Hi Joe,

I moved from Scottsdale, Arizona, to California last summer, and brought an unfinished painting of Papago Buttes along with me.  I looked around for a photograph to help me finish the painting, and I found one that seems to be attributed to you on Wikipedia.  The shot helped me enormously, and I ended up finishing the painting and giving it to a friend.

The more I learn about artwork and photography, the more I realize that asking permission before using a photo, even when referring to it for painting, is the right thing to do.  I just wanted to be in touch to apologize for failing to do this, and to offer to email you a photograph of my finished painting.  I think you’re a good photographer and you helped me by sharing your image online.

Thanks,

Robert Collins

The photo that Robert used as a guide for his painting was this one:

Papago Buttes © Joe Flood

It’s a picture I took several years ago, during an April 2005 visit to Phoenix, where friends of mine lived for a while.  I thought it was a really interesting geological structure, so different from the green and gentle landscapes of the East Coast (where I live).  We had visited late in the day, when the light was particularly warm and nice.

And it was hot as hell.  I remember that much.

This was one of the first pictures I posted to Flickr.  I had purchased a DSLR, a Canon Digital Rebel, and was taking pictures of almost everything.  Digital had brought out my inner photographer.

I added the title Papago Buttes more for my benefit than anyone else.  I wanted to remember where these rocks were in case I went back.

At the time, I had chosen a Creative Commons Attribution license for all my photos, one that allowed anyone to use them long as I was credited.

The photo was reviewed on 10:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) by the FlickreviewR robot and added to Wikipedia’s image library.  The robot is a program that basically harvests images that are freely available in Flickr and confirms their availability and license.

This was all fine with me.  That’s why I chose the Creative Commons Attribution license – I liked my photo and was happy that other people used it.

I didn’t know that this photo was in Wikipedia. I found out after my picture of another Arizona landscape, Hole in the Rock, had been selected by an editor for the Papago Buttes Wikipedia page. I looked around Wikipedia and found a couple of my photos in the online encyclopedia.

This is all geeky and interesting but it’s not exactly art.  It’s fascinating look at some of the robotic and human processes that make the web possible.  I could wax rhapsodically about the power of crowds, the value of free or the democratization of content creation.  All worthy topics.

Yet, the part which really thrilled me was that my simple photo helped create a piece of analog art.  Paint on a canvas created by a human.  If you look at the photo and the artwork, there are some definite similarities:

Papago Buttes © Robert Collins

Papago Buttes © Joe Flood

The line between photo rights, remixing and creative use has become very blurry and controversial.  For example, the AP is suing Shepard Fairey over his apparent use of one of their photos.

Robert referenced this issue in his email:

The more I learn about artwork and photography, the more I realize that asking permission before using a photo, even when referring to it for painting, is the right thing to do.

My perspective:

1. I put the photo in the Creative Commons.  I wanted it to be used.
2. The painting is a brand-new creation, summoned from the ether by the artist, using his skills, experience and with my photo as one of many influences.  He selected the brushes, paint, canvas and created the work.
3. I’m thrilled.  It probably helps that I like the painting a lot but I’m really honored that my photo helped create this work of art.  Robert sent me a digital copy of the painting which I’m using as my desktop.

This event also underscores my belief that the Internet is a wonderful and unexploited opportunity for artists, photographers and writers.  When I took that photo at Papago Buttes on one hot April day, I had no idea that it would end up in Wikipedia and inspire a painting.  This photo doesn’t lie forgotten in a drawer.  Thanks to the web, it’s gone on to a life of its own.

Bookmark to:

Seeing how the world is rushing to adapt to the web, I had a practical question. Why doesn’t the government use the web to more efficiently accomplish its work? For example:

1. Why is there no actual Facebook for feds? Govloop (a social network for government employees) is a brilliant idea, a way for federal employees, contractors and other interested parties to communicate and collaborate. Why didn’t the federal government provide this tool (just a Ning social network) to its employees years ago? Think what a tremendous aid this would be to organizing and working together.

Why isn’t there, at the very least, a government-wide directory showing photos, titles and contact information?

Some have argued that there are legitimate privacy reasons for not providing this information to the public though it is the public that pays the salary of these civil servants. There’s a great call for transparency in government. Yet, like with taxes, it’s always transparency for someone else’s program – not yours!

2. Why isn’t there an online project management tool? So much of government work is managing projects – people, inputs, resources, deadlines, deliverables and so on. I’ve seen people use spreadsheets, Word docs, MS Project, Sharepoint, wikis and even crossed-out to do lists. Why doesn’t government adopt a tool like Basecamp (my fav), a web-based project management tool?

The objection to this is that big government likes to put things behind firewalls. A service, like Basecamp, that exists outside of the secure government environment is almost impossible to get approved.

3. Why is so much of government work done on paper? Reimbursements, training requests and purchases so often require the walking around of paper forms and the collection of signatures. Think how much more efficient government would be if these forms were made electronic.

The argument against this is that government regulations require the keeping of records on paper. These rules need to be updated; we’re no longer using typewriters.

4. Why doesn’t government publish all of its photos on Flickr? Shirky lists Flickr as a great example of crowd-sourcing, where amateurs post and tag exponentially more photos than a newspaper or magazine would publish. What if you could visit a National Park Service page and see countless NPS and amateur photos of Yellowstone, all carefully geotagged?

This is an area where the federal government is experimenting. EPA has an Earth Day photo contest in Flickr and the Library of Congress has its own Flickr photostream.

5. Why can’t I just click once to apply for a government job, like I can do on Monster? USAJOBS, with its complicated password requirements, lengthy disclaimers, pages of explanations to wade through, laborious KSAs to complete and endless duplication, is a usability nightmare. And this is how potential employees are introduced to government.

It’s not just the technology. The job descriptions are the very antithesis of the plain language that government aims to promote. Here’s the first line from a recent job announcement for a Program Analyst: 

At the full performance GS-13 level, establishes and administers assigned administrative programs in accordance with Department requirements and other related directives.

Umm, this is a little vague.

For the most part, the ideas I listed above are not revolutionary. This is not Web 2.0. Online directories, web-based forms, improved usability, one-click applications – this is Web 1.0, from the 1990s. Investing in these common-sense processes would make government more efficient, effective and creative.

Bookmark to: