DISQUS

LOL when has anything been about need on the Internet. I see most activity on the Internet about "want" vs. "need". If video on the iPhone is any sign I bet people become nearly as addicted to sharing short video clips as they do text messaging. Will it ever be the same in frequency of use... no, but there will be a bump in activity. Is video conversation the model that will take? Perhaps not bu I bet there will be need for a model where video can be shared, threaded and discussion oriented. Is that YouTube? I'm not convinced it is. The YouTube model doesn't seem as mobile focused. Perhaps that is the core of my observation mobile versus desktop.

I suppose its a fine line between failed and premature. 6 degrees of separation was a site ahead of its time. It failed because broadband connectivity did not yet exist for the vast majority of people online and the number of people online was quite low by todays standards. Yet this social media site was the grandfather of modern social media sites like Facebook, Friendster and MySpace. (http://news.cnet.com/2100-1032_3-5106136.html) I would think that people are not yet accustomed to video communication just yet as there aren't enough people with the proper connectivity, software, hardware, accepted user behavior, etc. I could almost guarantee this model will be around in 3-4 years and more widely adopted. It's just a matter of being there when it happens.

Looks sharp David. While its a lot of work to do this the payoff will be worth it in the end. I hope that this reduces work for you in the long run.

I am continually perplexed by your stance on issues such as this. Your needs and use of social media sites are not one size fits all and your approach of guiding others to do the same of giving everything away for free is troubling. If it were so simple FastCompany wouldn't be so concerned about protecting the work you do for them. Individuals who strive to leverage social media to make a name for themselves, market and pick up clients as a sole proprietorship or LLC suffer from such a blanket recommendation. If rights and protections matter so little to you then I'm sure you don't mind the government taking away your rights next. I just scratch my head at such logic. Facebook needs to have a ToU that allows them to safely do business, but the notion of forcing expansive terms beyond what they need on users and stating, "Trust us. We'll do the right thing." is unrealistic. The ToU should be written as they intend to use them and they should be interpreted as though what is written is how they'll use them. This is what the courts will do and it is certainly how any future disagreements will be resolved. Rolling over and stating "Truth is it doesn't matter" is irresponsible.

Sadly Seagate gets an F on this. I happened to get (5) drives impacted by this situation.

Ding #1: Seagate provided info for PC users only and not Mac
Ding #2: Seagate not only has limited times for phone support (super lame), they didn't even have their phones up and running during the hours they said they would.
Ding #3: Seagate was unresponsive in emails sent in requesting assistance to the situation

The end result...
I've returned the drives to the vendor I purchased them from in exchange for highly rated Samsung drives. Mind you highly rated by a vocal minority of my social network that spoke up on Facebook. In addition my once loyal following of Seagate is gone... likely forever. If I can't get the support I need then why do business with them?!

To rub salt in my wound. Had my drives been working I would have been able to successfully backup and duplicate my production drive. Instead while waiting two days for a response from Seagate my production drive had a catastrophic failure. The make of the drive... Seagate (a la Maxtor). After all of this I'm done with Seagate.

Seems like a good service, but the problem I have is not the lack of awareness my content is being lifted its the time and effort to track down those I need to contact to stop. A carefully crafted and simple Google Alert can easily point you to blatant offenders. Not an easy problem to resolve, but still good to see others are developing tools to ID such situations.

Great photos Luca. I'm still very impressed with the great lighting conditions for the Painted Ladies photo.

Clearly broadcasting your photo through social media is going to help boost the numbers. Aside from the content or gear of the photo, Flickr is designed for you to broadcast your last 1 or 5 uploaded photos to your contacts. Your Flickr contacts can specify with in their "From Your Contacts" page whether they want to view 1 or 5 photos from each person in their contacts. Regardless of your contacts settings it is almost always the last uploaded image that gets the attention of your contacts. Something to consider when uploading images if you're aiming for bigger numbers.

To be honest as to what grabs the attention of your viewers organically is skewed based on how the image pops as a thumbnail. This is common amongst other photo forums as well. Its one reason many saturated and colorful images are viewed so greatly.

Odd developments, but frankly not surprising. Hopefully Canon gets their PR act together. They're missing out on some great opportunities.

Sounds like an interesting conversation. Hurry up and get it posted already!

This indeed was a great day for those using Creative Commons licenses. It will be interesting to see how future cases further define enforceability of CC licenses. Great write up.

Taking a step back to see both sides of this incident your post is a refreshing perspective. Taking your point a step further this incident is a perfect example of where there is fear of photographers and photographers are fearful of their perceived intent. This state of fear has put everyone on edge. It is indeed unfortunate.

Nicely put. Count me in as an EverNote fan.
All the mindless press on Cuil really pained me particularly since several flaws were so glaring. My The Good, The Bad and The Ugly of Software/Service Launches post on the random image association to search results never saw the light of day, but I figured that would happen. It is indeed interesting to see how the press got lured so easily into this Cuil vs Google story.

Great post. This sheds a little more light into splogs that I was otherwise unaware of.

I think this is a good idea as long as you're not giving them links on your blog. no reason to help them out with search engine optimization with a link from a highly trafficed web sites. The last interesting case I heard in relation to this was via Raoul Pop's web site

http://www.raoulpop.com/2008/04/12/shyftr-equal...

I had a tough time watching the whole video. That is the most annoying TV personality I've ever seen or heard. Personally it seems more like an attention grabbing ploy than anything else. I suppose if it works for them more power to them, but it certainly doesn't work for me.

I can't say I'm fond of posts like this. I can appreciate your sense of awe and eagerness to share it, but it provides zero value to me as a reader. You might as well have posted this in a foreign language and I'd have gotten the same value out of this post. Keep me posted when the news breaks and you can actually talk to the source of your excitement.

Just for the record I flew out of SFO the day after you posted this. No problems with cables in my bag.

This would not replace the need for a tripod. At best it might be an alternative to a monopod, but even then not recommended.

With Image Stabilization or Vibration Reduction lenses you can avoid the need to do this and in the process look a bit more together when in public.

Then again if you like being MacGyver...

Here's why this approach doesn't help...
1. at a slow enough shutter speed even your breathing or pulse can move the camera.
2. if you're shooting slow shutter speeds then this solution is completely irrelevant.
3. although this addresses horizontal and vertical movement it does not address rotational movement of the camera. If you're hand is tired and your lens dips forward or backwards you still get movement.

Regarding my monopod reference... monopods are designed to give people the ability to lean forwards, backwards, sidways and pan all while holding the weight of the lens/camera. Mostly monopods and tripods alike are used to alleviate the weight of your gear... getting the shakes from holding heavier gear seldom allows you to capture sharp images and if you're looking to capture long exposures at night this isn't even in the realm of possibilities to use.

This made my day. The outtakes are great. Thanks for posting this.

@Thomas Hawk I have no idea how to respond to you seriously. On your blog you've feigned interest in photographers rights and then post that you're going to cast the same laws to the wind so you can pursue "renegade" photography. Clearly you have no respect for copyright or property law when it comes to photography. Frankly you've made the choice to throw away your ability to generate income from photography by giving it away for free. People still find value in high quality photography and will pay money for it. There are numerous photographers out there that have viable business plans that enable them to make a living as a photographer. When individuals like yourself give imagery away for free it undermines how photographers can make a living and locks you into your day job. So no tears for you on that claim.

The Richter Scales are a commercial entity and sell CDs and get paid for doing shows. Their video was promotion and tied people back to their site to make purchases. They chose to give the song away for free but the intent was to create a low cost ad to raise awareness and possibly boost sales or get more gigs. They didn't put the video out to benefit a magical community or "collective consciousness" that you paint of artisans. The fact that it is gone from YouTube for the time being isn't a detriment to anyone. No one is losing their life and our individual way of life isn't being undermined. Wierd Al Yankovic is a great example of how musical spoofs have succeeded in the past. There's no problem with his spoofs because he gets permission, licenses work and creates good will with the artists that he mocks. The Richter Scales chose to cut corners and not credit photographers or seek permission. Our world hasn't turned upside down as of late where permission is no longer the courteous thing to do whether the content is being acquired for free or not.

One thing would have been certain if the Richter Scales had approached Lane for permission is that one artist would have been paid. Lane nor other individual photographers are doing what they are doing with the first priority of supporting a "collective consciousness". To be a photographer you deal with a lot of competition and you have to pay the bills. A photographer has to put themselves first to survive. The "collective consciousness" is an after thought and frankly a virtual development. Pop culture has thrived in the current copyright model and the ability of popular culture to survive isn't in jeopardy if photographers don't agree to give their work away for free.

One more thing if you're letting people steal your photography do you mind if I convert "Naked Conversations" to PDF and give it away with out attribution? Clearly time, effort and expenses matter not when it comes to photography so why should it matter for the written word?

The inherent difference between you and the likes of Lane is that you have no plans of leaving your day job and thus have a secure source of income. You are photographing for fun or you have enough skill to supplement your writing with it. That's great, but those that are passionate enough about photography to make it a living have to live by a different credo and are dependent on existing Copyright law to survive. I'm all for the so called Internet cultural revolution of remix/reuse, but lets be real as I discuss in Here Comes Another Fair Use Dispute it all comes down to asking for permission... nothing more nothing less. That can involve payment and it can be free use, but in the end we all approach web 2.0 marketing differently. Expecting everyone to be OK with giving away their work is unrealistic and shows a lack of business understanding in this area.

Photographers who pursue formal education, buy expensive gear, have to transport themselves and/or subscribe to services have to support that with income. These things are NOT free. Our laws recognize photography as property and if there is demand for that work it carries value. Independent photographers are bound to the reality of having to develop a business model and live by it. Few people can survive on thanks, web links and adding "to the human experience" alone the necessities of life cost money.

As for Lane and how she'll put her work out there in the future... I've talked to her extensively about this and change is in the air. Photography to be sold or licensed needs to be seen and to do that with out problems like this arising requires the right tool. She'll get there, but that's hardly the issue and for her to speak to.

Lame! I'm not sure much more really needs to be said.

Classic. I think I've seen too many movies.