palm
swatch
fossil
tide
crucial
latitude
sloe gin
mulberry
pirate
olympic
smooth
juicy
leap
freedom
citizen
coach
core
crank
pilot

Look very carefully at that list. Every word in that list can be found in any English dictionary and have been part of the language for (in most cases) hundreds of years. How can we even remotely interpret trademark law to allow companies – who took the risk by using common words as their names – a blanket ownership of these terms? Trademark is a narrowly defined right to exclusive use of a term or mark in conjunction with a specific area of business. It is not an exclusive right to use that word in all commercial endeavors! 

I demand that we have our words back. We can’t let the land-grab of trademark continue unchecked. If so, we’ll eventually be forbidden to use these words in writing, emails, and even casual conversation!

UPDATE: After complaining, Google has re-approved my ads using the word “philosophy.” While I think that a system that, by default, bans the use of common English words due to tenuous claims of Trademark, allowing their use only after review, is a very flawed system, I do appreciate that I did not hit a stone wall at Google. I understand that they have a real issue here, but I believe that in the case of Trademark – especially in weak trademarks like common English words – the burden should be carried by the trademark holder, not the numerous other people using those common words innocently. The system is backwards.

—

Some bad flash fiction:

The pilot had to seriously crank the yoke just to avoid crashing on the smooth shoreline. but despite his sweaty palm and pirate hook, he touched down safely in the tide. He had made a crucial mistake in calculating the latitude of the island, and now had a problem of olympic proportions. The leap from the small plane literally shook him to his core, and he landed with a thud in the sand. He realized he would be stuck on the island for a while, but his military training kicked in and he could see the face of his survival coach pushing him in drills. He had to eat and he had to drink. Near the beach, he found fresh water and juicy berries which he wrapped up in a swatch of fabric from his shirt. Combined with the bottle of sloe gin from the plane, he had a  meal that would get him though until some adventurous citizen, out for a pleasure cruise, would eventually grant him his freedom. Either that, or he would become part of the permanent fossil record of the island. He popped a mulberry into his mouth and considered which outcome he would truely prefer.

I do wish I could give them my account info. I miss out on a lot of potentially neat features by not feeling comfortable doing this. For instance, I was reading up on a new iPhone application today called A Personal Assistant. (review) This app, despite its current rough edges, actually seems like a good idea. It’s essentially a dashboard for all one’s important accounts – banks, credit cards, airlines, social networks (if those are, indeed, somehow important) and more. A one-stop shop for the information that is probably a good idea to keep tabs on, or that you at least want to check quickly. But, of course, to access all this info you have to turn your keys over to the developer. Nuh-uh.

What I want: for each and every site that I can log into that in some way provides or contains personal information about me I should be able to create an alternate account (or accounts) which has basic read-only and, preferably, customizable rights. For instance, an account that can see my current minute and dollar balance for my cell phone, one that can read the basic contact info from my Google account, one that can see my current flight schedules on NWA.com, one that can see my order status and tracking info at Amazon, etc. But none of these accounts would be able to change anything or see any sensitive data that I didn’t want them to see. So, sure, I may be giving someone the ability to see that I currently owe $60 on my cell phone bill and that I’m nearly out of minutes, but that person would not be able to change my plan, order a new phone, or even see my call details. And I should be able to do this absolutely everywhere it makes any sense at all.

Software agents are just going to keep getting more and more prevalent in our society – whether they take the form of Dashboard widgets, iPhone applications, or even web site aggregators, they are here to stay. More sites need to start offering data access in a way that enables this functionality without compromising the security of their site or their users.

(Props to the few sites out there with a robust API for read-only access. It’s a start.)

There are several pre-existing eBook readers for iPhone. Bookshelf (which has a great sync service with Baen Webscriptions and could support others, $5.99), and Stanza (my go-to most of the time, $Free) are the stand-outs.  They both have good interfaces with the important bits – text size, options for tap- or swipe- to-advance, bookmarks, library management, etc. Most importantly, they also offer landscape reading.

Kindle for iPhone has an unsurpassed syncing model with what I think is the largest eBook provider out there: Amazon. It’s slick, although, like Webscriptions, not integrated. You must purchase the books via Amazon’s Kindle Store from a web browser (mobile Safari reportedly works) but then the titles are automatically sync’d to your iPhone the next time you run the Kindle app. It also supports bookmarks (which reportedly sync to your physical Kindle device if you have one), text size, and other basic features. However, it does not have a landscape mode! (At least not one I could find)

Granted, a portrait reading mode is more “book-like” in that it mimics the orientation of most printed pages, but at sensible text sizes, you get 5-8 words across the screen. That’s, maybe, half a sentence for the most part and often less. So here’s why that’s a problem – for me at least, and others I’m sure. To read a book on Kindle for iPhone, your eyes flick back-and-forth, back-and-forth, a LOT. (About 18 times/page)  Then, as with anything featuring a relatively small screen, your eyes flick up to the top of the page every time you advance. In a landscape mode, you still have the same number of page turns since you have roughly the same number of words on the page, but you have the back-and-forth eye movement only 10 or 11 times per page, and only half the distance to flick back up to the top of the page on advances. Really, it makes a difference to me (40% less eye flick!) and I found my eyes becoming fatigued much faster in portrait mode – just like I did when I was originally trying Stanza and Bookshelf and the reason I very quickly moved to landscape mode exclusively.

This, for me, is a fatal flaw in an otherwise great app. (Though they also need tap-to-advance instead of the silly swipe-only they have now.) Now, I would like to think that they did some usability testing around this app, and maybe they have good reasons for not offering landscape mode, but until they do, I’ll be sticking with Stanza and Bookshelf and not buying any Kindle content.

I have liked Shepard Fairey’s work for a long time, though I think I really became a fan when I saw his work in the Beautiful Losers exhibit at the Orange County Museum of Art. Fairey has always appropriated/referenced/ripped-off other images in his art. I’ve always considered it *part* of his art. But now he’s being called on it in the big media – in fact, *by* the big media.

I cannot articulate my thoughts of Fairey’s work without first mentioning my position on copyright. I support copyright and believe it is an important incentive to creation and should be respected. Copyright also, necessarily, denies our common culture and society free access to these creations which is a huge blow to us all. There is a balance to be struck between these two facts of copyright, and today we have lost our way. 

I have similar feelings about a very different subject as well: trademark. Trademarks are necessary, and serve a positive purpose, but can and are abused far too frequently. Trademarks, traditionally, only protected a mark within a limited scope of certain lines of business. Today, companies are given near exclusive use of common phrases and even individual words far outside their lines of business. (Do not, under any circumstances, use the term “monster” or “pod” in your product name, not even if you are making a “Monster Mini-Golf” course or sell “pea pods” at the farmer’s market.)

Shepard Fairey uses images created by others liberally in his creations. He does not credit these other artists publicly. Many or most of these images are not covered by an active copyright – they are too old, or they are anonymous creations for defunct government regimes. Some of them are covered by copyright, and some are even notable, from well-known artists.

In general, I am fine with this. I think that much of Fairey’s art carries a message, regardless of the artist’s intent. (Yes, I’m fine with that too. I think a great deal of meaning that is read into art was not specifically intended by the artist.) Furthermore, I think that much of this meaning is contingent not only on the actual imagery he uses, but its history and his recontextualization of the images. An update to their original meaning, if you will, modified enough in timing, form and method of delivery, to make it relevant today. I believe that to include a credit to these sources on the actual pieces of work themselves would compromise them. These notes would, I think, carry a strong commercial connotation that would compromise the artistic nature of the works. I think his works should, in general, be considered artistic works and not strictly commercial pieces.

Two arguments against the acceptance of Fairey’s use of uncredited imagery are that he does not add enough to the images to call the derivative works a new piece, and that since he is doing this commercially and making money off these images that his use of these “referenced” images is less palatable. Honestly, in the first matter, I believe it can only be a personal matter of taste and preference. I am a believer that nothing at all need be done to an existing image to potentially radically alter the meaning and perception of it, and that simply presenting something in a new, different, or unexpected way (or time) can be enough to reinvent the piece. It is arguable as to whether Shepard Fairey actually does in this all cases (and I believe he fails in many cases, as would any artist) but I firmly believe that it is a valid way of making art that should not be discouraged or dismissed out of hand.

Regarding the commercial nature of Fairey’s works, though, I think we enter a realm of envy and jealousy pretty quickly. I do not believe that any individual should take the protected work of another and use them to make a profit. Fairey has done this and has been caught. However, many of Fairey’s successful works have used images created a hundred years ago or more, or other works for which a copyright no longer exists. As any large publishing firm will tell you, if a work is out of copyright, anyone can do pretty much anything with it they like – including slapping a caption on it and printing a million copies. As I mention above, I do believe this constitutes a valid form of art and expression, so if it is also legal, where’s the rub? I think the objections that a great many artists have is that Fairey has taken a shortcut, and that he is making money with no effort. I think this is arguable. He has created a tremendous brand out of himself, those posters don’t photoshop themselves (in fact, I would say that there are many, many hours of work in most of Fairey’s work) and it certainly isn’t easy being arrested for bringing your art to the world. As a friend said, I think part of this sentiment can be chalked up to “sour grapes.”

Before I mention my feelings on the specific work that has triggered this recent storm, I want to address my overall feelings as to Fairey’s work. I used to be an adamant fan of Shepard Fairey. I found his work refreshing, different, and it had a message. For me, the most powerful part of that message was one of Fairey’s original stated purposes behind the “Obey” brand. “The sticker has no meaning but exists only to cause people to react, to contemplate and search for meaning in the sticker” The idea that the sticker/image/brand is meaning unto itself resonated with me. It was essentially bringing a high level of awareness for a brand that wasn’t anything else, and who’s motive or product was not obvious. Alas, as his work has become more known, that original purpose has, necessarily, fallen by the wayside. The reason for the brand now is to promote Shepard Fairey. Not that there is an inherent problem with that, but it no longer captures my attention or receives my support like it once did. It has lost its purity and, with it, I find it harder to excuse some of the actions and works by Fairey. (see “Regarding Commercial Nature” above for a touch of hypocrisy in my feelings)

I am also very concerned that Fairey, technically, is re-copyrighting all the works that he uses. This does not have to be a bad thing, necessarily, but we will have to see what happens when we start seeing the same classic imagery used with the work “REBEL” or some such plastered on it instead of “OBEY.” As long as Fairey is careful and does not pursue unwarranted action, I don’t have a problem. What is concerning is that, in twenty year’s time, it may be impossible to find the original images that Fairey used and only his copyrighted versions will be available. However, it’s difficult to fault him for this since without his use of these images, they stand just as much a chance (or more) of passing into oblivion.

Whew – ok, let’s talk about the Obama poster. Here’s my take:  Shepard Fairey used a photo of Obama as the basis for that image. It’s obvious and certainly not surprising to anyone who has studied the image or other works by Fairey. However, I object to the idea that the owner of the copyright of that image has a claim on Fairey’s derivative work for several reasons. 

First, I consider that photo to be of a generic nature. Yes, I understand the trials and tribulations of the modern photographer – sure, it takes equipment, skill and experience to get a good shot. (Believe me, I appreciate that!) However, that shot was a candid that, I suspect, was one in the middle of a half-dozen shots. It was made with available light, without direction to the subject, and without any spectacular composition. It was a technically well-shot photo, but one that any adequately trained photographer should have had no problem getting. If it had been based on a composed, and unique photo, one in which an artistic hand was used and not just a craftsman’s tools, then I would feel differently. Additionally, there are many other examples of photos nearly identical to the AP photo Fairey ultimately used. (This seems to be part of the argument Lessig will be using in Fairey’s court case against the AP.)

Second, the photo is of a man looking across a room, maybe at another person speaking or some other distraction. The poster is of a man looking into the future. That doesn’t happen by accident. It is the crux of the issue, I think. It is the transformation of the generic into art – Fairey’s image carries emotion that is simply not present in the photo. 

Third, it is not the original artist (the photographer) who is pursuing this matter. If it were, I doubt I would feel a ton different in this case, but the fact that it is a corporation who is not after any sort of “artistic integrity” but, rather, profit (and don’t let them fool you) makes this one easy. Sure, if Fairey was just taking their photo and slapping it around town, they should get what they deserve. But he isn’t. He made something good out of something mediocre and now they want in on it. If Garcia were challenging Fairey on this issue directly, and the original photo was not of such a generic nature, then maybe the two should talk. But that’s not how it’s going down. “Art” has no place in the AP’s claims here.

So, I have to say that all this attention to this matter has made me look more closely at how I really feel about Shepard Fairey’s work. I am still a fan and am likely to be a fan into the future. However, I think that the best thing that he could do for himself is to more publicly acknowledge the source material he uses. It need not be on the work itself, but he has a well-trafficked website – how about a “bibliography” section for each of his works?  At a minimum, it would strengthen his claim to artistry, and by making the source of his images known, he could help people understand the origin of these fantastic images – and without such knowledge, Fairey’s works are seldom more than exercises in graphic design mash-up.

I’m working on a project for which I need a few images created. After checking with a few people who may know illustrators and coming up empty, I posted an advert on Craigslist. It’s certainly an effective way to get a lot of responses in a short amount of time. So far, I have had two dozen artists and designers contact me. It’s clear that some of these artists read the ad, made sure that they were at least roughly qualified for the work I needed, and then sent me a nice introductory email with links to their online portfolio. Others obviously did not read the ad, and did not send a nice/professional/intelligible introductory email.

Things that will get you a short “Thanks” email from me and nothing more:

• The entire body of your email is indented as in “I was once a reply to another email” and you didn’t even take the time to remove the indent, let alone customize even the salutation.
• Sounds on your website. There are exceptions. They are few. If you think the sound on your website is “cute” or “adds impact” then it’s just annoying. 
• Addressing your email to Irene. I used to know an Irene, but that was years ago and she certainly is not working with me on this project.
• Tell me all about your great logo design and business identity package when I clearly, and in great detail, outlined the illustrations I need.

So, over the next few days I will be weeding through the submissions and choosing an artist – or 2 – for this little project. I’ll let you know how it goes.

In this email, Mr. McGovern says, among other, potentially valid advice. that I should:

1) Design your resume so a computer can read it.
OK, so he’s trying to do people a favor here, but, really, if a computer is what is going to read my resume first, the thing that, based on totally arbitrary “YES HE HAS IT / NO HE DOES NOT” will pass me on up the line,  then I PASS. As I said in an email response to Mr. McGovern, “If an employer cannot take time to treat me like a human before I am hired, I know that I will not be treated like a human after I am hired.” Being treated like a human is important to me. If it’s not to you, then, by all means, take his advice.

2) Don’t doing anything cute. Ever.  [YES! SIC!!!]
You know, I don’t, actually, do[ing] anything cute on my resumé. However, I wouldn’t consider working for an employer who would hold the examples that Mr. McGovern cites against me: “We see resumes that use email addresses like hotlegs41@aol.com and include “ferrets,” “wine,” and “losing at golf” as personal interests.”  OK, so the “hotlegs41″ might be a little on the non-professional side,(bet it probably gets you further than you think…) but really – if you are in to ferrets, wine, [WINE!!!] or golf [and not very good at it] then put the fucking thing on your resume. If an employer holds what is dear to you against you, then they are not the right employer for you.

I have spent many years not being myself at my job. It has taken a huge toll on me – though it’s one I am learning to move beyond. My last position was one with such good people that I began to actually be the same person in the office that I am at home. I understand and appreciate the separation of parts of a person’s life, but while some restraint is certainly understandable and called for in a professional setting, you cannot and should not be expected to be a different person for the sake of employment. 

I forgive you if you find yourself in a position that seems to require this, but implore you to move on, as fast as possible, to something that, if not totally fulfilling, at least does not require you to be something that you are not for 9-12 hours a day. It’s not natural. It’s not healthy. It’s not worth what they are paying you to do it.

BTW, when it comes to gentlemen named “McGovern” I highly recommend the one called “Johnny“