Russian Soldier on Red Square, Moscow. With Lytro you could focus on the blue baret instead. But what's the point?

Something exciting seemed to happen in photography land. What if you could decide on the focus of an image afterwards?

That sounded like crazy, but Lytro used some existing technical possibilities for a new way of looking at light. They posted some flash movies where you can click on an out of focus part of an image which automagically would refocus on that spot.

Or least it appeared so.

For several months the photographers around the world were made curious: what would the camera be, would it cost $20,000? What could I do with these images? Which lens system will it use?

This week the announcement was made: the Lytro camera is out and for sale for $399 (8gb storage) or $499 (16bg storage).

From their press release:

Unlike conventional cameras, the Lytro light field camera captures all the rays of light in a scene, providing new capabilities never before possible, such as the ability to focus a picture after it’s taken. The pocket-sized camera, which offers a powerful 8x optical zoom and f/2 lens in an iconic design, creates interactive ―living pictures‖ that can be endlessly refocused. The camera is available in two models and three colors, starting at $399

It is clear from the comments on the Lytro blog that many if not most potential users have been very disappointed.

Conclusion: will I buy one?

Chinese border guard at Nepal -Tibet border. I wanted the background to be blurry, it is part of the story and do not want the viewer to refocus.

I think it will be a nice gadget. But in the end of course the images are what make the difference and maybe there is the biggest question mark for now. I checked plenty of images on the Lytro Image gallery (once I figured out I needed to allow flash in my browser to actually see something), but have seen absolutely zero nice images that made me think: wow, I need that.

I have seen no Lytro examples that have more than 3 or 4 different planes of focus, definitely not infinite, it almost seems like 4 different focuses images were merged in a simple flash file. And -maybe the worst-: none of the examples is actually sharp/in focus at all, in any part and at any ‘re-focus point’.

Besides all the pointless omissions (no windows software, no useful tech info, no replaceable battery or memory – can anyone see some Mac parallels there?), I just don’t see the point of the system as it is now.

I don’t want others to embed my photo’s in their Facebook page anyway, but definitely don’t want them to re-focus something that I focused on purpose. It can make a great image useless because suddenly the dreamy bokeh turns out to be your aunt picking her nose. No Thanks. What if you want everything to be in focus? The only fun way this could work is probably in porn, by hiding naked people in bushes, giving the FaceBook moderators a hard time (no pun intended).

As a user & photographer, I want to be able to print full size prints; I do not want to pay to have some small images on the Lytro site or else have to show how I can refocus on the 4cm Lytro screen itself. Half the people won’t even be able to tell that something is or is not in focus at that size.

It is a bit unfair to review something I have not even touched, let alone used. I welcome new technology and probably down the line a professional variation will get my creativity going. Let’s wait what version 2 brings unless the marketeers of Lytro have killed it before that by limiting the system, its practical usage or by some copyright and/or advertising scandals.

Photography is a profession, we need to make a living and websites and cameras cannot be bought with ‘credits’. Photographers are often helping out people who need it, but any charity or non-profit that pays thousands of dollars in salary to each member of their management team (would they agree to work for ‘credit’?), can also afford to pay for photography.

Tony Wu has written a standard answer down that can be sent by photographers, which covers everything:

Text by Tony Wu, under CC license (images are all rights reserved and cannot be copied). See original and undersigned photographers here.

Dear potential photo buyer,

Wedding photographer on the beach in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

If you have been directed to this page, it is likely that you have requested the use of an image or images for free or minimal compensation.

As professional photographers, we receive requests for free images on a regular basis. In a perfect world, each of us would love to be able to respond in a positive manner and assist, especially with projects or efforts related to areas such as education, social issues, and conservation of natural resources. It is fair to say that in many cases, we wish we had the time and resources to do more to assist than just send photographs.

Unfortunately, such are the practicalities of life that we are often unable to respond, or that when we do, our replies are brief and do not convey an adequate sense of the reasons underlying our response.

Russian woman selling fruit on the street. Would she accept a 'credit'?

Circumstances vary for each situation, but we have found that there are a number of recurring themes, which we have set out below with the objective of communicating more clearly with you, and hopefully avoiding misunderstandings or unintentionally engendering ill will.

Please take the following points in the constructive manner in which they are intended. We certainly hope that after you have had a chance to read this, we will be able to talk again and establish a mutually beneficial working relationship.

Photographs Are Our Livelihood

Creating compelling images is the way we make our living. If we give away our images for free, or spend too much time responding to requests for free images, we cannot make a living.

We Do Support Worthy Causes With Images

Tibetan butcher selling yak meat.

Most of us do contribute photographs, sometimes more, to support certain causes.

In many cases, we may have participated directly in projects that we support with images, or we may have a pre-existing personal relationship with key people involved with the efforts concerned.

In other words, each of us can and does provide images without compensation on a selective basis.

We Have Time Constraints

Making a leap from such selective support to responding positively to every request we get for free photographs, however, is impractical, if for no other reason than the substantial amount of time required to respond to requests, exchange correspondence, prepare and send files, and then follow-up to find out how our images were used and what objectives, if any, were achieved. It takes a lot of time to respond to requests, and time is always in short supply.

Pleas of “We Have No Money” Are Often Difficult to Fathom

Hellomoney! Begging kids in Tibet.

The primary rationale provided in nearly all requests for free photographs is budgetary constraint, meaning that the requestor pleads a lack of funds.

Such requests frequently originate from organisations with a lot of cash on hand, whether they be publicly listed companies, government or quasi-government agencies, or even NGOs.

Often, it is a simple matter of taking a look at a public filing or other similar disclosure document to see that the entity concerned has access to significant funding, certainly more than enough to pay photographers a reasonable fee should they choose to do so.

To make matters worse, it is apparent that all too often, of all the parties involved in a project or particular effort, photographers are the only ones being asked to work for free. Everyone else gets paid.

Given considerations like this, you can perhaps understand why we frequently feel slighted when we are told that: “We have no money.” Such claims can come across as a cynical ploy intended to take advantage of gullible individuals.

We Have Real Budget Constraints

Artist in Pakistan finishing the interior of a truck. He also has no time for unpaid work.

With some exceptions, photography is not a highly remunerative profession. We have chosen this path in large part due to the passion we have for visual communication, visual art, and the subject matters in which we specialise.

The substantial increase in photographs available via the internet in recent years, coupled with reduced budgets of many photo buyers, means that our already meager incomes have come under additional strain.

Moreover, being a professional photographer involves significant monetary investment.

Our profession is by nature equipment-intensive. We need to buy cameras, lenses, computers, software, storage devices, and more on a regular basis.

Things break and need to be repaired. We need back-ups of all our data, as one ill-placed cup of coffee could literally erase years of work.

For all of us, investment in essential hardware and software entails thousands of dollars a year, as we need to stay current with new technology and best practices.

Girl selling goods in train, India. Some people need to invest in travel to make some money.

In addition, travel is a big part of many of our businesses. We must spend a lot of money on transportation, lodging and other travel-related costs.

And of course, perhaps most importantly, there is a substantial sum associated with the time and experience we have invested to become proficient at what we do, as well as the personal risks we often take.

Taking snapshots may only involve pressing the camera shutter release, but creating images requires skill, experience and judgement.

So the bottom line is that although we certainly understand and can sympathise with budget constraints, from a practical point of view, we simply cannot afford to subsidise everyone who asks.

Getting “Credit” Doesn’t Mean Much

Part and parcel with requests for free images premised on budgetary constraints is often the promise of providing “credit” and “exposure”, in the form or a watermark, link, or perhaps even a specific mention, as a form of compensation in lieu of commercial remuneration.

There are two major problems with this.

Paulo calling from his beach office in Zanzibar. He's not making his art for just a credit, either.

First, getting credit isn’t compensation. We did, after all, create the images concerned, so credit is automatic. It is not something that we hope a third party will be kind enough to grant us.

Second, credit doesn’t pay bills. As we hopefully made clear above, we work hard to make the money required to reinvest in our photographic equipment and to cover related business expenses. On top of that, we need to make enough to pay for basic necessities like food, housing, transportation, etc.

In short, receiving credit for an image we created is a given, not compensation, and credit is not a substitute for payment.

“You Are The Only Photographer Being Unreasonable”

Woman cleaning fish, Rio Napo, Peru.

When we do have time to engage in correspondence with people and entities who request free photos, the dialogue sometimes degenerates into an agitated statement directed toward us, asserting in essence that all other photographers the person or entity has contacted are more than delighted to provide photos for free, and that somehow, we are “the only photographer being unreasonable”.

We know that is not true.

We also know that no reasonable and competent photographer would agree to unreasonable conditions. We do allow for the fact that some inexperienced photographers or people who happen to own cameras may indeed agree to work for free, but as the folk wisdom goes: “You get what you pay for.”

Please Follow-Up

Nepali girl selling souvenirs at Kathmandu market

One other experience we have in common is that when we do provide photographs for free, we often do not receive updates, feedback or any other form of follow-up letting us know how the event or project unfolded, what goals (if any) were achieved, and what good (if any) our photos did.

All too often, we don’t even get responses to emails we send to follow-up, until, of course, the next time that someone wants free photographs.

In instances where we do agree to work for free, please have the courtesy to follow-up and let us know how things went.

A little consideration will go a long way in making us feel more inclined to take time to provide additional images in the future.

Wrap Up

We hope that the above points help elucidate why the relevant photographer listed below has sent you to this link. All of us are dedicated professionals, and we would be happy to work with you to move forward in a mutually beneficial manner.

(text only, images are all rights reserved).

Note to photographers: You can use the above text (not the images) under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Please ensure that you include a link to this page and the original page. Text by Tony Wu.

The photos above are to illustrate that there are hard-working and underpaid people all over the world, that everybody is trying to get by in their own way. Of course the situation of even the poorest western photographer is incomparable to that of any of the people above, as they normally have no choice whether to work for free or to do what they want.

Click the photos to read & learn more about their lives, work & home on the ExposedPlanet photoblog.

Climbers hugging on the summit of Pico de Orizaba, Mexico. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

It’s even worse

Many of you have read my previous article, “Why sharing photos on Facebook is bad for you“, and have learned that sharing your photos is not just bad for you, but also for your friends and especially for your photography business. Check it out first if you have not done so. I will wait a moment here.

Welcome back. That post got re-tweeted a lot (thanks!) and I got a few comments that made me check my websites and dig even deeper (thank you Matthew, Kerry, Tim and Rob) and it appears the situation is even worse than imagined. My apologies for the following long post involving lots of assumptions and legal stuff. But I think it is important to get this out in the open.

To lighten it up a little, I have added some more cheerful images (you can click on them to go to a larger version on the ExposedPlanet photoblog for details, exif info and comments).

Like this? Please ReTweet!

Ps: all images are mine and link to larger versions on ExposedPlanet.com photoblog. They are available as print, free eCard or commercial/editorial licensing. Or just enjoy them and read the thoughts behind the pictures as well as technical info for photographers!

But first, read and weep:

In defense of Facebook

Facebook is a company that is worth billions. Well done. Unfortunately, as always this attracts all kinds of idiots and lazies looking for easy money as they are too stupid to think of a good idea of their own. Especially in the US it is customary to sue for anything you want, which is a pain in the behind for any company and individual. I am positive that there are dozens of people currently scheming to set up Facebook by testing the legal limits, placing ‘bad’ pictures of themselves through friends and then blaming FB for it.

Lone hiker above the Horseshoe Bend of the colorado river. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

FB needs a strong defense against this, and also to allow FB users to share links, comment on each other’s photos and do all things that makes FB a successful social tool. I totally agree that they keep it strict to avoid problems rather than fixing them.

But that does not mean that they need to wipe out everybody else’s rights like Monsanto’s toxic chemicals on a corn field. Yes, it will do the job, but meanwhile destructing everything else.

I am a photographer and no IP lawyer, but it seems to me that there is no reason to be able to ‘sublicense’ and ‘transfer’ your IP content ‘worldwide’ ‘royalty free’, while using your private content to show advertisements to your friends unless you opt out of this, while you never get paid for it.

This is not protecting them, just increasing their market value. And as I pointed out, these terms contradict the terms all stock photographers sign for with their stock company, putting them at legal risk.

Disclaimer: do what you want with this information on this blog, but don’t blame me for either taking your pictures off or leaving them on FB. maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right. Surely you should be able to decide for yourself what to do. First, let’s dig a bit deeper in the legal mess of the rest of the  Terms.

Why Low resolution pictures are just as bad.

The first question from Matthew was:

“What about uploading low-res 600px images? Maybe with a watermark?

Sure they could still possibly use them for small FB ads (someone would have to go to the trouble of erasing the watermark), but the quality wouldn’t be good enough for bigger types of sales…”

Maasai child with mother, Tanzania. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

First of all: Low resolution and/or watermarked pix are needed everywhere online to prevent illegal use of your images on any website, even your own. Even if the website (like Flickr) is not ‘dirty’ as Facebook, their visitors could be. So never upload any high resolution versions anywhere on a public site.

I have not read Flickr’s terms of service in detail, but I am sure they will deny responsibility (and rightfully so) if your public supersize images are being abused as anybody can copy them. Don’t blame anybody else for being careless yourself. It’s like leaving all your valuables on the front lawn: some people will just pass and admire them, others will just take them and run. Only difference is that online your things can be taken over and over again.

Problem is that FB can _legally_ use all images, so even low res ones. I think the chances are very small, but I just don’t want this to ever happen and don’t want even the possibility (plus the fact that I sell to stock agencies, which would mean breach of contract with them!). So I have zero photos on Facebook.

What about sharing thumbnails of pictures hosted on Flickr and elsewhere?

Kerry reacted and mentioned:

“What I do use however is flickr, which I have linked to my fb account so it tells people I’ve updated my photostream and often puts a little thumbnail of the photo. Please could you tell me what this could mean in terms of what you’ve described above? “

Cyclist cycling in the Oregon fog at the Pacific coast. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

First of all, Facebook would still be very happy with small pictures, as their current ads system is based on that, they can promote a product and have your name under it and your profile picture (or any other picture you shared). So thumbnails would be just perfect for them.

I replied:

Flickr itself is much more ethical than FB as they do not claim any licensing rights on your photos, so it is good to post photos there (just do not share any high resolution images publicly).  As far as posting links with thumbnails (what is what you are basically describing) I would think that this would not be any problem, as FB could never know if you are posting your own intellectual property or IP from someone else.

If you would upload the thumbnails to your photo album, they then would get all the rights for sure. Again, I am a photographer, not a lawyer and do not know the legal background of the “in connection with FB” part of their terms means. But they lost me long before that with their sneaky terms… They clearly can’t be trusted, so I won’t.

Kids in Northen Belize. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

I think you are both correct and that is why I had started this follow-up post: it is weird and not reasonable at all. But those are not legally accepted terms (else there would be no senseless suing).

Protecting Other People’s Rights

We respect other people’s rights, and expect you to do the same.

1. You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law.
2. We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement.
3. We will provide you with tools to help you protect your intellectual property rights. To learn more, visit our How to Report Claims of Intellectual Property Infringement page.
4. If we remove your content for infringing someone else’s copyright, and you believe we removed it by mistake, we will provide you with an opportunity to appeal.
5. If you repeatedly infringe other people’s intellectual property rights, we will disable your account when appropriate.
6. You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Wall and 32665), or any confusingly similar marks, without our written permission.
7. If you collect information from users, you will: obtain their consent, make it clear you (and not Facebook) are the one collecting their information, and post a privacy policy explaining what information you collect and how you will use it.
8. You will not post anyone’s identification documents or sensitive financial information on Facebook.
9. You will not tag users or send email invitations to non-users without their consent.

So, what does this really mean? I translate the above loosely as:

“You are responsible for all problems resulting from you likely breaking the law as a result of normal behaviour under our crazy terms. It is your responsibility to get legal permissions for things that you did not know that break the law, even if it is the direct result of our terms”

They basically take no responsibility for anything….

But wait, there is more

So it would be better to have your own website and have a share button instead of posting on FB?

The plot thickens.

1. 8: Special Provisions Applicable to Share Links If you include our Share Link button on your website, the following additional terms apply to you:
   1. We give you permission to use Facebook’s Share Link button so that users can post links or content from your website on Facebook.
   2. You give us permission to use and allow others to use such links and content on Facebook.
   3. You will not place a Share Link button on any page containing content that would violate this Statement if posted on Facebook.

Indian warning, don't get your shoes stolen. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

Guess what? Yes, they seem to claim all rights from all websites that have Share (and other FB) buttons and applications. And if they cannot legally claim the content? Then they still do and blame you for offering the button while you shouldn’t have. They are not responsible for anything.

One more quote from the Facebook terms page for developers and web-masters. I have taken out some less offensive parts (numbers will no longer correspond). Just to rub your nose in it:

1. 9: Special Provisions Applicable to Developers/Operators of Applications and Websites If you are a developer or operator of a Platform application or website, the following additional terms apply to you:
   1. You are responsible for your application and its content and all uses you make of Platform. (…)
   2. Your access to and use of data you receive from Facebook, will be limited as follows:
      • You will only request data you need to operate your application.
      • You will have a privacy policy that tells users what user data you are going to use and how you will use, display, share, or transfer that data and you will include your privacy policy URL in the Developer Application.
      • You will delete all data you receive from us concerning a user if the user asks you to do so, and will provide a mechanism for users to make such a request.
      • You will not directly or indirectly transfer any data you receive from us to (or use such data in connection with) any ad network, ad exchange, data broker, or other advertising related toolset, even if a user consents to that transfer or use.
      • You will not sell user data.  If you are acquired by or merge with a third party, you can continue to use user data within your application, but you cannot transfer user data outside of your application.
      • We can require you to delete user data if you use it in a way that we determine is inconsistent with users’ expectations.
      • We can limit your access to data.
      • You will comply with all other restrictions contained in our Facebook Platform Policies.
   3. You will not give us information that you independently collect from a user or a user’s content without that user’s consent.
   4. You will make it easy for users to remove or disconnect from your application.
   5. You will make it easy for users to contact you. We can also share your email address with users and others claiming that you have infringed or otherwise violated their rights.
   6. You will comply with all applicable laws. In particular you will (if applicable):
      1. have a policy for removing infringing content and terminating repeat infringers that complies with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
      2. comply with the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), and obtain any opt-in consent necessary from users so that user data subject to the VPPA may be shared on Facebook.  You represent that any disclosure to us will not be incidental to the ordinary course of your business.
   7. We do not guarantee that Platform will always be free.
   8. You give us all rights necessary to enable your application to work with Facebook, including the right to incorporate content and information you provide to us into streams, profiles, and user action stories.
   9. You give us the right to link to or frame your application, and place content, including ads, around your application.
   10. We can analyze your application, content, and data for any purpose, including commercial (such as for targeting the delivery of advertisements and indexing content for search).
   11. We can create applications that offer similar features and services to, or otherwise compete with, your application.

Tibetan kid showing peace sign. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

Note that I left some less important parts out, it is mixed with a lot of rules explaining how FB can legally mess with developers of applications, which are horrible enough, but not the subject here.

The main gist is: Website owners and application developers are responsible for all that FB can do and they can’t. You need to comply with all laws, so FB doesn’t have to. If your application is good, FB can and might copy it.

And in case it was not clear that your name and profile picture can be used as well as all content, FB is nice enough to literally spell it out:

10: About Advertisements and Other Commercial Content Served or Enhanced by Facebook

1. Our goal is to deliver ads that are not only valuable to advertisers, but also valuable to you. In order to do that, you agree to the following: 

   1. You can use your privacy settings to limit how your name and profile picture may be associated with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. You give us permission to use your name and profile picture in connection with that content, subject to the limits you place.
   2. We do not give your content or information to advertisers without your consent.
   3. You understand that we may not always identify paid services and communications as such

So you need to state that you do not want this. And likely, “without your consent” does not mean anything as you already signed all rights to all intellectual property away to begin with.

But what about just using a share/like button? Legally, it depends how you define things…

Check out the definitions:

1. Definitions
   1. 

      Chinese borderguard thinking, friendship bridge, border Tibet-Nepal. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

      By “Facebook” we mean the features and services we make available, including through (a) our website at www.facebook.com and any other Facebook branded or co-branded websites (including sub-domains, international versions, widgets, and mobile versions); (b) our Platform; (c) social plugins such as the like button, the share button and other similar offerings and (d) other media, software (such as a toolbar), devices, or networks now existing or later developed.

   2. By “Platform” we mean a set of APIs and services that enable others, including application developers and website operators, to retrieve data from Facebook or provide data to us.
   3. By “information” we mean facts and other information about you, including actions you take.
   4. By “content” we mean anything you post on Facebook that would not be included in the definition of “information.”
   5. By “data” we mean content and information that third parties can retrieve from Facebook or provide to Facebook through Platform.
   6. By “post” we mean post on Facebook or otherwise make available to us (such as by using an application).
   7. By “use” we mean use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of.

My personal translation, per number:

1) & 2): By having a share or like button on your website you and your website are part of these insane Facebook terms

3) & 4) & 6): Everything you do and/or share on Facebook or any other website with Facebook content, Facebook owns.

7): We can make money of you however we feel like.

What is your translation?

But…

But what if the website owner is not a Facebook user, but just uses the buttons to promote content? Too bad, it falls under the definitions above.

But what if he has content he cannot legally give the rights away of, like user-posted content, or images of people without model releases? You should have thought of that before allowing FB to use all they want in any way they want. You apparently did this the moment you added a ‘share/like’ button or any other FB application like a list of friends etc.

But is this legal? Hey, you accepted the terms by signing up and therefore have signed off on your life. To rub it in and make it legal, some final quotes from the terms page:

1. 18: Other
   1. 

      Young monk in Nepal waiting for his turn to bang the drum. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

      This Statement makes up the entire agreement between the parties regarding Facebook, and supersedes any prior agreements.

   2. If any portion of this Statement is found to be unenforceable, the remaining portion will remain in full force and effect.
   3. If we fail to enforce any of this Statement, it will not be considered a waiver.
   4. You will not transfer any of your rights or obligations under this Statement to anyone else without our consent.
   5. All of our rights and obligations under this Statement are freely assignable by us in connection with a merger, acquisition, or sale of assets, or by operation of law or otherwise.
   6. Nothing in this Statement shall prevent us from complying with the law.
   7. This Statement does not confer any third party beneficiary rights.
   8. You will comply with all applicable laws when using or accessing Facebook.

What? Translated in human speak:

1): We decide what you have signed for even if it was different at the time of signing

2) & 3) & 6): even if we doing illegal things, we are still legal.

4) & 5) & 7): You are responsible for all you do and can never blame anybody else, while others we abuse can blame you. Meanwhile we can sell all your data, intellectual property, private items and all rights and obligations to anybody that wants to buy our shares.

And if we don’t agree?

Well, then you can just terminate the agreement. Or can you? Facebook can, but can you as well?

Termination If you violate the letter or spirit of this Statement, or otherwise create risk or possible legal exposure for us, we can stop providing all or part of Facebook to you. We will notify you by email or at the next time you attempt to access your account. You may also delete your account or disable your application at any time. In all such cases, this Statement shall terminate, but the following provisions will still apply: 2.2, 2.4, 3-5, 8.2, 9.1-9.3, 9.9, 9.10, 9.13, 9.15, 9.18, 10.3, 11.2, 11.5, 11.6, 11.9, 11.12, 11.13, and 14-18.

3 Nepali kids in the Khumbu valley, early morning. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

Yeah, yeah, we get it. Whatever you do wrong, it is our fault as by acting reasonably, any FB user will put FB at legal risk due to these insane terms & conditions.

You can block us from accessing our data, while you can still keep on using it in whatever way you like. At least we have a right to dispute. Or have we?

Disputes

1. You will resolve any claim, cause of action or dispute (“claim”) you have with us arising out of or relating to this Statement or Facebook exclusively in a state or federal court located in Santa Clara County. The laws of the State of California will govern this Statement, as well as any claim that might arise between you and us, without regard to conflict of law provisions. You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the courts located in Santa Clara County, California for the purpose of litigating all such claims.
2. If anyone brings a claim against us related to your actions, content or information on Facebook, you will indemnify and hold us harmless from and against all damages, losses, and expenses of any kind (including reasonable legal fees and costs) related to such claim.
   1. WE TRY TO KEEP FACEBOOK UP, BUG-FREE, AND SAFE, BUT YOU USE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK.
   2. WE ARE PROVIDING FACEBOOK “AS IS” WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
   3. WE DO NOT GUARANTEE THAT FACEBOOK WILL BE SAFE OR SECURE.
   4. FACEBOOK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS, CONTENT, INFORMATION, OR DATA OF THIRD PARTIES, AND YOU RELEASE US, OUR DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY CLAIMS AND DAMAGES, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH ANY CLAIM YOU HAVE AGAINST ANY SUCH THIRD PARTIES.
   5. IF YOU ARE A CALIFORNIA RESIDENT, YOU WAIVE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §1542, WHICH SAYS: “A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.”
   6. WE WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY LOST PROFITS OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS STATEMENT OR FACEBOOK, EVEN IF WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
   7. OUR AGGREGATE LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THIS STATEMENT OR FACEBOOK WILL NOT EXCEED THE GREATER OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100) OR THE AMOUNT YOU HAVE PAID US IN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS.
   8. APPLICABLE LAW MAY NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY OR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. IN SUCH CASES, FACEBOOK’S LIABILITY WILL BE LIMITED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.

Flying kid in Stone Town, Zanzibar. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

Hahahahaha.

So if you have complaints, you need to go to a Californian court, but you cannot claim the Californian laws protecting you. Facebook is not responsible for anything, you for everything (yeah, yeah, we get it).

If you manage to hire more lawyers than FB and FB is found guilty of illegal activity after all, then you can claim a maximum of $100.

That is, if you have paid that amount to FB, free users can claim nothing, does not matter if they lost all rights to all photos and content, had their friends and family abused online and have lost their privacy forever.

How about that?

The bottom line:

You are paranoid and over reacting? Facebook is a wonderful marketing tool.

Rob commented:

But I wonder: Is that enough? The conundrum is that many photographers feel that FB is an effective venue for marketing their work, and yet they freely sign away their rights when they don’t read the Terms. Without an established presence on FB — however minimal — I do feel as though I’m missing some action.

Maybe and really? Of course FB is the perfect way to see what your ex-girlfriends are up to, how that bully from high-school has gotten comfortably fat and even some useful social features. But marketing?

There are quite a few posts popping up about the lack of any success stories of Facebook marketeers. Like for regular users, for business it is mostly a waste of time and resources. Show me somebody who actually improved their marketing and sales through Facebook without legally exposing himself as explained above. And I do not mean any teenage pop idols. Don’t forget the threats to photography business I outlined in part one. This is a photography blog and aimed at photographers. But even non-photographers should worry about their privacy

As mentioned above I realize that also FB must protect themselves from the trigger-happy sue-ers out there. It must be a minefield to collect so much info and intellectual property and of course they are careful. But by claiming all rights and disclaiming all responsibilities, they crossed too many unneeded lines. They can do their business without ruining ours, there seems to be plenty of legal space for that.

Frankly I do not think that your images will ever be abused as there are simply too many (and if so, that you ever will find out). It’s not the little fish they are after, but the ones with quality content and those with thousands of friends: those they can target, using your quality content for free.

Globalisation(8) Coca cola drinking boy in Tibet. (c) Harry Kikstra, ExposedPlanet.com

Business = money. The only success story on FB is FB itself and some of its partners like Zynga, the company that made farmville etc. Good for them.

You should wonder why Facebook is valued billions of $$$. Do they produce iPods like Apple? No. Do they make an operating system like Microsoft? Nope.

Facebook’s assets are 90% you and your content and 10% technology, though it likely is more you.

Chances are very slim that they will try to beat Getty in the stock business. But every image you add to FB, adds to their value. And you can never be sure what happens in the future, especially not as they are probably planning to go public.

I guess the bottom line is:

1. – Do you want to have any risk that any of your images are being used without you knowing and do you want to accept the legal consequences of that as you are the one to blame?
2. – And do you really trust a company that clearly is misleading and even though they might not abuse your trust, they could if they want and get away with it?

It’s like signing that contract at the local car dealer. What if there was a small print that said that if you sign once, your signature could be used for any blank contract in the future and you would be legally responsible for any resulting problem or liabilities? That would be absurd right? And you know the guys running the dealership, so it will likely not happen right?

Yes, you are probably right, probably not. But it is what FB does. Partly to protect themselves, but I do not just want to have even 0.001% risk and I definitely do not want to do any business with a company that treats their customers and suppliers with such contempt.

Oh and if you ‘Like’ this post, please Re-Tweet, Stumble, Digg or whatever it. Sorry, no more ‘Like’ button.

Ps: all images are mine and link to larger versions on ExposedPlanet.com photoblog. They are available as print, free eCard or commercial/editorial licensing. Or just enjoy them and read the thoughts behind the pictures as well as technical info for photographers!

I don’t spend much time on Facebook. It uses my precious time, I get tired of blocking more applications and updating my notification settings.

Harpy Eagle, the largest eagle in the world. FB is a bird of prey.

Most of all, I don’t like the privacy issues but for photographers there is something even worse.

This article will detail the terms you signed for, what could happen with your images and why you could be breaking the law by uploading your wedding pictures to Facebook or even by sharing pictures you are selling through stock Agencies like Getty.

I am not a lawyer and some of the following might be incorrect in a legal sense. But most of it is clear to anybody. Read and shiver:

Ps: all images are mine and link to larger versions on ExposedPlanet.com photoblog. They are available as print, free eCard or commercial/editorial licensing. Or just enjoy them and read the thoughts behind it as well as technical info for photographers!

Signing your rights and income away without knowing

While changing yet another notification setting (No more emails for anything!), I noticed this FB message:

A Note About Your Photos
There is a false rumor circulating that Facebook is changing who owns your private photos. You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook. Learn More

That’s reassuring, right? Wrong. “Learn more” linked to the FB terms page, which states something much different:

Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.

Young Masai calling from the beach Zanzibar. Facebook gets its free content from all over the world.

That sounds good, right? Of course, you own all the content, they could not state otherwise, as in the case of intellectual property rights, a photo is yours the moment you take it. This includes the copyright.
And yes, you can tell FB NOT to use your photos for advertising purposes through their apps.

But wait, can you really? Here is what is next in the terms, a tiny ‘addition’:

In addition:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (“IP content”), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

So what does this mean?

In short: Facebook can do everything it wants and can legally do with your photos, videos, stories and everything else you might be able to add. Everything? Yes, everything.

For example, the above covers:

• – Facebook can sell your pictures and stories to anybody (‘transferable’)
• – They do not need to pay you for this, while they can charge what ever they want (‘royalty free’)
• – They can license your images to anybody else, who also can sell your images. (‘sub-licensable’)
• – They can do this all over the world (‘Worldwide license’)
• – Even if you have deleted your photos, if you have ever shared any of it (which I think you do by default), they can still do the above. Forever.

Oops.

So that cute photo of your baby? Yes, it could be sold by FB to a news agency doing a story about children. That nice sunset photo? It could be sold to Getty who can sub-license it and FB will get paid for every use of it (commercial use included). And guess what? They do not have to pay you anything, FB gets all income for it, you zero.

It mentions ‘in connection with’. What does that mean? I do not know. It could mean that this is true as well for any site where you signed in using your FB credentials, so even off FB you are not safe.

Model releases

FB likely knows a small catch: of course they state that you own your images, as a photographer by law has the copyrights to all his images, even if he signs the commercial rights away by adding them to Facebook.

Climbers on their way to North Col of Everest. I need model releases of all climbers in order to use sell this as stock (I can sell as art without it)

But the people in the pictures also have rights! That is why in order to sell an image to Getty or Corbis or Alamy or any other stock agency, you need a so-called ‘Model-Release’ (and actually for a lot of places like houses you need a ‘property release’ as well).

This model release needs to be signed by the model(s) in the picture, even when they are not clearly recognizable, so also when shot from behind or even when just a hand is in the photo. Without the release the photographer can still make posters, write books, have expositions etc (to promote the artist) and even sell the image for editorial use (current news, background stories), but he cannot license it for commercial usage.

This is to protect the model for being ‘used’ to promote something (s)he might not agree with and in places (s)he might not want to be associated with. Otherwise that bedroom shot of your girlfriend could be used in banners advocating porn sites, your vegetarian baby could be used to promote beef-flavoured processed babyfood etc.

Facebook is not a stock agency. Yet.

If FB would be really the devil, they could have put the requirement for model releases in the terms as well. This is what stock agencies do: they want a legal stick to hit you with in case a model later claims that (s)he never gave permission to use the photo while you said so.

The model sues the company using the photo (the one that bought a license to use it on a jar of erotic jelly), the company sues the stock agency (the one selling the photo to the company with a license to use it for whatever they want) and the stock agency sues the photographer for supplying a photo without the required model release.

Hey, you did not read that FB terms page anyway, right? So why didn’t they require model releases? For starters, they would know that nobody would upload anything anymore and users would quickly move on to the next hype.

Secondly, they know that any decent judge would never let them get away with this (meaning selling images to stock agencies and blaming the photographer when something happens), even though they would have the legal rights to do so.

But guess what? The model release is not needed for your cute cat pictures, the sunsets, the landscapes, your bicycle shots and much more. All these images can be licensed without a model release and as you have given your rights away, FB can do this and does not have to pay you anything for it. Same for that inspirational prose, that funny quote of your grandma, your intimate thoughts. FB can make a book of it and sell it, no problem.

Actually you ‘shared’ your rights with them, as you can still license your images and stories yourself as well, just as you also need a model release in order to use pictures of people commercially.

The grey area

Strangely enough you can give permission to Facebook to use your pictures for FB ads. That means somebody could see your face under a commercial advertisement, like you endorse not only the product, but the ad as well. You signed this away by signing up, unless you change the settings under ‘ads’ again. But if you allow this, FB apparently can also use images you posted of your friends, even if they never ‘liked’ a certain product or page, just because they showed up in the stream of somebody who did (you).

This is strange as FB never requires you the mentioned model releases, so theoretically they can use your friends to spam others, without a model release. The model could protest and maybe even sue, and it seems that FB would be at fault.

Rights managed and royalty free: your stock photography business could be in danger if you upload to FB

Photographers will know that there are 2 main ways to sell stock images. In short:

1. 

   A snowy yak near Rongbuk Monastery, Everest Tibet. One of my images that is for sale as RF stock at Getty Images.

   Rights Managed means that every use of an image is noted and controlled, that is why these images usually cost more and the photographer earns more. This prevents the use of a nice image to be used by competing companies and even provides extra income for the photographer when the same client decides to use the image again for a brochure or other additional use. This is a Good Thing.

2. Royalty free means that the client pays once and can do whatever they want to do for it. Cheaper for the client, but they have the risk that their competitors use the exact same image.

As Facebook does not know about the past use of your images, they can only sell it as royalty free. So why would you care? Because it works both ways:

If you ever have uploaded a picture to Facebook, you will never be legally able to offer this image as a Right-Managed stock image to any stock agency. Think about that. As you cannot know what FB has done with your image, you will be breaching contract with your stock agency if they accept it as a RM image.

Buddhist prayerflags at the Lung La pass, Tibet. One of my images that is available as a RM image through Getty and as a fine art poster through ExposedPlanet.com

And automatically:

If your images are represented as Right Managed photos by a stock agency, you will be breaching contract by uploading them to Facebook.

You are not just promoting yourself as a photographer (which is allowed), but you are also giving FB the rights to sell your images, which is illegal as you already sold the images exclusively.

There could be FB ads with your images, while your stock agency sells the same image RM to a competitor for a large amount of money. Guess what happens when a client find this out?

Copyright, ownership vs user rights. Why Facebook’s wording is sneaky.

You might be giving away rights you did not even have…

If you hired a wedding photographer and (s)he made some great pictures, you might think you own the pictures. Wrong. Unless you specifically made a note in the contract (and most sensible photographers won’t let you), you own the prints you got even if you got a CD with images as well.

What’s the difference?

You are not even allowed to make more prints without a written approval and all good printing houses will ask you for this. As mentioned above: the photographer always owns the copyright to the images he shot, even if you are in them. It is easy for FB to state this as they have no choice, it would make all the terms invalid if they claimed ownership.

Wedding photographer in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Just because you paid him does not mean you can post his photos on Facebook.

What you are certainly not allowed to do is to sell your expensive wedding or professional baby images to a stock agency. And guess what? If you upload them to FB, you do not just do that, but you are giving them away to a company that can do even more than a stock agency.

You are likely breaching your contract and breaking the law by uploading your wedding pictures on Facebook. A photographer in a bad mood (and there are more and more of these), has the right to sue you and claim damages as you broke the contract.

Same is true for sharing any image you do not own the copyrights of by the way, i.e. every image you did not take yourself, you do not own.

So now what?

FB loses the rights the moment you delete your content. That is the quickest solution. Actually, the quickest is not to upload anything at all. You can easily host a blog on your own or even get a free one at WordPress.com or similar places. Just make sure to check the small print if you want to keep any control of what happens with your pictures.

If you own a photography business, stay away from any website with such ridiculous terms with regards to intellectual property. If you care about your photography and about the ones in it (your family and friends), don’t share it on Facebook as you are sharing more than you might care for.

Marine Iguana in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Like Facebook, it moves when you least expect it and nasty stuff comes out..

There is no such thing as a free lunch nor a free social website. Facebook needs your submissions and your actions so they can help advertisers sell stuff they think you need. The more material you supply, the more billions will be mentioned in the next financial article about FB.

Yes, they are worth a lot, because they get all these free gifts all the time: your photos and stories, including the rights to sell and make money of them.

Facebook is not a stock agency, yet. But the moment they want to, they can push many stock companies right out of the way as they have all this material and the approval from you to market it. Don’t believe that this just won’t happen because FB is ‘just a social website’. They are not: they are a multi-billion-dollar business and out to make money.

That is ok, that is what businesses do. What is not ok is that they hide behind hard to find or understand terms you sign for.

When they go public, their shareholders are going to demand even more money and the clever ones will get out rich, before it gets messy. Because it will.

Get your pictures out now.

**** Update: the 2nd part of this post is up as well, please check it out here ****

Ps: all images are mine and link to larger versions on ExposedPlanet.com photoblog. They are available as print, free eCard or commercial/editorial licensing. Or just enjoy them and read the thoughts behind it as well as technical info for photographers!

Thanks to Sean for his friendly words in the introduction:

Recently we had the pleasure of interviewing the very talented and seasoned photographer, Harry Kikstra. Harry has a very good eye when it comes to taking pictures, and all of his photos make me want to get away and explore other continents and the beauty that is contained within them. I absolutely love images of other cultures, with their vibrant colors, textured skin tones, and most of all, to see how other cultures live. Harry’s photography is very close to something you would see right out of the National Geographic magazine, such beauty and depth captured along with strong human emotions! Check out the interview below which contains a TON of Harry’s work. Thank you again for your time Harry, and your valuable input for our readers! Keep up the great work!

*All images are copyrighted and cannot be reproduced in any form without permission from the photographer*

tibetan kids in love

Who am I?

Harry Kikstra, a climber/expedition leader/ photographer/ filmmaker/ producer/ writer/ public speaker/ cyclist and many other things that have to do with sharing the beauty of the outdoors. I just turned 40, have climbed the 7 continental highpoints, cycled 25,000km across the Americas and have travelled a lot and will not stop soon, though originally I was based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

I share my photography irregularly on the photo-blog ExposedPlanet, http://ExposedPlanet.com which just has been relaunched, together with a blog (http://blog.exposedplanet.com).

I have started it not just to show my portfolio and sell my art, but also to share the wonders of the world, both nature and culture, to counter the fear-culture and xenophobia. See http://exposedplanet.com/about/ for more backgrounds and reasoning for the site.

I also run BikeTravellers (http://BikeTravellers.com), a free community for travelling cyclists. One of the blogs on the network is my own journal, http://WorldOnaBike.com, which contains thousands of photos from my recent bicycle trip through the Americas.

My main project/income however is 7summits.com (http://7summits.com):  my website about the highest peaks of the 7 continents. You can book trips, find info and much more. I also just co-started a new and huge initiative to replace costly and dangerous kerosene lamps by solar-powered LED lamps, see http://illuminationhq.com.

Tashi Dzom Angels in Tibet on Royal Enfield bikes

What kind of photography do you do? Do you enjoy it?

I am mostly a travel photographer, with a sharp focus on Nature and culture. As I am a climber, I have specialized in mountains and love to share the beauty of nature, but I also really enjoy capturing culture and portraits, especially of children around the world.

What’s your gear? (type of camera and most used lens)

I currently use the Canon 5D Mark II ever since it came out, before that the original 5D. When travelling I take my 3 most used lenses: 16-35mm L 2.8, 50mm fixed 1.4 & the 135mm 2.0 fixed. Even though the latter one is likely the least flexible and often not very practical, it is my favourite because of the sharpness, 2.0 speed and wonderful bokeh.

We travel with a small Lumix F35 20x zoom as well, for shots where large zoom is more important than quality (though it shoots in RAW which is great) or where it is safer not to show an expensive camera. I use no separate flash and as the 5D has none included, I need to make do with available light. I never carry a tripod. Though it would improve picture quality, climbing/cycling/travelling makes it impossible.

Pakistan children on street in Hushe

Can you offer any advice on how to go about building up a portfolio / ‘getting your foot in the door’ for our readers wishing to start a career in photography?

Maybe the most important thing is to discover what you like to do. If photography is something you really like, then you should check with aspect you like of it and which subjects: people/portraits, children, nature, urban, wildlife, photojournalism, sharing the stories behind the photos or maybe more the post processing?

Also do not only check what you like, but also what friends and customers like, which might be very different as your opinion is clouded by experiences while shooting that a viewer will not feel.

If you want to share or even sell your photography, then you should have find your ‘voice’. That does not mean shooting square blue buildings or kittens only, I shoot many different subjects myself. But a general theme would be great, and it will show what you like best as you will do more efforts for shots you love.

Nepali girl with amazing eyes close

Don’t start selling micro-stock if you feel your photos should be enlarged, printed and enjoyed by your clients, but if you see no problem with shooting only things that you know sell well in that market, you should of course do it. You have to make artistic as well as business choices. And don’t even think about becoming a real travel photographer if you are afraid of strange food and people, nor bugs, dirt, heat or cold…

What computer program do you find yourself in most? (lightroom, photoshop, etc.)

LightRoom only. Since LightRoom 2 and even more version 3 came out, I do not think I have ever opened up PhotoShop for photo editing again! LR is wonderful, not just in organising the 45000 photos I am carrying with me currently, but the editing capabilities are great and all I need as I try not to change the scenes I shoot, just enhance them where needed and export for specific uses.

Holy man at Pashapatinath Temple, Kathmandu

Do you shoot with film or digital? Have you ever shot in film? Which do you prefer?

I used to shoot slide film on my Canon EOS 3, and still love the colours, sharpness and saturation of Provia and Kodachrome. After using the 20D -and later the 5D- I learned the joys and ease (and lower costs!) of digital, but only after the 5D Mark II came out I have been converted completely: the photographic quality is just simply much better than 35mm film/slide.

I have attached a shot taken on ISO3200, only very slightly edited with LightRoom (Maria in kitchen, Bolivia). Try to catch that with an older digital or film camera!

What advice would you give to our readers who are looking to ‘go pro’ and turn a hobby into a profitable business?

I would say: don’t give up your day job yet! It is extremely difficult and you need at least as many business and marketing skills as photography ones. It takes hard work and only a fraction of that will be photography in the artistic sense.

Makalu from 3rd step on Everest

Maybe you need to decide if you really want to ‘go pro’. Why would you do that? Realize that it will take a large part of the fun out of what you love to do. There might be easier ways to make money which you can then use to shoot what and how you want, without commercial pressure.

Either a regular day job, some temp jobs, another business you can start (like I did), that gives you opportunity to travel and shoot, or just lower standards of living: sell your car and cook your own food; you’ll be healthier and will save enough money to invest in good cameras and lenses.

That last part is very important as well. I am not saying you need a 20,000 digital HasselBlad, but you do need a good camera and especially good lenses if you want to sell your work in whatever way. Loose the included lens that came with your body and replace them with fixed (primes) as soon as possible. If you use a tripod, get a very good one, it will save you from a room of old discarded tripods which in total would be more expensive anyway. And most of all: use all of it, so you know the possibilities and limitations!

Nepali boys, Phakding, Khumbu Valley

Photographers are often told that they need to develop a personal style to set them apart. What would you say sets you apart?

I think the adventure and cultural aspect combined with my frank comments. I show people places they will likely never visit, like the view from 8000m on Everest or a sunset on the salt lake in Bolivia. I also give them a glimpse into the lives of normal people in other cultures, places like Tibet, Guatemala, Tanzania. Many of these places are considered to be dangerous (I agree on Everest by the way) and I sort of take people with me on my travels.

But nowadays with social networking and blogging it is not just the imagery, but also the story behind the picture which is interesting. I think I lost some followers, but gained a lot more by being very frank about my thoughts and world views resulting from my travels and photography. Be yourself, both in words and vision.

When not looking through the lens of a camera, what do you like to do in your spare time?

I don’t watch television and try to minimise my sleep as I want to do so many things! Besides editing and organizing photos, which roughly takes much, much more time than taking them, I spend a lot of time building and maintaining my websites, starting new projects etc.

globalisation(8) Tibetan boy drinking Coca Cola

I write a lot and have published 4 books (about climbing) and am working on new ones (about cycling & photography). I also publish on my new photography blogs and will start a new blog about minimalist living soon.

But I especially love to be outside, especially climbing and cycling and visiting new places, of course always carrying my camera. I just cycled 25,000km (15,500 Miles) Across 20 countries in the Americas, which has been a highlight in my busy life and not just for the photographic opportunities. Next year I will finalize that trip by cycling the remaining 5000 miles South.

Who are your influences?

I love the internet in the way that bloggers can make posts about their 25 favourite images, often from as many photographers. I do not have specific photographers I enjoy more, but am happy to see so much diversity al around and get inspired by all types of images. Just check http://1x.com and you will see what I mean.

That said I have always been an admirer of Galen Rowell. He used a lot of natural light, showed that you get better images by working for them (i.e. climbing a mountain if needed) and taught me another very simple but important lesson: “If it is good, shoot it. If it gets better, shoot it again”.