.

Ain’t that the truth!

Patching Up The Ritz

Another company steeped in the analog tradition is trying to figure out their place in the digital world.

Within weeks, Ritz said in an interview, the company, called Ritz Camera & Image, will reinvent itself in a new ad campaign aimed at drawing a hipper crowd into its stores, which now number around 375.

3757843040_ed5af8fd37.jpg

They plan to sell smart phones alongside a stock of digital cameras. Customers can supply their digital images and video clips and Ritz will package them onto a DVD, with chapter breaks and music. And if they want LCD HD televisions on which to view those images, they can buy those, too, from Ritz.

The retooled Ritz Camera & Image will “appeal to younger customers who were brought up in the computer-digital world who may not understand everything that photography means to them,” Ritz, 60, said in an interview in his oak-paneled office at the company’s headquarters in Beltsville.

I wonder if the people at Ritz have bothered to talk to this “hipper crowd” they’re trying to turn into customers.

Do they really want physical media like DVDs when it’s so easy to post pictures on the web (for free), create slide shows (for free), embed the show in a web page (for free or very close), and share the results through multiple channels (for free)?

As for video, many people in the demographic Ritz seems to be aiming for don’t care if the end result is all that polished. Normally the video is recorded and posted with little editing in between.

It will be interesting to see what the company does in their transformation, especially since photography is rapidly moving away from the formal process that was at the heart of Ritz’s success for so many years.

I haven’t been in a Ritz store in many years (probably not in their target group for the future anyway), at least since I purchased a DSLR (online, not in a physical store) three years ago.

And there’s nothing in this story about their plans for reorganization that will entice me to return.

Photo by BOSSoNe0013 and used under a Creative Commons License.

International Digital Rights

Another interesting conflict in the world of copyright and digital media.

The National Portrait Gallery [Great Britain] is threatening legal action after 3,300 images from its website were uploaded to online encyclopaedia Wikipedia.

A contributor to the popular site, Derrick Coetzee, breached English copyright laws by posting images from the gallery’s collection, the NPG said.

But photographs of works of art are not protected by copyright in the US, where Mr Coetzee and Wikipedia are based.

Of course these issues go beyond a simple my-rights, your-rights squabble.

The situation illustrates once again that the web freely crosses national borders (at least most of them) while intellectual property laws don’t.

So, should a publicly-funded museum in the UK have the right to prevent a US-based non-profit web site (fast becoming an international public utility) from using images of works that are already posted on the museum’s web site and carry no copyright restrictions outside of the country?

I doubt a definitive answer will be crafted anytime soon.

Don’t Do That (But We Won’t Tell What “That” Is)

Another example of a government restricting the rights of it’s citizens in the name of keeping them safe.

In Britain, cops have the power to search you if you take a picture of a “sensitive” area, but they won’t tell you which areas are “sensitive,” because they’re so “sensitive.”

The British Journal of Photography is trying to use the UK Freedom of Information Act to find out which places in Britain have such precious photons that people who collect them without authorization can have their civil rights violated, but so far they’ve been unsuccessful.

Unfortunately, our own security agencies pull the same kind of Catch-22 on photographers in this country.

There are plenty of places around DC where you’ll be harassed for taking pictures but, in many cases, don’t expect to know in advance where they are.

Picturing Stupidity

As only he can, Stephen Colbert totally nails a photographer who was arrested for committing the terrorist act of taking pictures.

Of Amtrak trains.

For the annual Amtrak photography contest.

Priceless.

Keeping You Safe By Limiting Your Rights

In England this month, a new law takes effect that forbids taking pictures of “members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer” if the photograph is “likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.

The British government, of course, justifies the new regulations in the name of “security”.

Unfortunately, this attitude of paranoia and fear directed at anyone with a camera is not confined to the UK.

Capturing Life

The Read Write Web wonders if the time we spend digitally capturing and communicating every aspect of our lives is blocking us from actually enjoying life.

Thanks to technology, we never have to forget any experience of our lives. We can snap photos, annotate them, and share them with others instantly. We can archive them to the timeless web for posterity. And maybe one day, our great-great-grandkids can pursue our social network profiles in the cached pages of Internet Archive and learn everything we ever wanted the world to know about us.

And yes, that’s great. It’s amazing, really. But what about us and the lifetime we spent recording these things? Did we waste our lives documenting them and forget to live?

I’m sure a compelling argument could be made for the premise, and there are probably sociologists in the process of studying this particular phenomena.

And there certainly are folks who go overboard in attempting to document every event, major and minor. Just as some will go to excess in other activities.

However, for many people I know, capturing and communicating what they see around them has simply become a significant segment of their lives, not a substitute for it.