It was in the centre of Delhi, a few minutes from Connaught Place. Named after Maharaja Ugersen, this baoli (well) is one of many that provided drinking water to Delhi. The emperors and kings took pains to ensure that people did not go thirsty in the scorching heat of the city. As I approached the steep old broken walls I stepped into a new space, that took me a few centuries away. Boys were diving 30-35 feet into the water below. The new skyscraper in the back formed a fitting backdrop encapsulating the Delhi of today. Modern India, merging with its ancient past.

This from Raghu Rai in the 2004 calendar published by Drik. Other photographers featured in the calendar are: Chien-Chi Chang, Diego Goldberg, Graciela Iturbide, Kishor Parekh, Lucia Chiriboga, Pablo Ortiz Monasterio, Pedro Meyer, Peter Magubane, Reza Deghati, Shahidul Alam, Tara Sosrowardoyo. Order yours now. Support the work of a wonderful photography institution in Bangladesh.

And, Happy New Year to you all!

From USAToday:

“In the 2004 election, the boys (and girls) on the bus have been joined by a new class of political arbiters: the geeks on their laptops.”

Does political blogging equal journalism? Are the spin doctors finally getting their day in the sunshine?

Thoughts on this welcome!

Via Om Malik

India photojournal: Travels through Kerala and Tamil Nadu is presumably by Richard Alderson who is on an extended trip to India.

You'll find very little text or captions there, but the imagery is extremely well crafted. Check out the panoramas too. I do wish we had some sense of what inspired Alderson to shoot these images and display them in the order and in the way he has chosen.

Erudite. Succinct. Knowledgeable. That's how I would describe Sashi Tharoor, the author of books such as the novels Riot, Show Business, and The Great Indian Novel, and nonfiction works India: From Midnight to the Millennium. His latest is a book which addresses the father of modern India. No, not the Mahatma as most of us have come to believe, but Jawaharlal Nehru.

Tharoor is also a witty orator. Not to be missed! He will read from his latest book on Saturday, January 3, 2004. The reading and discussion that will follow will be from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the Fong Auditorium, Boylston Hall, Harvard University. This event is sponsored by America India Foundation and the South Asian Initiative. It's co-sponsored by the South Asian Journalists Association.

If you would like to attend this event, please RSVP by e-mail to boston@aifoundation.org and include the names and affiliations of those who will attend. Please note: a few signed hard-cover copies of NEHRU will be available for purchase on the day of the event.

[Suggested donation for AIF well-wishers: $5]

From Shahidul Alam

Rashid Talukder's photo of the dismembered head in Rayerbazar or the Pullitzer winning image by Michel Laurent and Horst Faas, of the bayoneting of Razakars have been used to represent Bangladesh's war of liberation.

Kishor Parekh photographed a different war. An old man held up a tiny flag of the new Bangladesh. A child cast a furtive glance at a corpse in the street. Jubilant children laughed as they ran across mustard fields in bloom. Women shed silent tears. “Shoot me right now, or take me”, he had said to the major who refused to take this unaccredited photographer. But Parekh did board the helicopter, but then went his own way. On his own, with limited film, Parekh photographed the war that ordinary women, men and children had fought.

The month of December is tinged with sadness. The trauma of the killings and the disappearances that followed the 16th of December 1971, Bangladesh's Victory Day, will haunt us all. Kishor Parekh is one of the twelve outstanding southern photographers represented in the Drik 2004 calendar, out next week. Existing publications, including CD ROMs are already available in our digital kiosk.

Seth Resnick and Paula Lerner of Editorial Photographers are waging a battle that you must know about.

If you are creating work and calling it your own, please read the note below.

Folks, your work, once you create it, is YOURS. Until it sinks in, repeat that last sentence a couple of times. Too many people out there forget this fact. Just because your work is published in XYZ magazine or newspaper or web site or CD-ROM, does not mean the publication owns your work. Sure, there are situations where and when you enter into a contract to sell your work outright. Sheer lunacy, but I'll take that up another time. But what is being debated here and now is the tendency for big name publishers to assume that because they paid you for the use of your images, they have the right to re-use your images ad infinitum. That's simply not true.

For those of you starting out in the business, it may be all too tempting to “give” away your images or work or work for free. Don't! Who wouldn't like to be published in The New York Times or People magazine? No doubt, getting published is important, but so is having a livelihood. Look to the future, not just the here and now. Enter into a written contract to LICENSE your work. This is an important distinction that I urge you to make early in your career and this piece of advice comes from me having learned this the hard way.

A license allows the publisher the specific use of your image for a specific amount. Multiple usage should garner you multiple payments. The nitty-gritty details need to be fleshed out in a written contract that both you and your client have signed.

Stay clear of verbal agreements. A litany of winks, nods and nudges may have sealed the deal but it will not convince any judge in court that you have the kind of rights over the publication of your images, or, even words.

We all make choices, don't we? What will be yours about your future?

Faulkner et al v. National Geographic

Ladies and Gentleman:

Our intellectual property is once again at risk and we need your help to protect it. The decision handed down on December 11th in New York in Faulkner et al v. National Geographic is one that could potentially have a devastating impact on the livelihood of photographers and all independent authors of creative works. This case has stunned the nation's copyright attorneys. The case has gained as much media attention as the National Geographic's CD-ROM case. The original dispute began when National Geographic produced a CD-ROM set of 30 discs containing all the images and content in 108 years of National Geographic Magazine print editions without payment or a license to do so from the original artists. A group of photographers filed copyright infringement suits against NGS when the CD-ROM collection containing their images was sold as the Complete National Geographic (CNG) without a license from the photographers.

In Florida Jerry Greenberg was the first photographer to file suit, and he prevailed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta ruled that Geographic violated copyright by creating and selling the CNG CD-ROM package without a license to do so from Greenberg. Douglas Faulkner, Fred Ward, David Hiser, Louis Psihoyos and others filed similar claims. In striking contrast to the Greenberg decision, on December 11th the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed claims by Faulkner et al.

It is critical that this decision be challenged and that the voices of creators be heard. The potential interpretation could lead to publishers producing new products of collective works without payment of additional licensing fees to the photographers, writers and illustrators. This will have an impact on every photographer in the country, including advertising and corporate photographers. Why? Because if this ruling is allowed to stand any additional usage of material, as long as the content isn't substantially different from the original, may be allowed. This means the ad agency that wants to use an ad on the web and the corporation that wants to put their annual report up as a PDF may be allowed to do so without having to pay creators for the additional use. Further, this could be interpreted by some to include translations into other languages, reprints, foreign licensing agreements and other secondary uses.

This case hinges on what will become the legal definition of a “revision” as it pertains to copyright law on the digital frontier. What at first glance may seem to be legal hairsplitting will in fact have huge ramifications as to how our clients will be able to use and distribute our work, and whether we will be entitled to compensation for it. This case is every bit as important and substantial as Tasini v. The New York Times case, and could potentially hit all owners of intellectual property with an even deadlier blow. We can't afford to sit back and wait. This calls for immediate attention and support.

This case isn't about a couple of individual photographers or even photographers in general. This case will have dramatic impact on everyone who creates copyrightable material for licensing. We as a unified group must show Judge Kaplan that this decision was wrong and will have a negative impact on the Copyright Act and on all case law pertaining to every form of intellectual property.

The various photographers in the several pending lawsuits are planning to appeal, and the Executive Board of EP feels that the potential impact of this case warrants the need for multiple Amicus Briefs. We are pleased that ASMP is planning on writing one and we at EP have initiated work on our own. While the cost is significant, we feel that the importance of this case makes it imperative to use our resources to make this statement. We urge each of the trade organizations and stock agencies to consider working on their own Amicus Briefs with the photographers' attorneys. According to attorneys, multiple Amicus Briefs will send the most powerful message to the court: We can't emphasize enough that it is crucial for our voices to be heard.

Please feel free to pass this letter to any organization representing the rights of creative artists.

Sincerely,

The Executive Board of EP

Seth Resnick, President; sethres@sethresnick.com
Paula Lerner, Vice President; paula@lernerphoto.com
Andrew Buchanan
Ed Caldwell
Rich Frishman
Jason Grow
Shawn Henry
Richard Morgenstein
Rick Rickman
Brian Smale
Brian Smith
Jennie Zeiner

Virginia Heffernan writes in the New York Times about the army's camera crew that shot Saddam Hussein's capture and subsequent medical examination. We have all seen it now, thanks to the networks looping it ad nauseam (like they do with just about anything else).

As a photo editor I know all too well that photography is about editing – cropping out, leaving behind something larger to focus on something specific; whether it is done in camera, while the action before us is enfolding or it is done after the event. Editing, no doubt, has its merits, especially when we want to convey something as succinctly as possible. But editing can also coerce us into not seeing the whole picture. It's a double-edge sword and has to be handled responsibly.

So the questions are: What is the US Army NOT showing us? What has been left out of the loop? And, why are we watching the same tape again and again and again? What purpose does that serve? And, whom does it serve? Will we ever see the whole take?

While I and the rest of the world is grateful that Hussein is now in custody (let's leave the politics behind that aside for a bit), there are just too many questions about this video that bug me. For starters, it is much too brief. The raid must have lasted at least 30 minutes. Yet, we see about 30 seconds of it. Is that just the public's threshold or was that all was “released” by the censors?

Also, unless army was hauling rented HMI's, I wonder how the “spider hole,” generally considered to be a dark place, was lit. The photographs appearing in the world's papers have a color cast to them that is missing in the video. Again, were they corrected and “sanitized” for public consumption, after the video was shot?

There is some debate now in the US on media monopoly.The Left says there is one. The Right says the Left is smoking crack. The title of Heffernan's article is “Camera Down the Hole, and the World Follows It.” It's suggestive of the way the media has all of us “trained” to “follow.” We are going to be shown something and we will be made to believe it.

But if seeing is believing and we are made to watch something so specific and that too a number of times, with no apologies or explanation for its brevity, well, I do have to wonder – are we subtly being told to toe the line and accept a certain agenda without thought or debate? I am concerned that the media will be equated to base propaganda and nothing more.

Via Sree Sreenivasan of SAJA and several photographers and photo editors on the NPPA-L.

The intrepid photojournalist James Nachtwey and his colleague Michael Weisskopf were both hurt in a grenade attack on December 10, at about 9.30 p.m. They were traveling with US military personnel when their Humvee was assaulted.

Nachtwey, an award winning photojournalist, has covered a majority of the conflicts around the world. A documentary movie about his life, War Photographer, was nominated for an Oscar. He curiously describes himself as the anti-war photographer, hoping that the images he captures will convince the world of the sheer madness that wars ultimately are.

According to a Time press release, “Both Michael and Jim are in stable condition and awaiting transfer to a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany.”

Weisskopf‘s quick thinking may have saved lives, but not his hand, as he tried to pitch the explosive out of the vehicle.

The New York Times and The Washington Post have also reported on this tragedy.

Associated Press
Dec. 11, 2003
Two Time magazine journalists wounded on patrol in Baghdad
By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer

Associated Press writer Nick Wadhams, in New York, contributed to this report.

A Time magazine reporter suffered severe shrapnel wounds and lost his hand when he tried to throw away a grenade tossed into a Humvee he was riding in with a Time photographer and two U.S. soldiers, colleagues said
Thursday.

Time senior correspondent Michael Weisskopf and contributing photographer James Nachtwey were traveling with a U.S. Army patrol in Baghdad Wednesday night when the attack occurred, a statement from Time managing editor Jim
Kelly said.

The soldiers also were wounded, the U.S. military said, but gave no further information.

Time would not offer details on the incident. But a memo sent to Weisskopf's former colleagues at The Washington Post said he picked up the grenade and tossed it out of the Humvee. It exploded, blowing off his hand and wounding him in the chest and arms. The memo said Nachtwey received shrapnel wounds that were not as serious.

“According to people he works with at Time, he picked up the grenade and tossed it out, losing his right hand in the process while saving four lives,” the memo said.

A military spokesman said they were with a unit of the Army's 1st Armored Division.

The military official, who spoke only condition of anonymity, said one of the journalists was severely wounded and the other was slightly injured, but would not say which. Time said both were in stable condition and were awaiting transfer to a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany.

The memo said Weisskopf's wife, Judith, had spoken with him and he was eager to return home. He was to return to Washington within a few days, the memo said.

Nachtwey is an award-winning photographer known for haunting images of war and poverty. He was the subject of a 2001 Oscar-nominated documentary, “War Photographer,” and has won many awards. This year he shared a $1
million Dan David prize for documenting “the apocalyptic events of our time.”

Weisskopf is an award-winning correspondent based in Washington. He covers national politics and investigations and was a finalist in the 1996 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting.

The Paris-based World Association of Newspapers has said that at least 16 journalists have been killed in Iraq this year. Many others have beenwounded.

In the last known incident, police said the editor of an independent newspaper in the northern city of Mosul was shot and killed on Oct. 28.

Of all the populist fighters of our time, the best known, if not most colorful of personalities is … “in this corner” … [sound of drum roll] … Muhammad Ali.

Despite ailing from Parkinsons disease, Ali has managed to pack a punch in a new book, GOAT, that's just out. Like the fighter, there is nothing ordinary about this book. Like the fighter, it's larger than life. The brief on the 792-page book is that it weighs in at 75 lbs (as in “heavy”). Those with herniated disks or chronic back ache, beware.

With over 600,000 words and about 3,000 images, this is the mother of all coffee-table books. Find out how much this heavy-weight costs by reading the review. It's quite a stinger!

GOAT: A Tribute to Muhammad Ali, is in this New York Times review.

From Mediabistro.com

Jack Schafer writes in Slate.com that David Willman's meticulously researched 11,700-word feature in the Sunday, Dec. 7, Los Angeles Times was five years in the making.

Wow! That's inspiration for us all who claim to have “writer's block.”