Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow

So the weather has gone a bit crazy. The back end of last week it started to snow, it never snows over here but when the east coast of America gets snow....we get it 5-7 days later.

Of course, over here when it snows everything stops. People act like it is the apocalypse, and all act surprised that it is snowing in winter. To think! Snow in January, who would have thought it?

I don't get what the big deal is. Be prepared! Be careful, don't drive like a loon box and dress properly. I never see or hear Canada or Norway making this much fuss. It is snow, try to enjoy it!

I took the dog for a walk in the snow and diverted to the back trail which cuts through the forest and took my camera along. I'm no landscape photographer, far from it. But when it snows, it makes the place look so pretty, so much better!
So I thought I'd have a crack at some 'snow-scape' photography.

After padding through the forest we took a detour into the local nature reserve. Back in the 1930s through the 40s it was used to test bombs for the war, which was convenient seeing as across the road were the bunkers where the bombs were stored.
There are a few ponds in the reserve, we stumbled upon one that was frozen over. It was very nice. Although I couldn't help but wonder if the pond was created because there was hole too big to fill which was left by a bomb.

I don't think the pond would have been much good for hockey though! It was too small, and the ice was probably not thick enough either.





Facebook  :  Twitter  :  Flickr

Test Shoot, Photographing a Photographer and Jessops

Test Shoot

So! Last week I went down to sunny Staffordshire to meet up with my photo buddy, Richard Allan. We were going to do a test shoot for a photo session that I'll eventually end up doing with the team.

While writing an essay at university, I was researching a photographer and their work, and I saw a couple of photographs that I thought the fans would like.....and the hopefully, the boys would like too! These photos will be different from anything either set have seen before, and its technically the most difficult shoot we'll probably ever do.

Having been taught like a Canadian, I deconstructed the images and came up with a plan of how I thought the photographs had been taken. So, Richard and I set about putting my theory into practise. After about an hour and a half, maybe two, we'd tried two different methods of capturing similar images. We came to the conclusion that there was a very large possibility that the final image was a photo shop job, as we couldn't quite get it like in the original image. I mean, I don't think you'll ever take a photo and get it 100% bob on, you can get very very close though.
The important thing was, we had the test shots in the bag. We'd taken the original images and made them our own.

We should be getting underway taking them later this month....hopefully.

Photographing a Photographer

After completing the test shoot, I photographed Richard in his hockey gear. Richard plays for the Blackburn Buccaneers, a recreational hockey team. We set-up the lights and the backdrop and away we went!

It is always nice photographing some you know, someone you're friends with. I find you have more to talk about, and it's more relaxed. That's something we don't when photographing the players. It's normally an hour (or maybe less) before warm-up, and the rink is full of the general public and the 'DJ' is playing some god awful music way too loud....so even if we wanted to talk to the boys we were photographing they couldn't hear us anyway!

When shooting someone you know, you can play around a bit more with the kind of images you want to capture. If something goes wrong you can take the time to figure out what and why, instead of doing a quick fix so the boys can be on their way pronto.

I thought Richard was an excellent model, even if I did have to stand on a chair for some of the shoot!

Jessops

As I type this, it has just been announced that photography chain store Jessops has gone into administration.

Yes, it is sad because of all the staff could potentially lose their jobs. But this is what happens when stores fail to diversify quick enough, and what happens when large supermarkets like Tesco and Asda start their own photo services.

Jessops have had to diversify into photo gifts because Tesco and Asda sell photo gifts. But those supermarkets are cheaper than Jessops and more convenient, you put your photos in for an hour and then go and do your shopping and pick them up on your way out. You can also go on about online retailers too, they're pretty convenient too and probably a lot cheaper.

While I don't use Jessops, I buy anything photography related online from other retailers, it would be sad to see it go. Not just because when you start out in photography, its a first call. But because, once Jessops, a shop dedicated to photography, where else can you go to see what you're thinking of buying? Places like Asda, Tesco and PC World only carried a limited stock of cameras and photography equipment, they aren't specialised retailers at all.


Facebook  :   Twitter   :   Flickr

Orphan Works: How Will This Effect Your Copyright?

According to the Copyright office orphan works are where the owner of a copyrighted work can't be traced or identified.

Both America and the UK are looking at revising copyright laws that involve these so called orphan works, that will allow them to be freely copied and merchandised providing a diligent good faith search has been made.

However, it is very easy to remove the extif information from digital images lifted from the internet. the extif data is the digital tag that can be placed on a photograph to identify you as the owner and contains your copyright statement.
It was reported in the magazine "Photo Pro" that advertisers and publishers are increasingly obtaining images from non-traditional sources, such as Flickr.

The Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic works was signed in 1886 by the then leading industrial countries. This convention is now applied across most countries of the world. But the United States and the UK are looking at the legislation covering orphan works which could cause confusion and a reduction in protection should the changes become law.

Currently the responsibility is placed on the prospective user of an image to preform a diligent good faith search to trace the copyright owner before using that image. Even if a search has been made and have documentary evidence of the search preformed, you could still be subject to legal action if the copyright owner makes themselves known.

To make things more complicated, America has made a modification to their copyright laws that got rid of the need to use the copyright symbol or copyright notice for all works published after 1st March 1998. This change made users assume that all works marked or unmarked are unprotected by copyright law. The US Congress also changed the Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended copyright protection for a large amount of works that were soon to enter the public domain. When images are classed as within the public domain they can be used without copyright permission.

The proposed changes in the US still requires a diligent search but it has greatly reduced the amount of damages awarded for infringement of copyright. The infringer still has to pay a reasonable sum of money to compensate the copyright owner of the image. This has opened loop-holes proving what reasonable compensation would be.
The proposed legislation gives immunity to non-profit organisations like museums, libraries, public broadcasting companies and schools. Providing those organisations stop using the image after receiving notice from the copyright owner no action can be taken against them.

Within the proposed law it is up to the copyright owner to register their copyrights to prevent their work being declared orphaned. This is not to gain a copyright but to prevent the work from being deemed orphaned.

The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008 was voted in by the American Senate, Senate bill 2913. This act has since gone onto The House of Representatives, House bill 5889, named "The Orphaned Works Acts of 2008". The difference between the Senate and House version of this act is that it requires anyone who is trying to avoid copyright infringement must file a Notice of Use on a work they deem to be orphaned. This notice must be filed with the copyright office before use.

In the UK the government's treasury department conducted a review into intellectual property law and included two recommendations for orphaned works:

1. The intellectual property office in the UK should publish guide lines to highlight what and in-depth search is.
2. The UK IPO should make a voluntary register for copyright.

These recommendations were made in 2006 and so far nothing has happened. According to the Intellectual Property Office work to identify what action constitutes a good faith search has been undertaken in Europe under the 2010 European Digital Libraries. On the 4th June 2008, a set of due diligence guidelines were published by the European Commission.

Scale Of The Problem

Senator Patrick Leahy from Vermont and Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah requested a report on Orphaned Works from the US Copyright Office. The report which was released in January 2006 concluded that there is a need to address the issue of Orphaned Work but could not provide evidence of how often the situation involving Orphaned Works occurred. The report gathered evidence from a number of universities. Sara Thomas, university librarian for the University of Cornell, said that they had a collection of 350,000 unpublished photographs that they would like to make available but only 1% have any indication as to who owns the copyright to those photos. Brian E.C. Shottlaender, university librarian for the University of California, San Diego, has more than 100,000 photographs in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography archives, of which only 4000 are available online because they are unable to find the copyright owners. The Oceanography archive is the only one of eleven libraries accessible over the internet.
So it is understandable where the immunity clause in the proposed bill came from.

Potential Solution

The Canadians have their own solution to the use of orphaned works. The Canadian Copyright Board examines the search made by users to ensure it has been diligent and been carried out in good faith. If satisfied the Board issues a none exclusive copyright license, including a licensing fee. The fee is held by the Canadian Copyright licensing agency. If the copyright has not been traced within five years of the license being issued, the collecting agency is permitted to use the fee for the benefit of its general membership. However, the arrangement only operates in Canada for Canadian copyright holders.

This solution to orphaned works does not breech the fundamental rules of copyright ownership stated in the Berne rules. In particular the part of the Berne rules that state copyright ownership must be automatic and must not, therefore, involve registration.

Registration is the biggest core difference between the Canadian model and the proposed recommended changes in the US and the UK copyright law. If artists are required to register their work to prevent them from being deemed orphaned, it would create a great administrative burden. Not only would artists have to register every image there would no doubt be a charge or registration fee. Photographers, illustrators, graphic artists, designers and print makers can produce large amounts of work in a short period of time. So to register each piece of work would take up large amounts of time and to pay for each piece of work would be too costly.

Taking steps to identify your images and the public domain

Identifying your images can be accomplished by using the metadata in your image file and / or adding a branded frame or watermark to your images. This metadata us embedded within the image file, the data can contain not only your name but your contact details.

Even though an image is viewable by the public on the internet it is still not in the public domain in the copyright sense. Public domain defined by copyright means that the copyright has expired on the image or the image was never eligible for copyright in the first place.

Conclusion

As the bill regarding orphaned works is still under review in the House of Representatives in the United States of America and still under review in the United Kingdom, it is hard to know what the final legislation will be concerning on this matter. Whatever the final outcome, photographers and those in the graphic / visual arts, will need to be aware this legislation as it will impact on the way copyrights are enforced.

Probably, the most sensible way to deal with the problem of orphaned works is to adopt a similar system to the Canadians. This is because they only issue a license to the user once they are satisfied that a due diligent search has taken place. This would prevent users from declaring works as orphaned prematurely and without carrying out a diligent search. They also charge a fee for the granting of that license and this will be held in trust for the copyright holder for five years.


Facebook  :  Twitter  :  Flickr

Live On Air

So last night I took a trip with fellow team photographer, Richard Allan, to Media City UK which is located on the Salford Quays.

We were to be guests on the BBC Radio Manchester's sports show presented by Ian Cheeseman. Our hour was shared with two basketball fans and two fellas involved in the cycling world. The aim of the hour was to highlight and promote minority sport.

I'd been on the radio once before. I was 14-years-old and it was a pre-recorded interview, but that didn't stop me stuttering and my mind going a complete blank. I was to be a story on the news as I was in the top 28 out of around 30,000 other kids who'd entered a photography competition.

This time however, it was different, as we'd be live on air! Before leaving to go to Media City, I checked the points and stats of where the team currently lay in the league just in case we were asked.
I was really hoping they'd be easy questions and I wouldn't draw a blank...or worse, swear.

When our part of the show started, the presenter went round the desk and got everyone to introduce themselves and talk a little bit about their sport. I instantly thought that Richard and I should swap places, as it was a guarantee that when it got to me, I'd be asked about the
Manchester Storm (the team that came before the Phoenix). Inevitably I was asked when it was my turn but I simply said that he'd have to ask Richard about it as I wasn't around then. By that I meant hadn't even heard of ice hockey, but the presenter took it to mean that I hadn't been born and we had a short conversation that went something like this:

Me: "You'll have to ask Richard Allan about the Storm, as I wasn't around back then."

Presenter: "So how old are you then?"

Me: "You can't ask a lady her age!"

So, Richard talked about the Storm days and the first few years of the Phoenix. I waded in about how I think films like Slap shot and Goon have a lot to answer for, in terms of stereotyping to which the presented replied: "That's a very robust defence of your sport." Well, quiet, yes.

All in all, I didn't cock-up or swear. Richard and I were Team Awesome, we also managed to plug this weekend's clash against MKL and the website address!

After the show, Ian Cheeseman gave us a mini tour of the floor we were on. He took us into the studio used by the BBC Breakfast crew, which is also the same set that is used by North West Tonight. Of course we sat on the sofa and stood in front of the weather map and had pictures taken. Let's face it, who wouldn't?
We saw where 5Live is broadcast from, along with where the BBC Sports news is broadcast. We also saw a few of the news presenters and the lady who presents the weather.

Facebook  :  Twitter

Patience In Game

Patience is a virtue, especially in photography.

Every photographer has a list of shots they want to get, and they'll try every game to get that shot. You can try all game and never get it....you can try all month to get that perfect shot and never get it, you can try all seasons for that one perfect picture. Sometimes on a rare occasion you can get it exactly the way you want it, they way you see it in your head, other times you have to settle for what is on your memory card. You can't control the game, the passes, the plays, the goals or the fights. You have to take what comes your way.

The shots I try to get every game are goal photos. The team can be knocking them in like there's no tomorrow and I don't get one. Last night I missed the first four and a good slice of the rest too. But the ones I got turned out:

A lot of other photographers really like to get the fights. I'm not really fussed about a fight, its not on the top of my list but if it happens I'll take it. They don't necessarily make the best images, especially when a fight is more like a love-in. A large slice of the fights I've seen have so far this season have been more of a hugging session than fists flying. If you have an image in mind these fights mean you have to wait a bit long for that photo you want. However, get a "real" fight and you have to contend with other players and the officials getting in the way and spoiling the images you get.

But the Holy Grail of all hockey photography, that you have to be most patient for, is the team you photograph for lifting meaningful sliver wear. You might have to wait all season and you might not be rewarded, but if you're team is the team you take as much as you can.....line-up those shots you have in mind and snap away.

It doesn't matter what league or country you're in, or what language you speak. Take your colours off and you're list of "most wanted shots" will be very similar. They'll no doubt tell you the same thing: patience is a virtue, wait long enough and you'll be rewarded.


Facebook  :  Twitter

Out now!

Out now, available to buy from the White Magic Shop is a calendar containing all of my photography.

Well, when I say all......I mean some of the photography I've done for the "Cooking with the Phoenix" project, and the poster / studio shots of the players.

The calendar is the first part of a two part project. The second part, a recipe book, is due to be released in the new year.

The front cover of the calendar was actually a test shot!

Twitter : Facebook

To Photograph or Not To Photograph...

It doesn't matter what sport you photograph, and sometimes it doesn't matter what genre of photography you're taking part in either, but there might come a time when you will stop and ask yourself: "Should I photograph this?"

Take this as an example: about a month ago, one of the team who plays on the D was taken out from behind. He hit the ice and lay there for some time. He was down and he was hurt. I didn't photograph it. Would you?

Or how about what happened to Richard Zednik? Back in 2008 he had his carotid artery cut open. They were down in the corner grinding it out when his team mate, Olli Jokinen, was up ended and Jokinen's skate blade made contact with Zednik's neck. He bled profusely. The carotid artery is a major artery in your neck; it takes blood to the brain. It could have killed him if not for the quick actions of the medical staff. Would you photograph that?

There is no right answer on whether you should or should not photograph a player or an athlete in pain or having had a serious accident. It is all down to your own personal ethics and morals. What you might photograph, another photographer may not. If you're working freelance then that's fine, but when you're working for a newspaper or a stock library you'll have to follow their ethical code of conduct whether you like it or not. Getty Images clearly state that:

                                    "No staff member shall let their personal opinions influence the coverage of stories or events" (Getty Images, 2012)

Newspapers and stock libraries work on a utilitarianism approach to photography. This means that they would, and did, print photographs of what happened to Richard Zednik. Just like they printed photographs of the crashes that killed Dan Wheldon and Marco Simoncelli. Basically, utilitarianism is the belief that everyone has a right to know and that it is for the greater good of humanity.

These photographs can often be printed and published at the expense of those involved and their at the expense of their families, causing more grief and pain.

Yes, people have a right to know about what happens in the world, whether it be sport, war or crime. But should they really be viewing images of other people bleeding and in pain? Or images that depict the last few seconds or minutes of someone else's life? Surely these should be private moments, or as private as they can be.

Back in the 1980s a newspaper on the east coast of the USA printed a photograph of a dead boy in the arms of a man. The boy had drowned. While there where around 30,000 complaints about the image being printed in the paper, death by drowning saw a sharp drop in the three months that followed.

While a lot of people don't like viewing images of others in pain etc. they still look at them because it’s morbid introspection. This is an interest of all things morbid. A good example of this is when there has been a crash on the opposite side of the motorway. People slowdown in order to get a better look at what has happened. It’s a basic instinct, to look at what has befallen others, a kind of "if I look at it, it can't happen to me".

We all do it, not slowing down on a motorway to see the carnage of a crash, but watching TV or looking at photographs and exclaiming, "Oh! I can't look, it’s awful!” But you don't look away; you carry on looking, because you're curious.....because if you look it won't happen to you. Everyone takes part in morbid introspection whether they admit it or not.

The other side of utilitarianism is absolutism. Absolutists believe that everyone has a right to privacy and you shouldn't take or publish images of people in pain, dying or dead. They believe it is immoral.

Some photographers fall back onto what they call the 'golden rule'. The golden rule is basically 'treat others how you yourself would want to be treated'.

One of the lecturers at university said another way of deciding whether you should take an image or not is to ask yourself if you would do it in front of your mother. If the answer is no, then don't do it!

There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to a subject like this. It’s a bit of a grey area. It’s down to you and what you believe.  Everybody has different ethics, everybody believes something different.

So where do I stand? Well, I believe it’s wrong to photograph players that are in pain or that are bleeding, regardless of what team they play for.

Going back to the d-man who was taken out from behind, I stood on the stairs and watched him on the ice in obvious pain. I then watched fans get up and walk to the plexi so they could get a better look at him. It really annoyed me, they saw the poor lad go down and seeing that wasn't good enough for them. They needed to see the aftermath. While it annoyed me greatly, I knew that it was morbid introspection. The player who committed the offence didn't get sent off, or even receive a penalty which I found rather disgusting.

If I have images on my memory card of a players getting hurt, I look carefully at each image while I decide whether to keep them or not. I'll generally keep the images that lead up to the incident happening and then delete the ones that show the accident and what happened after.

Some players quite like having photographs of themselves getting hurt; they like to see what happened for themselves and not go on an account from team mates. Unfortunately for them, they won't be seeing anything like that from me.

Twitter: @RaiPekkanen
Facebook: facebook.com/raipekkanen

Related Article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20616635

Bibliography

Getty Images (2012) Editorial Policy [Online] Available from <http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/corporate/editorialpolicy.aspx> [30 November 2012]