How to make a DMCA Takedown Request

History of the DMCA

First, I want to make a couple of not necessarily obvious points about the copyright laws in play here (my title may seem a little misleading, but I will get there, I promise.  For those who don’t want the background, scroll down).  The DMCA was, in part, an amendment to the already existing U.S. Code/Copyright Laws. There are two important points to understand here, as a copyright holder:

• The U.S. Supreme Court has been pretty clear in pointing out the underlying rationale for the copyright law and its Constitutional authorization is not primarily to protect the rights of individual copyright holders! That comes as a surprise to many photographers. The underlying rationale was to promote innovation and “useful arts” for the good of the public. The limited protection (depending on when the right was first created, for the life of the author plus 70 years – 50 years if before 1978) given by the copyright act is designed as an incentive to artists and inventors. As such, their rights are fairly strongly protected, but any court finding will be primarily based on “the interests of the public.” This will be seen most significantly in “fair use” cases.
• The DMCA is not a law which was enacted for holders of copyright to enforce and protect their claims. The DMCA gives ISPs “safe harbor” protection from damages claims by copyright holders, if infringing materials were unknowingly posted on their sites. The reasoning for this law is really pretty obvious. With thousands of patrons, it would be physically and economically impossible for an ISP to police whether posted materials were copyright protected and the act of posting was an infringement (this is particularly true because a copyright arises with original authorship, whether or not registered with the USPTO). The ability for copyright holders to hold the ISP responsible for the mere hosting (without knowledge of a violation) of materials subject to copyright would be onerous and could—effectively—shut them down.

A DMCA Takedown Request or Notice is not a claim for damages against the infringer

In 1998, in large part in response to the proliferation of the internet and the ease of copying others’ copyrighted material for personal use and distribution (a/k/a, theft), Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The main purpose of the DCMA was to implement some World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Treaties, recognizing that with the internet, we no longer were able to police within our “borders.” In a sense, the internet has become the new “frontier.” A secondary, but serious, issue the DCMA addresses is the concern that an internet service provider (“ISP”) could be held liable for copyright infringement of their patrons by merely providing the means for posting. The DCMA provides a safe-harbor for ISP’s, exempting them from liability for the actions of their patrons unless they are a knowing participant.

This latter part has created a tool for owners of IP rights. The so-called “DMCA Takedown Request” has become an offense tool, to be used when the owner discovers that their IP rights have been infringed. It works. Most of the major, legitimate providers have established user-friendly takedown request procedures that can be done on line. Last week, I took advantage of the procedures for Google for Google+ and Blogger, for Pinterest, and for WordPress. Each has responded rapidly, in the manner I had hoped and anticipated. Unfortunately, there are some other providers who have made the takedown requests more difficult (I will leave you to your own conclusions why).

In 2000, a group of music industry companies sued Napster, an online “peer to peer” file sharing network under, among other laws, the DMCA. The Federal Court found that Napster was a knowing participant in the outright theft of digital music files. It was essentially shut down (and ironically, later reincarnated as a legitimate online music store). Shortly thereafter a series of additional cases shut down Napster “look-alikes” (e.g., Grokster) in serial fashion. The cases are fascinating reading, and underscore just how unprepared Congress and the courts were for the unprecedented technology and “everyman” access the internet and digital electronic devices have brought. The beat goes on. We will likely see additional litigation in these areas in coming years.

Pinterest is a site of particular interest to photographers. On the surface, it has, to me, the “look and feel” of a Napster. But my research indicates that they have acted in good faith to make sure they are not in the same category as the Napster/Grokster setups. Both Napster and Grokster openly encouraged pirating and unpaid, unauthorized use and sharing of files. Indeed, Grokster bragged about its position as the “Napster substitute.” In their holdings, the courts found ample evidence of this intentional conduct. Pinterest, on the other hand, has responded that it does not intend for its users to infringe on the rights of owners of IP rights. And in fact, I can report that they quickly and efficiently responded to my DCMA Takedown Requests, using there online process. Of the ones I have used, theirs is the easiest and most user-friendly. And, they will take down multiple occurrences of one image (where technologically possible) with one request. The Pinterest Terms of Service (“TOS”) make it clear that you post on your “board” at your own risk that you are violating copyright or other IP rights and laws. It is also my understanding that they have released code which photo website users on sites like Flickr™, can install that blocks Pinterest users from using the “pinit” function (it is in the Flickr settings). Do all these things effectively shift liability away from them? Given the broad, safe-harbor protections of the DMCA, my answer is: probably.

And what about Facebook? Facebook has really become the standard of use on the internet. Others have tried to go head to head (Google +), but arguably, none have been successful. It is very easy to repost an image (in fact, I am guilty of it myself). My understanding (which is admittedly shallow) of the FB inter-workings is that things that were meant to have limited distribution often show up in unsuspected public areas. There is a pretty confusing labyrinth of “privacy settings” in the module. Facebook does, however, have a DMCA Takedown Request Form which appears to be functionally similar to the one Google uses, and can be filled out online. The easiest way to get to it is to type “DMCA” in the help box and then scroll down to the link and click on it. Follow the prompts from their.

A number of concerns remain. First, who reads the TOS? I would suppose it might be right around 2% of users. That may be high . Second, sites like Pinterest, and other possibly other “lookalikes” who are less concerned about the DMCA takedown process, still make it awfully easy to infringe. Just install the “pinit” (or similar) button to your browser and any time you see something you like, point you mouse and click “pinit.” It seems awfully easy to facilitate infringement without actively encouraging it—whether intentionally or not.  I am not suggesting that that makes Pinterest, or others the “bad guy.”  Rather, I am pointing out how we as owners of intellectual property rights must continue to be vigilant.

How to Make a DMCA Takedown Request

The legal grounds for this can be found in Section 512 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code (generally known as U.S. Copyright Law/Act). As noted above, the DMCA is not an act designed to directly aid the owner of the copyright in pursuing a claim against the infringer (that is found elsewhere in the code). As such it is important to understand that a DMCA Takedown Request or Notice is not a claim for damages against the infringer. That would, generally, have to be done in a lawsuit directly against the infringer.

The DMCA requires the ISP, upon notification, to “respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing

What the DMCA Takedown Request procedure does is—in most instances—produce rather immediate action by the service provider. This is because section 512 protects the ISP from liability to you only if they do not have actual knowledge of the infringement. Once they receive a notice from you, they have actual notice and are required to take action. Sections 512(c)(1)(A)ii) and (c)(1)(C) require the ISP, upon notification, to “respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing ….

The DMCA sets out 7 requirements for a Takedown Notice to be valid:

• There must be a written request. An email, or filling out the site’s own form will satisfy this requirement
• The request must be signed by the owner of the copyright or her designated agent. The act specifically authorizes an “electronic signature.” While there is plenty of ambiguity over what exactly constitutes an e-signature, the bulk of the law out there on it confirms that if it is intended to be a signature, it will comply. The forms on most sites require that the e-signature exactly match the name of the copyright owner or agent filled in the form
• The claimed infringed work must be identified, and generally, some form of proof of ownership or agency given. My experience with the forms indicates that most ISPs will be satisfied with a url link to your site or someplace where you have the image legitimately posted
• The claimed infringing material must be sufficiently identified so the ISP can find it, review it, and remove or disable it. If it appears on more than one place, it would be a good idea to identify each and every place (a cautious approach may be to prepare or fill out a notice for each instance). Pinterest has a checkbox authorizing them to remove every instance where it appears on their site.
• Information reasonably sufficient to permit the ISP to contact the infringer. As a practical matter, when this appears on the ISP site, in most cases, it is associated with the infringer’s own account and this is not an issue. However, this may be the single most difficult requirement. Sometimes it is very difficult to find information about who is behind the curtain. I had a WordPress infringer who I could not identify from her Blog. Fortunately, since it was a WordPress.com sponsored Blog, they had that information and their Takedown Notice form worked.
• The notice must contain a statement that you have a good faith belief that there is an unauthorized, infringing use. In most cases, that will be self-evident to you. The one instance where that might be an issue is if there if “fair use.” In that case, you may want to consider, carefully whether you make the request. There is a “counter-notice” procedure that the infringer can use if they believe they are not infringing (e.g., because they are entitled to “fair use”).
• Finally, the act specifically requires that you put a statement in the notice that you are signing it, you are authorized, and that it is accurate, under penalty of perjury.

The key, here, is that the last thing the ISP wants is to be monetarily or otherwise liable to you. Most of them have set up turnkey online request form systems, and in most cases, my responses have been in a 12 hour or less time period.

Finally, I think there is a need to comment about “fair use.” In keeping with the stated constitutional and congressional aim; to benefit the public, courts have been careful about enforcing copyrights in such cases. Generally, “fair use” arises in the context of use of another’s copyrighted work without permission for the purposes of criticism, parody, scholarly research, and educational endeavors. But this does not mean that if you assert one of these reasons, you have an automatic exemption from copyright protection. If challenged, the burden of showing “fair use” as a defense will be on the infringer. The courts generally review “fair use” claims under 4 standards. It is clear from the statutory language that they consider all 4:

• The purpose and character of the use
• The nature of the copyrighted work
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used
• The effect of the use on the potential market for, or value of the copyrighted work

Thus, when your image is stolen, arguably the entire work is being used. If someone makes a critique of your image and the primary purpose of posting it is as illustration; that is probably fair use. But even there, the burden is on the infringer to show that they have not done so for other reasons (i.e., a “sham” critique). Even in an educational situation, there is a good argument that the very images being taken may have their best sales potential to the educational community or system. It is certainly not an “automatic” that just because you are a teacher in a public school system that you can copy and post on a website, anything you wish.

It remains to us as photographers to be vigilant, check frequently for infringement issues, and take swift action to have them taken down. At the risk of being challenged for an infringement myself , lets be vigilant out there, people!

Are You Stealing Pictures?

I found this image posted and reposted without my permission over 30 times!
Copyright Andy Richards

Stealing. Theft. Larceny. Strong words, I know. But let’s call it what it is.

In the past couple weeks, I discovered some widespread copying, using, posting and re-posting of several of my photographic images.  I spent a couple hours making DMCA Takedown Requests / Notices. I resent having to spend my time doing that, but it has unfortunately become part of  today’s “e-world.”  I am learning that we need to be to be vigilant and pro-active about protecting our property.  Thanks to my good friend and great photographer, Carol Smith, a the heads up on this!

Part of the problem, of course, is that I am “preaching to the choir” here, as I assume most of the readers are sympathetic photographers. But perhaps there is a takeaway here.  As a group of “like minded” individuals (and I do realize how ironic it is that I am suggesting that a group of free-spirited artists might be like minded ) perhaps we can be more proactive about protecting our rights—and about educating our readers and visitors to our sites. Why do I feel so passionate about this subject?

Whatever you “don’t know,” there is one thing you undeniably do know: They are not yours!

Our U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to enact the U.S. Copyright Laws.  Article 8 provides that Congress may enact laws “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

Unlike objects of physical property, our rights to the images we make are intangible. We refer to this intellectual property (“IP”). But note the word “property” is still front and center. There is a common attitude that it’s not really something. It’s just a copy and when I take a copy of someone else’s image, I haven’t really taken it. They still have their original. That is simply incorrect and any reasonably intelligent person intuitively knows it. Use of images “found” on the internet without permission just doesn’t pass the proverbial “smell test.” It is still property. Someone else’s property! We do own it. And we do have a perfectly reasonable right to expect that others won’t appropriate it for their own use, no matter how “innocent” their claimed use may be.

The universal attitude seems to be: “if it is posted on the internet, it is free for the taking”

I continue to be surprised and dismayed at the (seemingly) universally prevalent attitude that “if it is posted somewhere on the internet, it is free for the taking.” The internet is not some vast, galactic “lost and found.” It is a virtual space. But just because it is virtual rather than physical does not negate the property rights we have in physical spaces. Not for a minute do I believe that the typical citizen, seeing my car parked in my own driveway, but with the keys in the ignition, would believe it is “o.k.” to jump in and take if for a spin (even if I should be “flattered” that they like my car enough to do that);  or, if my camera or phone was set down on a bench while I napped, that they could take it and keep it for their own use (or rifle through my bag as I slept)–at least not without acknowledging larcenous intent.  Indeed, I doubt a reasonable-minded person would think it permissible to come into my house or place of work physically, and download my images onto a thumb drive.

But if it is on the internet, these same (so-called) “reasonable-minded” persons have no shame about right-clicking and taking our images for their own use.  How is the end-result different?  Why is one method of theft “o.k.” and the other unthinkable? Is it that we really aren’t a moral society? Is it that we are all larcenous at heart, but we just don’t want to get caught?  Hmnn. I so want to believe (and hope) that isn’t the case.

The internet is not some vast, galactic “lost and found”

Part of it is technology. It is easy to do. It doesn’t require a great deal of effort or thought. It doesn’t cost anything. And the vast majority of uses are seemingly, innocent enough. It is just going to be my screensaver, or used to illustrate a point on my blog, or on my Pinterest™ site because I thought is was beautiful (more next week on Pinterest), or perhaps its even placed on an “educational” site.

None of the above makes it right! It is still someone else’s property. And when you take it, whether you know where it came from, or who the author is, or any other thing, there is one thing you do know. It is not yours!

Merely posting one of my images on your “educational” website is not necessarily fair use

When debating this issue, I encounter several popular arguments:

“I am not using it for financial gain; it is just on my computer as a screensaver. No harm, no foul.” Not really. If I take your car without your permission, use it while you aren’t using it, fill it up with gas and put it back in your driveway (all without your permission and probably without your knowledge, is that o.k. with you? No harm, no foul, after all). And, you are using it for your own financial gain. If you didn’t steal it from me, you probably would have had to pay for it. U.S. copyright law is very clear. That is financial gain.

“Sorry, I didn’t know it was yours. I’ll take it down.”  Thanks, I appreciate that. But…..nice try. I’ll give you that you didn’t know it was mine. But there is something you did know. You knew it was not yours.

“My use is ‘fair use”.’” Well. Maybe. But you better do your homework. Fair use can be criticism, parody, scholarly research and a use in the process of education. But fair use is a defense to an infringement claim. It is not a “safe-harbor” exception to the copyright laws. So you had better be able to demonstrate your “fair use” in the context of your posting. Merely posting one of my images on your “educational” website is not necessarily fair use.

“What’s the big deal?  Most People are flattered that people are putting their images up and getting them thousands of views by potential buyers.”  If you want to flatter me by showcasing my image(s), there is a very simple way.  Link to it!  That gets it views, while keeping it resident on my own site, where I get full credit and control over its use.  Or, just do the old fashioned, courteous thing which our digitally driven society has completely forgotten:  ask permission.

This Burton Hill, Vermont Image is another popular “theft” item
Copyright 2010 Andy Richards

I am not a professional photographer. I would count myself an advanced hobbyist photographer. I have sold some of my images, but I certainly don’t make my living from photography. Indeed, I don’t even come close to paying a fraction of the costs of this rather expensive hobby. But I have friends who do make all or part of their living from photography. To them, your unauthorized use of their image is not just theft. It’s taking food off of their tables and making it tougher for them to pay the light bill.

A fair question might be: what am I doing to prevent unauthorized access and protect my imagery? I have set up my SmugMug™ site so that a right-click will not allow copying the image and will instead give a notice that the image is copyrighted. That is easy enough to do. But it doesn’t stop a creative viewer from using one of the ubiquitous free browser add-ins to do a “screen capture.” I also know there is watermarking software available and most hosting sites offer it as an option. When I first set up my LightCentric Photography site, I put up images with watermarks. I almost universally hear that they watermarks detracted from the presentation of the photographs. If I am displaying photographs for sale, why would I continue to do something that might put off a possible purchaser? I understand that sites like Pinterest have code I can install to prevent them from copying from my site, and I will surely be looking into that. But isn’t it interesting how we have suddenly shifted the attention and blame away from the thief to the victim here?

For me, it is not so much a financial issue (don’t get me wrong, if you take one of my images that I sell, I am going to expect payment from you when I come knocking), but an issue of being wronged. I have never had the misfortune of someone breaking into my house and stealing things. But I know people who have. Their universal comment is that it is not the loss of those replaceable items—it is the feeling of being violated. It really isn’t any different when I see one of my images on the internet on a site or in an area where the thief didn’t even bother to ask my permission before his “innocent” use of the something she knew wasn’t hers!

There is a foreign hosted site that has this one up on a promotional page
Copyright 2010 Andy Richards

Next Week: How to Make a DMCA Takedown Request

Caribbean 2013

Old San Juan Fort El Morro
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

It may seem like bad timing to write a “happy” post about a cruise right now. But I am going to anyway.  I do think it is appropriate to comment on the events of the last couple weeks, however:

You would have to be pretty “out of touch” not to have seen some of the numerous recent “news” shows exposing the negative side of the cruise industry. For those passengers and their families who have experienced it, I have no doubt it is every bit the “nightmare” the media have dubbed it. I am truly sympathetic to them. And it goes without saying, that the gutless and criminal acts of the captain last year, whose irresponsible acts took the lives of passengers is reprehensible. We cannot excuse such conduct. But at the same time, we cannot stop living our lives. In the past week I have wondered why the cruise industry as a whole hasn’t taken a hard inward look at their safety and disaster response programs. Wouldn’t it be feasible, for example, for the industry to coalesce to build and jointly own a small fleet of “rescue” ships, dedicated to responding to these situations?

There is a lot of “good” news in the cruise industry, too. For each of the disasters we have seen in the past couple years (and I have no doubt there have been numerous, previously unreported – or lesser reported situations – after all, these are man-made mechanical contraptions being run by imperfect human beings), there are hundreds of “event”-free cruises. Far from veterans yet, my wife and I have been on 3 cruises in the past 3 years and are headed on what might well be the most exciting one to come, in the Mediterranean, in September. More (lots more) on that later. So far, ours have been all of what we expected. Maybe if we have a bad experience, I’ll sing a different tune, but for now, we will keep participating.

For the traveling photographer (and probably for lots of other travelers), cruising has its pros and cons. The main advantage in our minds is that we get to see parts of the world we have never seen. In some cases, we may see parts of the world we might not otherwise see (without being on a boat of some description, we could never see some of the things we did during our Alaskan “Inside Passage” cruise). A secondary advantage is the existence of nice quarters which do not require us to repack and move our luggage several times. Having a 5-star restaurant aboard, with “regular” reservations is an added plus.

For the traveling photographer, cruising has its pros and cons

We had formerly cruised on one cruise line (Princess), partly because we have been very pleased with their accommodations and the way they handle things, and partly because we thought it made sense to gain the “status” that repeat cruisers get. But this year, we were given a unique opportunity to join nearly 100 other members of a private “wine club” we joined on our 2011 visit to Napa Valley, California. Bart and Barb Obrien, the proprietors of O’brien Estate vineyard and winery, became our gracious hosts for a week long Caribbean Cruise adventure on the Celebrity Reflection. They offered a package, which included a (not surprisingly) several wine-oriented events during the week, as well as all the other expected cruise amenities, and ports of call. This third cruise for us was the first time my wife and I ventured on a cruise without knowing any other passengers. We are glad we went, and we made some great new friends. It was great getting to know you, Bart, Barb, Lou, Penny, Jay and (the other  ) Lou, John, Agata, Mike, Susan, Mike and many others. We had so much fun, I barely had time to devote to photography.  There were lifelong memories and hopefully, lifelong friends gained from this cruise.

Old San Juan Artisan’s Market
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Our Cruise Ship from the Fort San Cristobal; Old San Juan
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

For photographers, there is the proverbial “good news and bad news.” The bad news, is that you are often (usually) in ports during the worst shooting light (arriving in the early morning and usually departing in the late afternoon to early evening – precisely the times when most of us want to be set up and on location). Along with that, ports of call are commonly no more than a day, during daylight hours. This means very little time to find, and shoot scenes. The opportunity for night shooting on shore is rare. And, most cruises (it’s the nature of the thing) have some days when you are “at sea” between destinations. There is not much to point your lens at off the boat (unless you like vast expanses of open ocean), and only so much to shoot on board. Once you have “been there and done that,” it may be time to put the camera down and just relax and enjoy a little downtime and your family.

There were lifelong memories and hopefully, lifelong friends gained from this cruise

On the other hand, there are some unique opportunities from the deck. We have spoiled ourselves. I have never been in an “inside” berth and cannot see the point. If I am going to pay the $ for a cruise, I want my own balcony deck. On the inside passage cruise, my tripod lived on the deck and much of the time, I was out their behind the lens. That deck could be seen from some folks on higher decks, and I got to be known as “camera guy” by some of our neighboring passengers as they would ask what I was seeing. We try to do our homework and make sure we are in the right side of the ship to see things we may cruise by.

Old San Juan Harbor
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Being up on the high vantage point a cruise ship affords and out in the water, you often have unique views. The image of “Old San Juan” from off shore, could only be obtained by a boat or a plane. And a small boat would not have given us the high vantage point (the downside is that you are moving rather fast, relative to your subject).

Being up on the high vantage point a cruise ship affords and out in the water, you often have unique views

One of my favorite images (myonly regret is that it was taken handheld with my Canon G12 P&S—the only equipment I had with me) is the (2012) dawn images of the boats moored in St. Thomas, with the lights of Charlotte Amalie up the hillside in the background, as our cruise ship came into port early in the morning. This kind of “birds-eye” view perspective could only have been accomplished from the unique vantage point of a large ocean vessel that could get me high above the water—like a cruise ship.

St. Thomas Harbor
Copyright 2012 Andy Richards

This year’s Caribbean Cruise took us to Old San Juan, Puerto Rico, back to St. Maarten, and to St. Kitts, as our ports of call. The old fort(s) on San Juan were the highlight, photographically, in my view of this year’s Caribbean adventure. San Juan is a major starting cruise port for the Southern Caribbean, and I can see spending a day or two back there before boarding the ship on our next Caribbean cruise (which will likely venture into the Southern Caribbean). We arrived in port a about 3:00 in the afternoon, and were back on the ship by 10:30, so it was a different time frame than we were used to. There are colorful buildings and narrow streets in Old San Juan, and I am sure there were some night shooting opportunities. We went ashore with our new friends Lou and Penny and focused (pun intended), tripod-based shooting was not in the cards. We did get nice images from the high view of the San Cristobal Fort, however. I think the colorful, pastel palate of much of the Caribbean is made to order for color photographers.

Old San Juan from San Cristobal
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

The old fort(s) on San Juan were the highlight, photographically, in my view of this year’s Caribbean adventure

In 2012, I fell in love with the laid-back, “island feel of St. Maarten.” However, we confined our day to Philipsburg, on the Dutch side, and I wanted to “explore” the rest of the island this year. This year, we took a tour of the entire island, spending an hour or two in the French capitol city of Marigot, and seeing most of the other sites. We ended at the relatively famous bar that skirts the beach at the Princess Juliana International Airport, where I have my on major regret of the trip. I really messed up here with one of the things I have preached and preached on this blog—the old “Boy Scout Motto,” be prepared! This is the beach where the planes land coming in directly overhead. It is a pretty awesome sight, and one which, while hackneyed, would be nice to have in your portfolio. We were there for only an hour and only one jet liner was scheduled to land. We had about 45 minutes to its scheduled landing, so we sat at the bar and ordered a drink. We were at a major tourist destination with hundreds of people, so I left the camera in the backpack I was carrying to be more discrete. The plane arrived and landed 20 minutes before the scheduled time, while I sat and watched, my camera still in my backpack! . Of course I know planes are often ahead and/or behind schedule. I will probably be on St. Maarten again, and will probably go back better prepared.

Somewhere in St. Maarten
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

It’s hard not to like the Caribbean Islands

Our last stop was St. Kitts. The islands of Nevis and St. Kitts are an independent sovereignty. The population is very diverse, but appears to be very British influenced, with English being one of the main languages spoken. They also drive on the (“wrong” ) side of the road there, which can be an unnerving experience for us “ugly Americans.” Up until 2005, the main economic engine of St. Kitts was its state-owned sugar cane industry. Due to economic conditions, including the removal of subsidies by the EEC, they closed down this industry in 2005. Our guide told us there were refineries, rum distilleries and the like in St. Kitts until that time. Now, their primary industry is tourism and they have been in the process of gearing up for the Cruise line industry. They only have docking facilities for at the most 3 cruise ships (when we were in St. Maarten, there were 8 ships in port), at this time. There are several towns in St. Kitts and its diverse geography includes beautiful sandy beaches and a complete rainforest.

Abandoned Sugar Plantation; St. Kitts
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

It’s hard not to like these Caribbean Islands. Its warm, the people are friendly, and the food and drink is good. I know I’ll travel back to explore those places I haven’t yet seen, and to return to some of them I have.

St. Kitts
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

What is a “Newbie” Anyway?

We were on the Celebrity Reflection, but when we saw the Pacific Princess, we looked high and low for Gopher, Julie, Doc and Captain Stuebing.

I am back J. In the third week of January, I left for my second Caribbean Cruise. We had a great time, but with more limited photo “ops” than I had hoped. While I carried the new D800 around the islands and aboard ship, my shots were limited. I was pleased with the ones I did bring home, though. We arrived back in Michigan on a Saturday, and by Sunday, I was down with the latest upper respiratory virus. After 2 weeks, I am finally re-joining the ranks of the living. So, here is an off the wall topic………

I am struck with how often I read, or hear someone say, “I am a newbie to photography and have lots to learn.”  ”Newbie.” Interesting word. Like life itself, the journey in photography is a constant educational experience. In my near 30 years as a lawyer (my “day job”) I marvel at how often I still learn something new. I have remarked to others that if you are not learning, you are moving backward. That translates, in my view, to photography, too (perhaps more than ever in a world of rapidly changing technology). We are all “newbies” on some scale, and always have more to learn. But perhaps even more notably, I am always impressed at how a “newbie” can bring a freshness to the vision of photography; a lack of “baggage” that some of us “old hats” carry with us.

We are all newbies on some scale

So what exactly is a “newbie”? My first camera was a Kodak Baby Brownie, shooting (I believe) 120 black and white Kodak film. It was—more than anything—a toy I used as a child of mere 10 years. It produced a lot of boring, blurry, poorly exposed snapshots. I suppose I was a “newbie” at that point. Like most people, I had the odd instamatic, and then 35mm point & shoot camera over the years and used it on rare family occasions or trips to produce “snapshot memories” (in most cases, the memories good; the images—not so much).

Years later, in the 1970′s, I became “more serious,” acquiring a very old 35mm camera my dad bought in Korea during his stint in the Military, inspired by my college professor and gifted landscape photographer, John Knox. Was I a “newbie”? I don’t know how you could have defined me as anything else. Forward a few years. “Better” equipment; a few more skills; some time in a B&W darkroom and shooting for college newspaper and yearbook. New Experiences. Definitely a “newbie” again. A few more years . . . well, hopefully you get my point.

We are all “newbies;” at some point on the infinite learning curve. That is why I take a certain joy in helping inspired photographers, “new” at the craft, or wanting to advance their craft. I am probably just barely qualified to give them a little push up the hill, before I really need to hand them off to the real teaching professionals.

But there are some great things being a “newbie” brings to the table. They often have a fresh, unorthodox view of things. I have a handful of friends, a couple of which I have personally helped (at least in some small way) move from the P&S stage to advanced shooters. I have frequently been impressed with their vision. We would shoot together, or shoot the same or similar scene and I would see in their images, a view of the scene that I completely missed with my “technically correct” image. Sometimes a lack of “baggage” brings a fresh and unique approach to an iimage. I also appreciate the fresh enthusiasm for the craft that is often brought by the so-called “newbie.” And I may have learned as much myself by “teaching” others as in any other way.

I am probably just barely qualified to give them a little push up the hill, before I really need to hand them off to the real teaching professionals

Ironically, there are some very experienced, and very talented long-time shooters I know who continue to produce new and inspired material, in spite of their long years. But I’ll bet they would agree that they continue to learn new things and to be “newbies” at something at any point along their photographic journey.

We are all newbies at various points along the learning curve