Don’t Let Yourself Become Some Company’s Bitch

Google recently announced that it will be closing down 10 services that get little use. I don’t have a problem with that. Google is a company, they can do what they want. There are people, however, who rely on these services, and are about to have them swept out from under their feet. If you find yourself in that situation, or if you fear that something similar could happen to you one day, it is because you’ve allowed yourself to become some company’s bitch. Building your business on their platform is like building your house on someone else’s land: sure, it’s easier and cheaper, but you just never know when they will come by and force you to leave.

Control of social media seems to be concentrating into the hands of a small number of big players. Twitter, Facebook, Google plus one, etc.

I used to participate in a number of online message boards. But not so much any more. It’s not from a lack of interest on my part, but a lack of replies coming from everyone else as the number of active users dwindles.
Some message boards have closed down, while others have slowly faded away as the majority of users migrate towards facebook groups. I imagine convenience is a primary motivator here, as facebook represents a one-stop solution for email, texting, message-boarding, posting ideas, ranting, and sharing links. The old way involved navigating between multiple websites, each with a different layout or design to figure out and navigate. This does seem to take more mental energy. Facebook made it far easier to do all of these things, and do them all in one place.

I fear that people forget that with the increase in convenience comes a loss of control. When a page, or a group is created on one of these third party services, you are agreeing to play by their rules. They could shut down your group, or close ‘groups’ in general. The whole company could collapse, close, be sold off, and you’ve lost everything.

Read the rest of this entry »

Google recently announced that it will be closing down 10 services that get little use. I don't have a problem with that. Google is a company, they can do what they want. There are people, however, who rely on these services, and are about to have them swept out from under their feet. If you find yourself in that situation, or if you fear that something similar could happen to you one day, it is because you've allowed yourself to become some company's bitch. Building your business on their platform is like building your house on someone else's land: sure, it's easier and cheaper, but you just never know when they will come by and force you to leave. Control of social media seems to be concentrating into the hands of a small number of big players. Twitter, Facebook, Google plus one, etc. I used to participate in a number of online message boards. But not so much any more. It's not from a lack of interest on my part, but a lack of replies coming from everyone else as the number of active users dwindles. Some message boards have closed down, while others have slowly faded away as the majority of users migrate towards facebook groups. I imagine convenience is a primary motivator here, as facebook represents a one-stop solution for email, texting, message-boarding, posting ideas, ranting, and sharing links. The old way involved navigating between multiple websites, each with a different layout or design to figure out and navigate. This does seem to take more mental energy. Facebook made it far easier to do all of these things, and do them all in one place. I fear that people forget that with the increase in convenience comes a loss of control. When a page, or a group is created on one of these third party services, you are agreeing to play by their rules. They could shut down your group, or close 'groups' in general. The whole company could collapse, close, be sold off, and you've lost everything. If I were to build a business that relies entirely on google ads, I am their bitch. All it takes is a few little changes to their rules, and I'm screwed. If my entire business is built around facebook or twitter, I'd be screwed if they were to go under or take away that feature. If YouTube was my number-one source for hits an attention, and they were to close down that popular channel I've build up over the years, I'd be screwed. The safest way to do things is to host it yourself. Don't ignore or avoid the 3rd parties, they offer some great services, just don't let yourself rely on them as a sole provider. My blog is powered by WordPress, so this post might seem hypocritical, but keep in mind that only my blog section is WordPress. The main website is pure hand-coded HTML. Also, keep in mind that WordPress is open source. If they were to go under, or if they chose to drop a feature, I can always get the code and change it back. Do it yourself. It might be less convenient, it might be less popular, but with full control comes safety.

August Round-up

Well, it looks like another month has slipped by without any updates from me. It’s not because I have nothing to report; it’s actually quite the opposite. Lots of things have been going on, and I’ve been struggling to keep up with it all.

The biggest time-sink of the past month has been the Site 3 Silent Auction, which Brad and I organized. I have never taken the lead on a big event like this, I had no idea what I was doing, but the evening turned out to be a huge success. I learned a lot, and I do see areas where we could have done things better, but we had enough redundancy built into our system that even with a few mishaps, everything still ran smoothly. The reactions I’ve seen so far have been entirely positive.

And for anyone planning on organizing a similar event, I will give you this piece of advice: fire performers at a silent auction is definitely a great idea!
Yes, we really had fire performers! I missed nearly the entire show because I was sorting and packing up items, and sorting through paper work, (the performers were a distraction for the guests while we did the behind the scenes work) but our guests seemed thrilled upon re-entering the building.

Of course, part of the reason for organizing a silent auction for artists and makers is to create an opportunity to show off my work. That means that I have to make a bunch of new stuff that fits with the show. So, on top of all the organizational stuff, I had a lot of creative “gotta make something good, and I gotta make it in time” stuff on my plate as well.

When I wasn’t planning this auction and making my own art, I was travelling up north to the top-secret lair (also known as “Brad’s house”) working on the next new-media project to be released to the world this fall. This body of work is going to be kept more hush-hush than Take a Picture (a little mystery is a good thing) but we have been releasing a few hints along the way. We’ve recorded a bunch of videos about the project and it’s construction, I’ve just has no time to edit or post any of them.

Editing video takes a long time. “One hour of editing per minute of finished video” is the expression that is often heard about editing. I am also producing the background music for the video, and that eats up even more of my time. The point I’m trying to get at can be summed up as follows: I’ve got a lot of stuff on the go right now; you just haven’t heard about any of it because we are sitting on a big stockpile of media that has yet to be released.

But it will be.

Soon.

Well, it looks like another month has slipped by without any updates from me. It's not because I have nothing to report; it's actually quite the opposite. Lots of things have been going on, and I've been struggling to keep up with it all. The biggest time-sink of the past month has been the Site 3 Silent Auction, which Brad and I organized. I have never taken the lead on a big event like this, I had no idea what I was doing, but the evening turned out to be a huge success. I learned a lot, and I do see areas where we could have done things better, but we had enough redundancy built into our system that even with a few mishaps, everything still ran smoothly. The reactions I've seen so far have been entirely positive. And for anyone planning on organizing a similar event, I will give you this piece of advice: fire performers at a silent auction is definitely a great idea! Yes, we really had fire performers! I missed nearly the entire show because I was sorting and packing up items, and sorting through paper work, (the performers were a distraction for the guests while we did the behind the scenes work) but our guests seemed thrilled upon re-entering the building. Of course, part of the reason for organizing a silent auction for artists and makers is to create an opportunity to show off my work. That means that I have to make a bunch of new stuff that fits with the show. So, on top of all the organizational stuff, I had a lot of creative "gotta make something good, and I gotta make it in time" stuff on my plate as well. When I wasn't planning this auction and making my own art, I was travelling up north to the top-secret lair (also known as "Brad's house") working on the next new-media project to be released to the world this fall. This body of work is going to be kept more hush-hush than Take a Picture (a little mystery is a good thing) but we have been releasing a few hints along the way. We've recorded a bunch of videos about the project and it's construction, I've just has no time to edit or post any of them. Editing video takes a long time. "One hour of editing per minute of finished video" is the expression that is often heard about editing. I am also producing the background music for the video, and that eats up even more of my time. The point I'm trying to get at can be summed up as follows: I've got a lot of stuff on the go right now; you just haven't heard about any of it because we are sitting on a big stockpile of media that has yet to be released. But it will be. Soon.

Staying Critical and Selling Stories

I find that artists are often drawn towards some very bad ideas; ideas that might seem beautiful or inspiring on the surface, but upon closer inspection are just a load of B.S.
For this reason, I try to stay critical of the new ideas I come across until I see some sort of real-world evidence to back it up. Anyone can have an idea. Any idea can be true or false.
In casual conversation, and in the art circles, some ideas are very popular, or easy to write about, or lead to good-sounding grant applications; but I don’t see popularity as a good reason to hold on to an idea. Testing an idea against nature, and having that idea confirmed by evidence is the only method I know of which ensures that a idea is not wrong.

“Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled” -Richard Feynman

The new idea that I have been mulling over in my head lately is from Seth Godin, and his ideas on marketing. The man is very charismatic, very entertaining. He has a way of explaining things simply and directly, with a certain irreverence towards the traditional way of doing things (sort of like the attitude Kevin Smith has when he describes his interactions with people in the movie industry). It’s the story of the beloved outsider who comes in, challenges the good old boys, and changes everything. He makes it all sound so easy, once you accept that you are going to have to do the work yourself.

This, of course, has my warning flags raised.
“Anyone who is this easy to like has to be wrong”, says the alarm bells in my head.
Read the rest of this entry »

I find that artists are often drawn towards some very bad ideas; ideas that might seem beautiful or inspiring on the surface, but upon closer inspection are just a load of B.S. For this reason, I try to stay critical of the new ideas I come across until I see some sort of real-world evidence to back it up. Anyone can have an idea. Any idea can be true or false. In casual conversation, and in the art circles, some ideas are very popular, or easy to write about, or lead to good-sounding grant applications; but I don't see popularity as a good reason to hold on to an idea. Testing an idea against nature, and having that idea confirmed by evidence is the only method I know of which ensures that a idea is not wrong. "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled" -Richard Feynman The new idea that I have been mulling over in my head lately is from Seth Godin, and his ideas on marketing. The man is very charismatic, very entertaining. He has a way of explaining things simply and directly, with a certain irreverence towards the traditional way of doing things (sort of like the attitude Kevin Smith has when he describes his interactions with people in the movie industry). It's the story of the beloved outsider who comes in, challenges the good old boys, and changes everything. He makes it all sound so easy, once you accept that you are going to have to do the work yourself. This, of course, has my warning flags raised. "Anyone who is this easy to like has to be wrong", says the alarm bells in my head. I just finished All Marketers Are Liars the other day, and I really enjoyed it. Some of the ideas it presents I would love to implement. But there is a problem. I'm not a business man. I'm not a marketer. I'm not an entrepreneur. I'm just an artist who likes to make cool things in my studio, and occasionally post a silly video to YouTube. I have no way of knowing if Godin's advice is good or bad. It's outside my range of knowledge. I just don't know. So what can I do? I can watch what's going on around me, keeping Godin's ideas in mind, and use his ideas as a framework for making sense of what I see. If what I see makes more sense when framed around his ideas, I'll know that he is not wrong. I'll know to lower my warning flags and give his idea a shot. The idea I am talking about in this case is the importance of storytelling. According to Godin, when marketing a product, there is a choice between racing to the bottom, and telling a story. You can cut prices until you hit the bottom, or you can make a good product, and tell a good story. The bottom is a crowded place, dominated by online retailers and big box stores, and it's no fun at all. Telling a good story gives your business far more room to grow. The story told by marketers might not be the whole truth, but it is certainly not an outright lie. Liars don't last very long. An example of the kind of storytelling Godin talks about are stores that sell fancy coffee. You can't sell coffee as a luxury item simply by raising the prices. That's not a luxury, that's a rip-off. Everything you do, every choice you make needs to tell the same story. This includes having a well-trained, well-paid and enthusiastic staff, building great stores with comfy chairs, and having organic, fair-trade products, etc. It's not just about the product, it's about the entire ecosystem surrounding it. So, lately, I have been looking for stories wherever I go; and so far, Godin's idea is looking like a good one. I was at the Toronto "One of a Kind Show" last Sunday. It's been a very long time since I've attended a fair like this. Normally, I'm on the other side of the booth, so this felt like a sort of 'behind enemy lines' mission. I was watching what artists/sellers did, what perked my interest, what turned me off, and what gathered a crowd. Despite the name, not everything was truly one-of-a-kind. For example, there were at least two vendors of handmade soap, there were many landscape painters, and there were many fine wooded items. Each case I observed was quite similar. I am leaving out the names and generalizing, because I don't want to risk promoting or offending one party over another. For the sake of brevity, I will stick to just one of the examples I compared during the show. Two booths were selling hand-made soap. Both looked like they had the same product. They looked pretty much the same, they were priced pretty much the same, and it's soap, so they worked pretty much the same. If each booth was offering the same product, why did booth 1 attract such a large crowd, while people walked right by booth 2? Soap company 1 told a story. Behind the seller was a huge banner that read, "Hand made soap, lovingly made by hand with only the freshest of ingredients to give you an invigorating experience" Soap company 2 sold a product. Hand-made soap. Booth 1 had a fancy ribbon tied around each individually wrapped bar, turning each chunk of soap into a tiny gift. A card was attached to each ribbon, with relaxation instructions, or a little poem. Booth 2 had their bars wrapped in cellophane. Attached to the cellophane was a price tag. Booth 1 was telling me a story about a great product made with love and care to make me feel better after a long, hard day. Booth 2 was selling me soap. I walked past these booths several times during the 4 hours I spent at the fair, Booth 2 wasn't dead, they had customers buying a bar every now and then, but booth 1 had a steady line up the whole day. Unless booth 2 had a vastly superior checkout system, it's clear that Godin is right: stories are what draw people in, not products.

Perfect vs. Good Enough

After watching a series of recorded talks and presentations, I have become a fan of Seth Godin. Like his talks, his blog is an explosion of ideas, and each idea is worth spending some time with and giving some serious thought. They are the type of ideas that even if they all turn out to be wrong, a person is still better off for having thought about them. The ideas are fresh. One idea that is stressed more than once is the importance of abandoning the idea of perfection, and shipping a product that is good enough.

At first, this didn’t sit very well with me. “Good enough” is a phrase I use very often. I am by no means a perfectionist with every detail in my life. The only area where I do strive for perfection is my art, because the arts are one area where I strongly believe that “good enough” is never good enough. Only the very best that I am capable of producing is ever good enough. This must be an area where business advice does not apply to the art world.

But this might be too literal of an interpretation on my part.
Read the rest of this entry »

After watching a series of recorded talks and presentations, I have become a fan of Seth Godin. Like his talks, his blog is an explosion of ideas, and each idea is worth spending some time with and giving some serious thought. They are the type of ideas that even if they all turn out to be wrong, a person is still better off for having thought about them. The ideas are fresh. One idea that is stressed more than once is the importance of abandoning the idea of perfection, and shipping a product that is good enough. At first, this didn't sit very well with me. "Good enough" is a phrase I use very often. I am by no means a perfectionist with every detail in my life. The only area where I do strive for perfection is my art, because the arts are one area where I strongly believe that "good enough" is never good enough. Only the very best that I am capable of producing is ever good enough. This must be an area where business advice does not apply to the art world. But this might be too literal of an interpretation on my part. Godin's real point, I think, is to raise the question, "is it better to never ship perfect, or always ship good enough?" This idea fits in really well with one of Godin's talks, where he was promoting his booklet, Ship-it. In the talk, Godin emphasizes that "good enough" doesn't mean "bad" or "half-assed". "Good enough" means that it is good enough for what people want/need/expect. In the case of art, the work itself might have to be perfect, but if it's hung a few centimetres too high, and lowering the painting requires patching the hole from the first nail, and re-painting the gallery, and it's 20 minutes to show time, then it's OK to stop, shrug, and say, "good enough." His chart, however, really struck a chord with me. It's not exactly a scientific chart, but it is an image that explains the idea far better than words ever could. Rather than post a link to his chart, I have created my own version of it: As a beginner, small amounts of practice lead to big gains in quality. As skill level improves, the payoff for each hour of practice becomes less and less. The same is true for effort or resources put into a project. Most of the really big gains are made in the early stages. By the end of development, large expenditures give imperceptible improvements. Eventually, a point is reached where further improvement just isn't worth it. I'm reminded of an old programmer's joke: "The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time." I'd be surprised if this joke is unfamiliar, since it has it's own Wikipedia entry. The same rule in programming is equally true for art. These past 3 weeks, I've been working on two paintings. I've known exactly how they were going to look when finished by the end of day 3. Reaching that point is 90% of the image-making process. The image is there in the under-painting, I just have to tweak it and make it look finished. The remaining 18 days have been spent trying to making the paintings look good. It's hard to explain this in words, but I can look at a piece of art and say, "that looks amateur", "that looks like student work", and "that's professional". Getting my work to reach that level of professionalism that I demand from it takes a lot of time, even though it looks 'almost done' or 'good enough' throughout most of that period. It's a little demotivating to pour hours into something, and when it is finally good enough to be declared 'finished', it looks no different from the initial under-painting in the documentation. All those little extras that take up 90% of the studio time are completely lost in the photos I take! I think the gist of this idea is that an obsession with perfection in all things isn't helpful. Sharp focus on key details, the details that really matter, that is what's important. The "Take a Picture" project is a perfect example of focusing only on what matters, and accepting "good enough" in other places. The part of that project that really matters is the secret image that appears on the back of your digital camera. It has to be clear, sharp, and refined. At first, this project looks like a piece of extreme minimalism. It looks very minimal, considering there is absolutely nothing on the canvas. Since the fist impression of this project is likely to evoke accusations of laziness on our part, we knew we would have to do something to counter this kind of reaction. We wanted the hidden image to look very crisp, flawless, and perfect, almost mechanical, so people would understand that a lot of skill, and a lot of work did go into this. If their first impression of us was followed with imagery that is rough and sloppy, it would reinforce that initial opinion; that's not what we want. What people see on the front is what matters. The electronics stuffed in the back aren't nearly so important; they don't have to be perfect. They just have to work. They have to be durable. They have to be hidden from view to not spoil the surprise. They have to run safely. Brads design does all those things. His design is extremely flexible, it's parallel, so if one board were to fail, the rest of the chain will still work. The design allows for any number of additional circuits to be added to the chain, and each circuit can branch off into 3 separate chains, going in separate directions. But is it the absolute best circuit design possible? I don't know; we didn't spend a lot of time trying to invent new designs. Having the best possible solution or circuit doesn't really matter in this case. Perfection doesn't matter; functionality does. Brad's circuit design might not have been the fastest for us to manufacture. It may not be the most elegant to look at, or the cheapest to manufacture. This design was well tested; we know it works. And we had a bit of a stock pile left over from building the prototype, so re-using the design gave us a head start. Maybe we could have done something smaller, something simpler, something prettier on the back. We didn't spend months of development, we didn't consult world-leading electrical engineers, we didn't tour numerous top-of-the-line manufacturing facilities. None of those things are important to this project. Fussing over these details would only have taken our attention away from the areas that do matter. We picked a design that we already had, one that we know for certain will work, and we know how to make it in large quantities. It does the job it has to do. It is good enough.

Do You Sell Originals, or Reproductions?

In the last entry in the “Photographing Art” series, Don’t Bother With Image Protection, I covered some reasons why I think that allowing images of art work to be freely shared isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Some people want to photograph art, or download images of art, and for artists dealing with one-of-a-kind images, like painters, the benefits of this infringement can outweigh the risks.

The last entry was rather one-sided, however. Freely allowing copies isn’t going to be beneficial in all situations. If you are in the selling reproductions business, file sharing has the potential to eat away at sales. I can sympathize with this. I have made money licensing images for prints myself. As a struggling artist, I know that every source of income, no matter how small it might seem, is very significant.

How many image makers are in the business of selling reproductions? Photographers certainly are, but I believe that it is important for artists to decide on the main focus of their practice: are they about selling originals, or selling reproductions.
If you are in the business of selling reproductions, this series is probably not for you. If you are more interested in selling originals, please come with me as I take you through the weird world of infinite goods.
Read the rest of this entry »

In the last entry in the "Photographing Art" series, Don't Bother With Image Protection, I covered some reasons why I think that allowing images of art work to be freely shared isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some people want to photograph art, or download images of art, and for artists dealing with one-of-a-kind images, like painters, the benefits of this infringement can outweigh the risks. The last entry was rather one-sided, however. Freely allowing copies isn't going to be beneficial in all situations. If you are in the selling reproductions business, file sharing has the potential to eat away at sales. I can sympathize with this. I have made money licensing images for prints myself. As a struggling artist, I know that every source of income, no matter how small it might seem, is very significant. How many image makers are in the business of selling reproductions? Photographers certainly are, but I believe that it is important for artists to decide on the main focus of their practice: are they about selling originals, or selling reproductions. If you are in the business of selling reproductions, this series is probably not for you. If you are more interested in selling originals, please come with me as I take you through the weird world of infinite goods. One idea of Tim O'Reilly's that I try to keep floating around in my head is that piracy should be thought of as a sort of progressive tax on success. If you are big and successful, there are going to be lots of pirates, and sales will be affected. If you are small and still emerging, piracy is a way to rapidly expand your audience, leading to more sales in the future. And, if no one is pirating your material, thats a bad sign: nobody wants what you are offering, even when it's free. If this idea is right, then knowing whether infringement should be seen as a concern or not is made very simple: Just ask "Am I successful?"       IF answer = "yes" THEN fight infringement       IF answer = "no" THEN promote infringement I've used these quotes from O'Reilly and Doctorow before, but they are good ones, so I'll use them again: "Obscurity is a far greater threat to authors and creative artists than piracy." "It's hard to monetize fame, but it's impossible to monetize obscurity." What is the bigger problem: piracy or obscurity? What is more important: royalties or exposure? I argued in the last post in the series the reasons why I believe that if obscurity is the problem, fighting piracy is not the solution. Piracy can be thought of as a form of word-of-mouth advertising. To summarize the argument in one sentence, "unless you are actively selling licensed reproductions, why fight the spread of copies?" A potential concern might be, "but what if I decide to license reproduction of my work in the future". This is a valid concern, letting everyone have free copies now might prevent them from paying for copies later. Making sure the only copies that are freely available are a fairly low resolution is one option. "You can have a free desktop background image now, but if you make a poster from that image, it will look pretty crappy. Here is a nice high-rez print for sale. Just see what you've been missing!" Creative works that are part of the free-culture movement or creative commons might be seen as a sort of public portfolio piece or career stepping stone. You let it go for free right now, hoping someone of importance will see your work, learn your name, and hire you for a paid project in the future. Several years ago, I was talking to an independent film maker who made the decision to release a movie under a creative commons license. This generated a ton of unexpected attention and exposure, but no money came from the project. Luckily, it was a no-budget film, done out of a passion for film-making, so the lack of sales wasn't seen as a disappointment. Who knows what that attention will bring to his future? TED talks have exploded in popularity over the past few years. Part of this is the license. The videos are free to share, so long as they are not modified, ensuring that the TED branding is left intact. The more people share, copy and download these videos, the stronger the TED brand becomes. Releasing something for free doesn't have to be a death sentence for future profits. One glance at the figures for Nine Inch Nails' 2008 release Ghosts i-iv reveal that with a dedicated built-in audience, free in one place can be used to generate some big sales in other areas, like really fancy box sets. As a painter, a maker of original one-of-a-kind goods, I have an equivalent to the fancy deluxe boxed set - the original painting!

Professional Photography: Accident of History?

Lately, I’ve been hearing a growing number of complaints from professional photographers about the introduction of pro-sumer grade digital SLR cameras. Pro-sumer is that fuzzy patch between consumer-grade toy and professional-grade tool. These days, professional level photography tools are accessible to a non-professional audience. I don’t have to take out a loan to purchase professional-level equipment these days. I don’t have to spend years learning all the technical processes involved in making my expensive tools work. It’s all within my reach.

When accessible high-quality tools meet up with the awesome power of online aggregates and search, the micro-stock photo industry almost seems inevitable. This also means that the idea of professional photography as a profitable career is put into jeopardy. There may no longer be a need for as many photographers as there once were.

Here is one idea that although not a pleasant one, is one that I believe must be considered: maybe photography as a profession is just an accident of history. The window between photography being possible and photography being easy allowed the profession to exist, and that window is now coming to a close.
Read the rest of this entry »

Lately, I've been hearing a growing number of complaints from professional photographers about the introduction of pro-sumer grade digital SLR cameras. Pro-sumer is that fuzzy patch between consumer-grade toy and professional-grade tool. These days, professional level photography tools are accessible to a non-professional audience. I don't have to take out a loan to purchase professional-level equipment these days. I don't have to spend years learning all the technical processes involved in making my expensive tools work. It's all within my reach. When accessible high-quality tools meet up with the awesome power of online aggregates and search, the micro-stock photo industry almost seems inevitable. This also means that the idea of professional photography as a profitable career is put into jeopardy. There may no longer be a need for as many photographers as there once were. Here is one idea that although not a pleasant one, is one that I believe must be considered: maybe photography as a profession is just an accident of history. The window between photography being possible and photography being easy allowed the profession to exist, and that window is now coming to a close. Everyone can shoot thousands of images. Everyone can post their images online. Anyone can view, tag, sort, organize and search through those images. When the right infrastructure is put in place, anyone will be able to offer to purchase a commercial license to use those images. And those licenses can be cheap, since the vast and ever growing number of images to chose from will likely drive prices down. Professionals are expensive. They chose to make a career out of photography, and they have to charge a fair wage that allows them to live a comfortable life. Amateurs are cheap. They have a job, photography is just a hobby on the side, and if someone offers them a few bucks for the rights to use an image, they don't have to charge anywhere near the same rate as a professional. They may not even know what rate a professional would charge. Having someone offer money out of the blue for work that's already been completed? That's exciting! Exciting for everyone except professional photographers. The surge in low-cost, even free stock photography is under-valuing the perception of the photography profession. Why should a magazine pay thousands for a staff photographer when some online searching can generate results that are "good enough"? Why would a blogger pay for images when free ones are available? Why would a couple hire a wedding photographer who charges thousands when a member of the family has a really nice expensive camera? These thoughts make me very glad that shooting photography is something I stumbled on to, rather than something I invested a lot of resources into. Many photographers talk about the need for tough new laws, for stronger copyright, for stopping piracy, for advertising campaigns to change public opinion. My view is that the desire to change the law to prop-up a business model is evidence that the business model sucks. Change the failing business model, not the law! I would start by asking myself, "What business am I really in?" "What can I offer a client that no one else can?" "What unique touch can I offer to earn your business?" In my case, I am not "a photographer who shoots album covers and performance shots for a few local bands". I am the person responsible for documenting the band's early days. I'm responsible for helping to shape the image that is projected to the public. I am responsible for making sure that the image people see on the liner notes in their minds matches what they see on the stage. I have to know the band to get it right. No other photographer has the same relationship with these band that I do, so changing me would change their image. It could be argued that this line of thought doesn't really change anything; I've just described the same situation using different words. How does that help anyone? That criticism is half right, I have just taken the same situation and described it differently, and that helps me quite a bit. Re-framing my roll like this changes how I approach the shoot, it changes how I deal with the band, it changes what I focus on, what I produce, it unlocks new ideas that I may not have considered if I was limited to the "I'm just a band photographer" paradigm. It also helps that I'm really, really affordable. I don't have to charge all that much, since I'm not a professional attempting to make a career out of this; I'm just a guy with a nice enough camera who does this as a hobby on the side, because low cost DSLRs have allowed professional level tools to finally enter into my reach.

Don’t Bother with Image Protection

Lately, I’ve spent a lot of time talking about reproductions of art, and why art can’t be photographed in many museums and galleries.
In part 1, I covered my teenage conspiracy theories about the prohibition of photography, while in part 2, I talked about learning the real reasons during my time in University. Then I switched gears for a bit and talked about image protection, listing some examples of bad ideas and good ideas.

In this entry, I will talk about the issue from a different angle. I will be asking something that should have been considered long before any time is spent on content protection schemes. That question is “Do painters even need to worry about infringement?”

I know, it sounds crazy. You might be thinking, “Kyle, I know you embrace the open source movement, free culture, the creative commons and all that, but this is our livelihood you’re talking about. Give it away! Are you mad?”
As artists, we own the rights to images we make; surely we must protect them, right?
Absolutely, we should protect our work, but I don’t believe that a blanket “All Rights Reserved!” model is necessarily the best approach for a painter to take.
Read the rest of this entry »

Lately, I've spent a lot of time talking about reproductions of art, and why art can't be photographed in many museums and galleries. In part 1, I covered my teenage conspiracy theories about the prohibition of photography, while in part 2, I talked about learning the real reasons during my time in University. Then I switched gears for a bit and talked about image protection, listing some examples of bad ideas and good ideas. In this entry, I will talk about the issue from a different angle. I will be asking something that should have been considered long before any time is spent on content protection schemes. That question is "Do painters even need to worry about infringement?" I know, it sounds crazy. You might be thinking, "Kyle, I know you embrace the open source movement, free culture, the creative commons and all that, but this is our livelihood you're talking about. Give it away! Are you mad?" As artists, we own the rights to images we make; surely we must protect them, right? Absolutely, we should protect our work, but I don't believe that a blanket "All Rights Reserved!" model is necessarily the best approach for a painter to take. Why Do People Want to Photograph Art? I can't pretend to know every reason that every person has for photographing art, or downloading images of artworks, but I do know the reasons why I photograph and download images of art, and I also know the reasons that my peers give when asked why they photograph and download art. It's easy for an image-maker to think, "these are my images, I have the rights to them, copying them is wrong, so you can't do it. No photos!", but it's important to remember that the most important thing is not what we want, but what the viewer wants. It is also the viewer who might one day become a customer, who might buy the work, and let us pay rent, and eat, and buy more supplies, allowing us to keep on going. So being a dick when they want to snap a picture might not be all that helpful to our cause. So, why might a viewer want to photograph our work? What reasons would they have for copying or downloading images of an artist's work? 1. Documenting The main reason I take a picture of an artwork is simple: I really like it, and I want to remember it. I see a lot of art, but I only really like a very small portion of what I see. It might be an unfamiliar technique, a unique composition, or just something executed far better than I am accustomed to seeing. When I come across a real gem, I want to remember it. I want to remember the work, I want to remember the gallery, and most of all, I want to remember the artist. I used to make a habit of collecting show cards, but that is something I have moved away from these past few years. I found that it was a waste of time and paper. The cards would get put into a box and forgotten. Digital files can be archived and tagged for easy access in the future. I stumble across these digital images far more often, making them far more useful to me. Snapping a picture, or saving an image from the artist's website lets me remember them. 2. Sharing When I see a great body of artworks, I want to share what I've seen. I might know a gallery looking for another artist, I might have a group show in mind and want to invite them to show with me. If I don't have their images, I'm not going to remember their name or their work, and I'm not going to have anything to show the gallery or other artists. 3. Matching Decor Some people buy art because they love it, some buy art as an investment, and some people want something to accent their home. Some people want to be sure that the imagery matches the decor in the room they plan to display it. They want to be sure the colours in the painting go with their house. They think they want to buy, but they are not yet 100% sure. A really easy way to do this is to snap a picture and take it home. If the artwork in the picture fits with their interior design choices, they may return the next day and make a purchase. If they don't have that picture to compare, they might remain unsure, play it safe, and not make the purchase. 4. Commercial Reproduction Their is one final possibility for someone wanting to photograph art that can't be ignored: reproduction. Some people might intend to reproduce artwork. It might be another artist wishing to emulate a style or technique, and incorporate it into their own work, or they might wish to repaint what you have made. I don't know of anyone who has had this happen to their work, or has a habit of actually doing this themselves, but it is a possibility. Commercial reproduction is the number one reason I've come across for fearing reproduction. But I don't see how those fears are warranted. Most digital cameras are really crappy. Cellphones and point and shoots just don't take great pictures. The dynamic range is rather limited, making light that looks fine to the human eye look very uneven. This isn't a very good argument because digital cameras have been rapidly improving for years now, and I don't see any signs of that progress slowing down. Eventually, these crappy cameras won't be so crappy. But there is one other reason why I don't think commercial reproduction from photographed images is a legitimate concern: Most paintings in galleries are lit rather poorly for photography. A few halogens aimed at the centre leave the edges noticeably darker. This looks great for viewing in person; our brains correct for any unevenness in the light, and do an excellent job of adjust the white balance. Halogen is magic to the eye, but for commercial reproductions, that's not going to cut it. Warm light with hot spots and shadows isn't usable for commercial prints. For good quality images, a DSLR is much better than a point and shoot. Bulky DSLRs are much easier to spot than tiny pocket sized cameras. Aligning the bulky camera with the image takes several seconds, long enough to notice what's going on and put a stop to it if you wish. Even if the infringer somehow manages to take the time to line up their bulky camera and take a good shot in bad lighting, it's not really a problem if the painting is signed on the front. Your name is still getting out there, and at the end of the day, more people will know about you and your work. Commercial reproduction, despite being the main reason artist's cite for prohibiting photography, seems like a very unlikely possibility. It is far more likely that they would go to the nice well-lit professional shots on your website, or on the gallery's website to get those images. I know of a case where reproductions were being taken from a book about an artist's work. The pages were literally torn out, framed and sold as prints. Preventing infringement from your website is easy-upload low resolution images. But preventing infringement from a book? I'll have to work on solving that one. I'm sure there are reasons for photographing artworks that I haven't considered. I've looked at all the situations I know about for wanting to snap a few pictures of art, and I don't see any good reasons to prevent that kind of photographing and sharing from happening. Having people documenting and sharing images your work is a form of word-of-mouth advertising. It gets your name out there, raising awareness. That can only be a good thing. Having someone snap a picture to see if your work fits with their home may lead to a future sale. That's a good thing. Having someone commercially reproduce your work sucks. But it's so unlikely that they could get a usable photo from a gallery, I don't see it happening. I believe the benefits from the former vastly outweigh the risks of the latter. That's why I don't bother with any fancy image protection schemes on my website. I have yet to be convinced that it's worth the effort.

Why Reproductions Are Good for Art

Lately, I’ve spent a lot of time talking about why art can’t be photographed.
In this entry, I will ignore the issue of copyright, and taking pictures of art directly. Instead, I will talk about the reproduction of art in general. I will explain why I do not think that the reproduction of artworks is a bad thing. In fact, I will be arguing why I think that reproducing art is actually a very good thing.

Before I go forward with this argument, I would like to go back. Way back.
In the 1935 essay “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin wrote about the mechanical reproduction of art, and the damaging effect this had on tradition and value. Reproduction was seen as a threat to the authenticity of a piece of art. He made use of the word “aura” to describe this value.
Read the rest of this entry »

Lately, I've spent a lot of time talking about why art can't be photographed. In this entry, I will ignore the issue of copyright, and taking pictures of art directly. Instead, I will talk about the reproduction of art in general. I will explain why I do not think that the reproduction of artworks is a bad thing. In fact, I will be arguing why I think that reproducing art is actually a very good thing. Before I go forward with this argument, I would like to go back. Way back. In the 1935 essay "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", Walter Benjamin wrote about the mechanical reproduction of art, and the damaging effect this had on tradition and value. Reproduction was seen as a threat to the authenticity of a piece of art. He made use of the word "aura" to describe this value. The term 'aura' can be used metaphorically to describe what we, as an audience bring to an artwork. Our cultural experience and preconceptions shape how we experience art. Sentimental value can be attached to an object, and that value affects how we respond to it. 'Aura' can also be used to explain an object's history. A painting kept in one city absorbs pollution unique to that area, and traces of that pollution might remain embedded in the object forever. There could be a chip or crack in one corner, there might be a screw hole in the stretcher from a past framing job, or damage from that time where a crazed person threw acid at the work, or their could be historically inaccurate pigments from a series of minor restorations over the years, or fading caused by improper lighting or fugitive pigments. There are a number of things that can happen to an artwork over the course of it's existence. All these are part of the artwork's history. They become a part of that object. They tell us where a work has been, what it has gone through. They let us know that it is authentic. Reproductions don't have any of this history. This second definition of 'aura', the one dealing with an object's history is the one I believe Benjamin had in mind in his famous essay. "...that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. ...[T]he technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence." (I found the whole thing, translated to English right here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm) In print making and photography, there is plenty of room for interesting discussion on this topic, but as a painter, I am primarily concerned with painting, and in this medium, his argument on the damaging effects of reproduction does not hold up. A copy of something is on one hand a new object, it's a new thing made up of its own matter, while on the other hand, it's very much the same as the original, since they look identical. Looking at the copy creates a new history for the object, but a copy, having the same image as the original, is still related to that original object, which is off somewhere else, doing it's own thing, and this represents a huge change from tradition. I think I get what he is saying at this point, but I don't see how any of this actually damages the aura of an artwork. Not only do I not see it, but I also disagree with his opinion on this entirely. I believe that reproduction enhances the value of an artwork. Mechanical reproduction means that a work of art can be though of as two distinct things: a physical object, and an image. The physical object is scarce, while the image in infinite. Zero, one or a million reproductions can be made, but none of them will ever actually be that authentic original object. They are, and shall always be, just copies. But what good are these copies? I offer this challenge: ask a non-art person to name a famous painting. It can be anything, by any artist, from anywhere and at anytime in the world. Just name a painting. Any painting. What did they say? Did they answer with, "The Mona Lisa"? There is a very good chance that they did. It is often called the most famous painting in the world. It is also the most reproduced painting in the world. Another contender might be van Gogh's "Starry Night", which, according to overstockArt.com, is their best selling reproduction. It is actually in higher demand than the Mona Lisa. (Independent.co.uk) We have another very famous painting, and that painting also appears in countless reproductions. I find it interesting that the most well known paintings in the world are also the most reproduced. Images of the Mona Lisa, Starry Night, The Scream, and a host of other very famous works can be found on posters, postcards, calendars, screen savers, t-shirts, neck ties and coffee mugs. But far from damaging their 'aura', these reproductions have only seemed to enhance it. It's not 'just another Mona Lisa' people come to see at the Louvre; it's the Mona Lisa. It's the real, the original, the authentic Mona Lisa. Lesser known, but I would argue superior paintings, even those by the same artist will go unnoticed while people wait in line for a brief glimpse at this one underwhelming little painting. Why would anyone spend a good chunk of their time and money to see an image that they already know so well from reproductions? Compare these famous images with an art show by a relatively unknown local artist. After casually walking into the gallery, the images can be approached. There is no bullet proof glass separating the object from it's viewers; that painting is right there in front of you. You could just reach out and touch it (but please don't). No crowd is pushing and shoving, no guards in nice suits are watching. It's a much more calm, pleasant, and personal kind of experience. It's also a novel experience. What you are seeing is new, fresh, and likely unknown to the vast majority of the world. Why, you could be the very first person to really notice this painting. But, how often do these local shows by local artists evoke that same strong sense of giddy excitement that the old masters inspire? Why is seeing something that has been copied a thousand times so much more exciting than art that is new and unknown? Imagine yourself walking down the street, when suddenly, you notice that a very famous movie star has been sharing the sidewalk with you. They seem to be on their way to some sort of movie-star event, something that the regular people will probably never be invited too. What would your reaction be? Would you reach for a camera, or hunt for a pen and paper, or maybe call your friends and excitedly let them know who is standing next to you. Do you rush in for a handshake or autograph? Seeing a famous celebrity in person is a noteworthy event for many people. I've personally seen a small-town arena turn into something resembling a mosh-pit, all due to the presence of one very famous person. That same celebrity can be seen in the very movies they star in; they can be seen again and again, or even in slow motion, or a freeze frame if you wish. You can zoom in on them and get a clear image. Why is it so exciting when we get to see a celebrity in person? Movies, TV shows and tabloids build hype for the actors who star in them. Their image becomes very familiar to us. Even though we don't really know them, it almost feels like we do. On that rare event where we happen to catch a glimpse of the real thing, in the flesh, we are presented with the rare opportunity to enter into their world, and share a moment with them, and they also share a moment with us. And that's exciting. I believe that reproductions of famous paintings build hype for the original artwork in exactly the same way that the media builds hype for certain actors. If we didn't have the media plastering their face all over everything, they would just be another human being, doing a job and getting by in the world. If we didn't have the posters and t-shirts of these paintings, they would be just another canvas on a museum wall. There can be as many reproductions as there are people who want them; there is no limit to the number of times an image can be copied, but their will only ever be one original piece. Reproductions can be used to build interest in that original piece, they can be used to advertise that original piece. I don't believe for a second that reproductions harm the aura or magic that is contained within an original painting. Reproductions create the aura of authenticity and legitimacy in the original object. "It's been copied a hundred times already, so it must be good."

Good Ideas for Protecting Your Images

After my last entry, Bad Ideas for Protecting Your Images, you might be thinking that I am against the idea of artists protecting their work. Absolutely not. I am only against bad ideas that either won’t work, are likely cost far more than they are worth, or will irritate your audience and potentially drive potential collectors away. Most of the methods I criticized earlier have some sort of negative impact on the audience. They take away from a viewer’s ability to enjoy the work while giving them nothing extra in return. The image protection methods that I would encourage make life easier for viewers.

Best of all, my recommendations are fairly cheap, quick and practical.
Read the rest of this entry »

After my last entry, Bad Ideas for Protecting Your Images, you might be thinking that I am against the idea of artists protecting their work. Absolutely not. I am only against bad ideas that either won't work, are likely cost far more than they are worth, or will irritate your audience and potentially drive potential collectors away. Most of the methods I criticized earlier have some sort of negative impact on the audience. They take away from a viewer's ability to enjoy the work while giving them nothing extra in return. The image protection methods that I would encourage make life easier for viewers. Best of all, my recommendations are fairly cheap, quick and practical. 1. GOOD FILE NAMES When I am looking for inspiration, I like to browse art websites and download many of the samples provided, so I can look at or analyze them later on. Problems emerge when I download multiple files named "01.JPG". First of all, I'm lazy, so I will typically rename these "01a.JPG", 01b.JPG" "01c.JPG", and so on. This slows me down and frustrates me; it takes my mind away from enjoying the art and makes me focus on computer file-management stuff. That's not why I'm looking at art. This naming scheme also makes it very hard for me to identify the artist in the future. When the artists name is included in the file, I will remember that, and I might look for more of their work in the future. I am more likely to remember them, talk about them, or recommend them to others who are looking for cool art. If you check out any if the images in my own gallery, you will notice that the filename is usually something like this: "k_clements_paintingname.jpg" This way, my name is attached to the image, so if it does get passed around, at least their is a good chance of my name being remembered and passed around with the image. This, along with proper use of EXIF data turns file sharing into free word-of-mouth advertising. 2. EXIF DATA Embrace EXIF Data! EXIF is a little piece of metadata that is attached to your image files. It should be added automatically by a digital camera, or by any newer image editing software. Things like the time and date, camera settings, camera brand/model, and some other information are contained within the EXIF data. Be warned: devices with GPS functionality might record information about the location where the picture was taken. For privacy reasons, you might want to erase that part. My Nikon is programed to add "(c) 2010 Kyle Clements www.kyleclements.com" to each image that I take. (Well, actually, it's programmed to add "(c) 2008" to my images. I should probably get around to updating that.) With good EXIF data, even if the downloader chooses to rename the image for some reason, my name and a link to my personal site are still attached to the file. 3. FILE SIZE You can't print what you don't have. Print quality is limited by image resolution. Work simply cannot be reproduced or printed commercially if the resolution is too low. Therefore, if you are really worried about your images being downloaded and re-printed, only display low-resolution images on your site. My images are usually around 600 X 400. These sizes load fairly fast in a browser, even on slower connections, yet they are are big enough to allow the paintings to be seen clearly. They are also too small for prints larger than 3" X 4". It's a simple, free, and easy method for preventing my work from being printed out, and it makes life easier for the audience, because they don't have to wait for a massive image to load. New ideas and technologies will inevitably emerge, quickly rendering any list specific examples obsolete, so adopting a simple, technology-neutral attitude that can adapt with the times is critical. Before implementing any sort of image protection, ask yourself, "will this enhance a viewer's experience, or will it just get in their way?". If the answer is the latter, pass on it, and look for something else.

Bad Ideas for Protecting Your Images

The last several posts have been inspired by a conversation I had with several recent graduates at the 2010 OCAD grad show.
Their work was good, and I was interested in seeing more. When I asked if images of their work was available on their websites, I discovered that they both refused to show any samples of their work on-line due to fears of copyright infringement. This struck me as backwards. Hiding their art from the world seems like the exact opposite of what any young, emerging artist should want.

One of the artists said that he had every intension of making his work available, but he would only do this once he had figured out some technical copy-protection tools.
In this entry, I will discuss my objections to several different technical copy-restriction techniques, and propose some examples of what I think are better alternatives.
Read the rest of this entry »

The last several posts have been inspired by a conversation I had with several recent graduates at the 2010 OCAD grad show. Their work was good, and I was interested in seeing more. When I asked if images of their work was available on their websites, I discovered that they both refused to show any samples of their work on-line due to fears of copyright infringement. This struck me as backwards. Hiding their art from the world seems like the exact opposite of what any young, emerging artist should want. One of the artists said that he had every intension of making his work available, but he would only do this once he had figured out some technical copy-protection tools. In this entry, I will discuss my objections to several different technical copy-restriction techniques, and propose some examples of what I think are better alternatives. There are a number of technical solutions a worried artist could employ in their attempt to prevent infringement, but none of these methods actually work all that well to stop it. They can only make obtaining that content a little more inconvenient. Locked content gives me the impression that the artist is telling me, "I don't trust you, I think you are a thief". Frankly, I find that attitude from an artist insulting. If that's how they are, I quickly lose any interest in the work. Remember that line from Ricky Bobby in Talladega Nights, "If you're not first, you're last"? In the land of all things digital, this quote very much applies. If protection isn't 100% effective, then it's 0% effective. It only takes one person to break that protection for the whole world to have access. In an earlier entry, I used the analogy of pushing a giant boulder uphill to describe digital copy protection. It only takes one little slip, and it all comes rolling back right where it started. BAD IDEAS FOR PROTECTION 1. DISABLE RIGHT CLICK Once such method of making life difficult for copiers is disabling the 'right click' ability in the browser, so visitors to your website can't 'copy image' or 'save image as'. This is done by adding a little piece of javascript to the web page. This code 'hijacks' the typical right click action, making something else happen instead, like a pop-up window that says "This function has been disabled on this site". So, if you are worried about infringement, is disabling right click a good idea? Well, no. There are some problems with this: Javascript can be disabled in the browser's settings, and can also be blocked by popular plug-ins, such as No-Script. Older versions of Internet Explorer had a bug where the user could hold down the left button for several seconds, then click the right button, this would disable the 'right click' prevention, and the file could be downloaded with ease. After learning of this bug, some may be tempted to think, "But this bug is fixed on newer browsers". At this point I would like to draw your attention to the top right hand corner of your computer's keyboard. You might notice a button that's been hanging out with the 'scroll lock' 'Pause/Break' and other mostly-useless keys. The one I'm talking about is labelled 'Print screen'. And what does this 'Print Screen' button do? Why, it prints what's on the screen! The user can load any page, hit this button, and the image is saved to their desktop. While it might require some cropping later on, they still very much have a copy of that image that you fought so very hard to prevent from being copied. And, since this is digital, it only takes one person to go though this hassle, and they can share and distribute it with ease. Blocking the right-click ability used to be fairly common, but I am seeing less-and-less of it these days. I'm not sure if the reason for this is that people simply aren't blocking right-click anymore, or if the No-Script plugin I've installed is blocking this piece of javascript from working, (meaning the protection has been disabled) Either way, I'm glad I'm not seeing much of it these days, since I right-click fairly often as I navigate, so having that functionality disabled is very irritating and feels limiting. 2. WATERMARKS I am undecided on the issue of watermarks. I've seen them done well, and I've seen them ruin an image. A watermark covering a rather blank area can be edited out with ease, rendering it useless, while a watermark over a complex area is distracting, because it is very likely covering part of the image that the viewer would like to see. As a viewer, these kinds of watermarks turn me off. I won't go in too much detail, but I would suggest that watermarks, if used, should be kept subtle and as unobtrusive as possible. I'm ok with having your name appear in an image, but it shouldn't take over that image. 3. IMAGE PROTECTION SERVICES There are some far more sophisticated options available to the determined content-protectors these days. Once such service is Image Rights , which scours the web, looking for and notifying the image owner of any potential infringement, despite any cropping, resizing, or slight modifications made to the image. The homepage advertises a simple 3 step process: Upload your images to their site. They scan millions of websites looking for a match, then send you the reports. I do like how this does not take away from a user's ability to enjoy the work in any way, but I have objections to this as well. First, it's a little ironic that a service being offered to people who are concerned about their images being copied requires that they make copies of each image in order to protect them from being copied. These are paid services. For a successful late-career artist, something like this could be worthwhile. If prints are bringing in more than what they charge, and infringement is taking a significant chunk out of those earnings, then it might be worth considering something like this. I am not currently aware of any other brands offering a similar service, but at $10 to $40 dollars per month for this, the images had better be worth a good chunk of change. As I think about this service, there is one question that I keep coming back to: "is it worth the cost?" For many artists, that answer is likely 'no'. 4 INCLUDING A NOTICE Including a copyright notice with an artwork is one solution I've heard several photographers suggest. While it is important that people understand the copyright issues that surround an artwork, I just don't like this idea, because I've seen it executed so poorly so often. "You can't do this. You can't to that. If you want to do this, contact me and I might let you do it, but I might also demand that you pay me an additional fee" This just seems petty, like trying to squeeze blood from a stone. I want to deal with someone who has a passion for what they do, not someone who expects yet another paycheque every time you look at or think about the artwork. As a painter, I am somewhat protected from many reproduction issues. A photograph is very different from an original painting. The texture of the canvas and paint, the difference in luminosity and opacity, the intense pigment-based colour, all these qualities are unique to paint, and just can't be replicated in print without something being lost. But a copy of a photograph? Any photograph is just a copy of a negative or image file, what separates one photographic print from another? I can understand their concern. If you do chose to go down this route, I would suggest that the notice be worded very carefully. None of these protection methods actually work against those who are really determined to copy stuff, and it insults the the much larger segment of the audience that just wants to see your work. The copiers still get their copies, and the real fans just get pissed off. It's a lose-lose situation.