This goes under WTF?

This nuts...as if  the police did not have enough to do.  Wait till your mother gets stopped!

Photographers Rights UK from Nick Turpin on Vimeo.

The Next Great Hunk Of Crap Technology

This came from
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/
Rob Haggart site

Sony Releases New Stupid Piece Of Shit That Doesn't Fucking Work

MET MUSEUM AD campaign image came from Flickr

In today NY Times "weekend arts" section, at the bottom of the page ran the Met Museum Ad campaign "It's Time We Met".  Clever and I like it.  It shows a couple kissing in the 19th Century Galleries.  The most interesting thing about this picture is the photo credit and it reads:  "6:35 pm  19th Century Galleries.  Photo by Laura P Russell via Flickr".  Yes Flicker.  So look up Laura profile.  

In short, she a mom and happily married.  Loves to take pictures and is not a professional but would love to get paid by it.  Read if you will.

What strike me is that this a national if not a worldwide AD campaign for the Met.  They pulled an amateur photograph to do the job.  I think the photo works well for the campaign.  It shows everyday people doing everyday things at the Met.  Very human and believable.  When I did some research, the Met has their own Flicker page which is great.  They are doing a contest and rules are there.

So, the prize if you win is $250 cash plus a one year Met Net membership at a $60 value. I did e mail Laura to ask if she was paid and Laura did e mail me and said "Thanks for the shout out. Yes, we got paid, got credit, and retain rights".  If you look up on Corbis Stock site, an images with 1/8 in size worldwide rights, in a Newspaper for three months is $1925 priced out.  You can argue this is not a professional who took the picture.  I would say, this an image being "used" professionally for an advertisement.  So what is the difference?  If an images is going to be used professionally does it matter who took the picture?  Should they not all get paid about the same?

So, could this be the new wave of Marketing?  Put up a contest and and the winner get a much "under value" price to use the image for however long? Or do people want to have less of "polished" look.  Chase Javis right hand man Scott talks about "imperfect" image on Chase Blog the other day. 

I know contest have been around forever.  I just wonder though is this ploy to take advantage of the amateur photographer or just a new look, trend or economic hard times?  Should the professional be worried?  I say no for now.  Not until creative start pulling from the social web sites for other campaigns.

92YTribeca: Music. Film. Comedy. Talks. Classes.

this is funny