John Diavola, As far as I could get (1996/97) | http://www.divola.com | Seen @ LACMA
These photographs were made by pushing the self-timer button on my camera and running as fast as I could away from the camera. An exposure is made in 10 seconds. A selection of these prints was shown only once at the Hammer / UCLA Museum, Los Angeles.
Images of caskets that popped out of the saturated soil during the Flood of ‘94 still haunts many who went through the disaster two decades ago.
(Albany Herald file photo)
A street dog sleeps beside a homeless man in Jammu, India on Aug. 8, 2014. (Channi Anand/AP)
Hans Hildenbrand’s National Geographic photos. He worked for NatGeo after WWI. This is a treasure trove of reference, not to mention there’s something especially captivating about very early color photography. I’m stunned by how many of these look like paintings.
Let’s be honest, the entire movie was leading up to this moment.
Adara aka Adara Sánchez Anguiano (b. 1987, Sevilla, Spain) - Perteneciente O Relativo Al Ciclo, 2010 Paintings
British woman Harnaam Kaur started growing facial hair at 16 as a side effect of polycystic ovary syndrome. She tried waxing, shaving and bleaching before being baptised a Sikh, which forbids the cutting of body hair. Photograph: Brock Elbank/Barcroft Media
So photographer David Slater wants Wikipedia to remove a monkey selfie that was taken with his camera. As you can see from this screen shot, Wikipedia says no: the monkey pressed the shutter so it owns the copyright.
We got NPR’s in-house legal counsel, Ashley Messenger, to weigh in. She said:
Traditional interpretation of copyright law is that the person who captured the image owns the copyright. That would be the monkey. The photographer’s best argument is that the monkey took the photo at his direction and therefore it’s work for hire. But that’s not a great argument because it’s not clear the monkey had the intent to work at the direction of the photographer nor is it clear there was “consideration” (value) exchanged for the work. So… It’s definitely an interesting question! Or the photographer could argue that leaving the camera to see what would happen is his work an therefore the monkey’s capture of the image was really the photographer’s art, but that would be a novel approach, to my knowledge.