" johoka shakai "

Truth and the information society.

Who owns an image?

[image] A captured still from an encountered video left behind on an electronic device in a consumer goods store, 2015.

I got in trouble the other day ... again

Its not the first time I have been questioned for appropriating, using or capturing images of images. This time it was far less conclusive (in my opinion) but just as problematic, I guess. In one of my earlier journal entries titled pattern recognition :: I listed a series of quotes from some writers and thinkers who reference patterns and the importance of sequence and structure in the understanding of the world around us. I set about searching the web and decided to use an iconic image of Marshal McLuhan by the photographer Henri Dauman as my ‘poster-child’ image.

I had contacted Mr. Dauman and asked him for his permission, but in my haste I posted the image before him granting it, and subsequently he wanted to charge me an exorbitant fee for using it. I removed the image gave him a sincere and humble apology and searched the web for an alternative. I later went on to find out that Henri Dauman and the New York Times had successfully sued the Andy Warhol Estate for an image that Warhol had appropriated for his work ‘16 Jackies’ from a Dauman photo titled 'A Sorrowing Family Marches Together,' showing Jackie, Robert and Edward in the funeral procession (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/08/nyregion/photographer-sues-andy-warhol-estate-over-kennedy-photo.html), so I suppose, I shouldn't mess with him.

In a more recent incident I was pulled-up for ‘taking’ photos of individuals from a ‘demonstrator’ device, which are commonly found in technology stores. It’s part of an on-going project of mine which involves observing the way that humans continue to expand and multiply their digital image into shared spaces. I am interested in the performative 'culture' a camera instigates and how we are ‘leaving’ traces of ourselves in digital form on various devices; the implications that this might have to the ‘ownership’ of an image and what value that image might carry for the ‘holder’ of that image.

It raises some interesting issues for me as I believe that the image is now intrinsically part of the ubiquitous digital public domain. Although an image might ‘resides’ on an electronic device, in a consumer goods store, I don't know that it means that the image ‘belongs’ to the retailer; and even though it may temporarily be ‘situated’ on an apparatus I don't think it ‘belongs’ to that device either. In a way the image that is 'left-behind' is no different than walking down the street and capturing a passer-by or photographing an album cover from a second hand shop or the walls of some hipster bar toilet. The individuals, often its more than one, consciously ‘leave’ their images behind for someone else to ‘find’. It’s like a 'tag' or a bit of 'techno-urban-graffiti' (maybe there's a better word for it), for me, it's the digital equivalent of the ‘Kilroy Was Here’ mark. The recording of the image is not done for the benefit of the retailer or the device for that matter, it was made for someone else, it becomes a mark to be encountered, and if I decide to take it away with me, to extend the life of that image, what’s wrong with that? I know I am on some shaky legal grounds here but it makes me wonder about the 'value' of the image. The image 'left' then goes on to be part of that device. In a way it enhances the 'features' of the device by making the device more appealing to the consumer, by 'showing-off' its capabilities to 'capture', 'record' and 'play-back'. By exploiting the residual image it hypes-up the 'product benefits' and increases the desirability of the product by demonstrating its pixel-perfect ability to represent colour, motion, skin-tones, etc. The image 'left' has now taken on an added unwilling function and its intent is 'hijacked' for the benefit of some unknown entity who is only concerned with ROI's, KPI's and stakeholder investments.

I was told by the retail floor person that the store upheld the privacy of the individuals and that they deleted the images after ‘some time’; of course even after the image is ‘removed’ it still remains on that hard drive, in another form (topic for a different discussion). They understood that we were in a public space, although technically it probably isn’t, because that space ‘belongs’ to the corporates who rent it, and that they wanted me to ask permission, which I then did, but was then denied consent. So, I am not sure where that leaves things, but it opens up some further questions around the ‘ownership’ of an image, the ‘value’ that the image carries, its scale within an 'economy' and who benefits from its 'value'? It also makes me think more about the hidden ‘shadows’ of information, the ‘exchange’ that an image actions, its ‘employment’ as a commodity and its position within virtual spaces.

Online resources :

[image] http://art.uts.edu.au/index.php/exhibitions/trace-recordings/

Online galleries, curated projects, digital books and interactive spaces not only allow individuals and groups to bring their observations, their ideas and concerns to a wider audience but it re-defines our concepts around physical spaces and how we engage with them which challenges our traditional notions of the gallery and museum. The digital space allows for a more contemplative approach, it allows viewers to re-visit a space, galvanises cultural expansion and broadens our sphere of understanding.

trace-image HDH_01

Trace Recordings

http://www.tracerecordings.net/

From the DNA left on chewed gum to top-secret NSA listening stations, this exhibitioncasts an artistic light on the scale and sophistication of surveillance technologies,question their lack of transparency and asks what power we have as individuals withinthem. From data tracking to drones, Trace Recordings presents work by eleven artistswho use a wide variety of media and ideas to critically and at times playfully addressthese issues. • Retrieved from: http://www.tracerecordings.net/About

edg_cover_front_crop_tight_vga

At the edge of art

http://at-the-edge-of-art.com/index.php

Desktop computer technology and the Internet have opened up new possibilities for artistic creation, distribution, and appreciation. But in addition to projects that might conventionally be described as new-media art, there is now a wide spectrum of work—unclassified until this book—by practitioners not normally thought of as "artists." • Retrieved from:  http://amzn.com/0500238227

F2Flogo_front

Portraiture in the digital age

http://www.dlux.org.au/face2face/index.htm

Welcome to Face to Face, an Asialink and d/Lux/MediaArts touring exhibition where you are invited to explore the work of fourteen Australian artists who provide a unique and engaging perspective on how digital technologies are reshaping our understanding and experience of contemporary identity. Covering a variety of media from digital photography to video and interactive installation, you are encouraged to investigate these questions and form your own opinions. • Retrieved from: http://www.dlux.org.au/face2face/foreword.htm

pic

Adam Harvey

http://ahprojects.com/

Adam Harvey is an artist, designer, and programmer in New York. His work explores the intersection of privacy, computer vision, and fashion. His ongoing project, CV Dazzle, is an attempt to create hair styles, makeup, and clothing that thwart face recognition software.  • Retrieved from: http://makematics.com/research/viola-jones/

Additional references / interviews : http://makematics.com/ • / http://www.reuters.com/video/2010/05/13/camouflage-gets-hi-tech-makeovervideoId=86047446&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=Technology&videoChannel=6 • / The anti paparazzi device: http://youtu.be/CDc-H9ZzfpI • / DNA Spoofing: DIY Counter-Surveillance: http://vimeo.com/auremoser/dnaspoof