TUMBLR

A scrapbook of stuff I'm reading / looking at / listening to / thinking about...



Posts tagged "attribution"

Jan 27, 2014
Permalink
Feeds like @HistoryinPics make it impossible for anyone interested in a picture to find out more about it, to better understand what it is showing, and to assess its accuracy.

Permalink
Credit is always due.


  If you share the work of others, it’s your duty to make sure that the creators of that work get proper credit. Crediting work in our copy-and-paste age of reblogs and retweets can seem like a futile effort, but it’s worth it, and it’s the right thing to do. You should always share the work of others as if it were your own, treating it with respect and care.

Credit is always due.

If you share the work of others, it’s your duty to make sure that the creators of that work get proper credit. Crediting work in our copy-and-paste age of reblogs and retweets can seem like a futile effort, but it’s worth it, and it’s the right thing to do. You should always share the work of others as if it were your own, treating it with respect and care.

Jun 15, 2013
Permalink
I seem almost a plagiarist. [I quote a lot because I’m] just trying to be honorable and not to steal things. I’ve always felt that if a thing had been said in the best way, how can you say it better? If I wanted to say something and somebody had said it ideally, then I’d take it but give the person credit for it. That’s all there is to it. If you are charmed by an author, I think it’s a very strange and invalid imagination that doesn’t long to share it. Somebody else should read it, don’t you think?

Feb 04, 2013
Permalink
Indifference to source allows us to assimilate what we read, what we are told, what others say and think and write and paint, as intensely and richly as if they were primary experiences. It allows us to see and hear with other eyes and ears, to enter into other minds, to assimilate the art and science and religion of the whole culture, to enter into and contribute to the common mind, the general commonwealth of knowledge. This sort of sharing and participation, this communion, would not be possible if all our knowledge, our memories, were tagged and identified, seen as private, exclusively ours. Memory is dialogic and arises not only from direct experience but from the intercourse of many minds.
Oliver Sacks defends Tumblr? Ha.

Jan 25, 2013
Permalink

Al Hirschfeld’s signature: spot the NINA

We were talking about signatures yesterday, and my wife reminded me of Al Hirschfeld. Wikipedia:

Hirschfeld is known for hiding the name of his daughter, Nina, in most of the drawings he produced after her birth in 1945. The name would appear in a sleeve, in a hairdo, or somewhere in the background. As Margo Feiden described it, Hirschfeld engaged in the “harmless insanity,” as he called it, of hiding her name [Nina] at least once in each of his drawings. The number of NINAs concealed is shown by an Arabic numeral to the right of his signature. Generally, if no number is to be found, either NINA appears once or the drawing was executed before she was born. Hirschfeld originally intended the Nina gag to be a one-time gimmick but locating Nina’s name in the drawings became extremely popular. From time to time Hirschfeld lamented that the gimmick had overshadowed his art and tried to discontinue the practice, but such attempts always generated harsh criticism. Nina herself was reportedly somewhat ambivalent about all the attention. In the previously mentioned interview with The Comics Journal Hirschfeld confirmed the urban legend that the U.S. Army had used his cartoons to train bomber pilots with the soldiers trying to spot the NINAs much as they would spot their targets. Hirschfeld told the magazine he found the idea repulsive, saying that he felt his cartoons were being used to help kill people. In his 1966 anthology The World of Hirschfeld he included a drawing of Nina which he titled “Nina’s Revenge.” That drawing contained no Ninas. There were, however, two Als and two Dollys (“The names of her wayward parents”).

See if you can spot the NINAs above.

(Hint: look to the hair and the gentleman’s lapel.)

Jan 24, 2013
Permalink

Sign your work

My friend @wendymac posted this on Twitter:

I don’t want to include my signature in my drawings, but lack of attribution is out of control. Someone please invent a new watermark.

Most artists online share her frustration: you want your work to be easily copied and blogged and tumbled, you want to get credit for your work, but you don’t want to dick up your art.

Artfully embedding some kind of identification within the image itself is the only real option. (I don’t think I’ve ever seen an artful watermark.) Luckily, artists have been artfully embedding an identification mark in their images for quite some time: it’s called a signature.

I particularly like Saul Steinberg’s:

Etc. Even photographers can do it — look how beautiful Allen Ginsberg’s handwriting looks underneath this photo:

You might even want to go one further and figure out how to embed your web address or your Twitter handle. I talk about that more here.

(BTW, you don’t have to sign the actual work — just Photoshop it in.)

None of this will keep people from altering the image or cropping off the signatures to actively steal your images, but in my experience, most misattribution online is the result of laziness, not malice.

You’re artists, man — make it subtle, but effective!

Permalink
Girl with a Pearl Earring Selfie


  The Vermeer mashup represents one of the internet’s many mysteries, and highlights some of the problems current and future researchers face when aiming to determine points of origin for creative works expressed on the internet and uploaded as an image file.
  
  The earliest reference to this piece I could find was March 5 2012, posted at the Clumsy Odd Stubborn Tumblr.[12] This post does not identify a source, nor the artist responsible. Later postings at other sites identified the artist as Mitchell Grafton, though with no link the artist’s site or original post source. The image achieved widespread exposure when it was posted by pioneer blogger Jason Kottke on October 18 2012.[13] Kottke clarifies that he has been unable establish an “airtight” source or attribution for this image.


(via Three Pipe Problem: Alteration and invention - Raphael, Vermeer and the mashup)

Girl with a Pearl Earring Selfie

The Vermeer mashup represents one of the internet’s many mysteries, and highlights some of the problems current and future researchers face when aiming to determine points of origin for creative works expressed on the internet and uploaded as an image file.

The earliest reference to this piece I could find was March 5 2012, posted at the Clumsy Odd Stubborn Tumblr.[12] This post does not identify a source, nor the artist responsible. Later postings at other sites identified the artist as Mitchell Grafton, though with no link the artist’s site or original post source. The image achieved widespread exposure when it was posted by pioneer blogger Jason Kottke on October 18 2012.[13] Kottke clarifies that he has been unable establish an “airtight” source or attribution for this image.

(via Three Pipe Problem: Alteration and invention - Raphael, Vermeer and the mashup)

Jan 17, 2013
Permalink
You must get the servants to work for you. You mustn’t do all the work yourself. That is, you should ask other people for information, and steal ruthlessly from what they provide. None of the things you make up will be as hair-raising as the things people tell you. I can only encourage you to steal as much as you can. No one will ever notice. You should keep a notebook of tidbits, but don’t write down the attributions, and then after a couple of years you can come back to the notebook and treat the stuff as your own without guilt.
Max Sebald (thx, maria!)

(Source: , via explore-blog)

Nov 25, 2012
Permalink
How Reddit Stole a Colorado Journalist’s Wizard of Oz Thunder

A hilarious newspaper clipping turns out to be a bummer of an attribution story:


  Friday was another bittersweet day for Rick Polito. Actor George Takei posted a screen grab on Facebook of the Boulder, CO freelance journalist’s hilarious bygone Wizard of Oz gag synopsis. However, because Takei sourced a Reddit user’s errant crop job, tens of thousands of people initially liked and shared an item that attributes the summary to the wrong guy: the late Lee Winfrey. (To Takei’s credit, this morning he added “Credit: Rick Polito.”)
  
  Jay Leno first quoted Polito’s 1998 synopsis on The Tonight Show a decade ago. When the talk show host revisited the same material for a “Headlines” segment in late October, a Reddit user launched the synopsis on its merry viral way. With Polito’s name as the source author cut out. (It was visible on Leno, although somewhat cryptically, the attribution reads: ‘Inquirer Television Writer Lee Winfrey and Rick Polito of Universal Press Syndicate contributed to this report.’)


Sucks, but it happens, right? Well, Polito, like a lot of ex-journalists, is having a hard time finding a new gig:


  Polito has been trying to set the record straight and turn the newfound popularity of his movie listings — Takei has posted a few others and he has more than 15,000 of them on his computer — into a paying gig.
  
  "It’s frustrating having my joke out there with someone else’s name on it," Polito said. "For every person who’s seen it with my name on it, 10 other people have seen it with someone else’s name."
  
  …”It’s a quest to get the proper attribution, which is in part to see if it can turn into income for a starving journalist,” Polito said. “I’m proud of that joke.”


Another example of how misattribution is usually a case of laziness and not malice.

See a few of Polito’s other log lines→

Filed under: attribution

How Reddit Stole a Colorado Journalist’s Wizard of Oz Thunder

A hilarious newspaper clipping turns out to be a bummer of an attribution story:

Friday was another bittersweet day for Rick Polito. Actor George Takei posted a screen grab on Facebook of the Boulder, CO freelance journalist’s hilarious bygone Wizard of Oz gag synopsis. However, because Takei sourced a Reddit user’s errant crop job, tens of thousands of people initially liked and shared an item that attributes the summary to the wrong guy: the late Lee Winfrey. (To Takei’s credit, this morning he added “Credit: Rick Polito.”)

Jay Leno first quoted Polito’s 1998 synopsis on The Tonight Show a decade ago. When the talk show host revisited the same material for a “Headlines” segment in late October, a Reddit user launched the synopsis on its merry viral way. With Polito’s name as the source author cut out. (It was visible on Leno, although somewhat cryptically, the attribution reads: ‘Inquirer Television Writer Lee Winfrey and Rick Polito of Universal Press Syndicate contributed to this report.’)

Sucks, but it happens, right? Well, Polito, like a lot of ex-journalists, is having a hard time finding a new gig:

Polito has been trying to set the record straight and turn the newfound popularity of his movie listings — Takei has posted a few others and he has more than 15,000 of them on his computer — into a paying gig.

"It’s frustrating having my joke out there with someone else’s name on it," Polito said. "For every person who’s seen it with my name on it, 10 other people have seen it with someone else’s name."

…”It’s a quest to get the proper attribution, which is in part to see if it can turn into income for a starving journalist,” Polito said. “I’m proud of that joke.”

Another example of how misattribution is usually a case of laziness and not malice.

See a few of Polito’s other log lines→

Filed under: attribution

Oct 31, 2012
Permalink

Edward Hopper’s artist’s ledgers

I reblogged a photoset of images incorrectly labeled as “Edward Hopper’s sketchbook,” but the images actually weren’t sketchbook images at all, but a meticulous business record of paintings that Hopper produced and sent out for sale.

You see, Hopper’s wife recorded each painting he made in little books she got from the five and dime store. She asked him to do a drawing of the painting (which he did beautifully) and then she wrote the details of the painting below it, including the circumstances of the paintings — where they were when he made it, who were the models, etc. (Above, you can see the record for “A Woman In The Sun,” with the final painting below.)

The ledgers aren’t a document of discovery, but a record of production — in a way, the ledgers are a kind of visual logbook of the kind I describe in Steal.

This is another example of why posting images without context and attribution strips them of their meaning — if you see these images in a photoset labeled “Edward Hopper’s sketchbook,” you might think, “Wow, look how perfect his sketches were before he painted,” and you would completely miss the real story, which is way more interesting. (Always, always, always dig deeper when you see images w/o attribution!)

Subscribe to my newsletter and get new art, writing, and interesting links delivered to your inbox every week.