QuaeVide wrote:
Some thoughts, rather than conclusions.

According to Mike (and I've no reason to doubt him) there has never been any copyright on this image - it has always been public domain since it was paid for with (US) public money. So who would have the moral right to offer prints for sale? The US Government?

To echo Ansel Adams, is Mike's selling a print any different from an orchestra selling a performance of a Mozart symphony (as tickets to the performance or as a recording)?

Is Mike's selling an individual print any different from some corporate publisher selling a coffee table book of (public domain) iconic American photos?

Valid points all (except the orchestra performance, they pay a fee to a publishing company for usage rights to perform the music). But when I first saw what he was doing, it struck me as unethical (and still does). It just bothers me that he can make money by selling someone else's work. Maybe it's just a personal hang-up on my part?

QuaeVide wrote:
Some thoughts, rather than conclusions.

According to Mike (and I've no reason to doubt him) there has never been any copyright on this image - it has always been public domain since it was paid for with (US) public money. So who would have the moral right to offer prints for sale? The US Government?

To echo Ansel Adams, is Mike's selling a print any different from an orchestra selling a performance of a Mozart symphony (as tickets to the performance or as a recording)?

Is Mike's selling an individual print any different from some corporate publisher selling a coffee table book of (public domain) iconic American photos?

Not really. I have no issue with this, ethically speaking. But that's just my opinion and it's not worth much (yet).

MMDesign wrote:
Valid points all (except the orchestra performance, they pay a fee to a publishing company for usage rights to perform the music).

Really? I thought Mozart's music was public domain now. (Of course, you might need to pay for a printed score if you don't happen to have one.)

Saint John wrote:
Interesting. He provides a link to the source file if you're in a DIY mood:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/128_migm.html

Note that this isn't something you can't do yourself, if you have the equipment, time, and judgment. It might even be fun to make your own print and compare it to mine.

He's really selling his printing services, not the iconic image itself. We (as taxpayers) have already paid for it, so I don't see how this is hurting anyone.

It's not that it's hurting anyone, I just can't get past the fact that he's selling a famous print from another photographer and profiting from it. That just stuns me. I don't know, maybe I'm not looking at all sides of the issue?

STANLEY LAFLEUR wrote:
aint nothing stopping you from selling it!!?

Except my sense of what's ethical.

MMDesign wrote:
Mike Johnston, the Online Photographer, is selling prints of Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother". While the image is in public domain, I find it highly unethical for him to be selling the print for personal profit. This is obviously just my opinion on the matter. Does anyone else have an opinion?

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/

What's an on-line photographer?

Did he take the photo?

QuaeVide wrote:
Some thoughts, rather than conclusions.

According to Mike (and I've no reason to doubt him) there has never been any copyright on this image - it has always been public domain since it was paid for with (US) public money. So who would have the moral right to offer prints for sale? The US Government?

To echo Ansel Adams, is Mike's selling a print any different from an orchestra selling a performance of a Mozart symphony (as tickets to the performance or as a recording)?

Is Mike's selling an individual print any different from some corporate publisher selling a coffee table book of (public domain) iconic American photos?

All good points.  I need to get a good copy of the image and undercut him.

MMDesign wrote:
He is a photographer. Why would he need to appropriate someone else's image to make a profit from?

Because it's a good image and he wants more people to see it and appreciate it?

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Because it's a good image and he wants more people to see it and appreciate it?

She shot it in 1936. I think enough people have seen it.

MMDesign wrote:

She shot it in 1936. I think enough people have seen it.

Maybe you think so.. but that's not really the issue.  The image is public domain.  He is well within his moral, ethical and legal right to do what he's doing.

I'll turn the question around.  Say I want a print of this remarkable photo (or any other PD photo).  Say, also that I have neither the skill, time, nor inclination to make a nice print for myself.  How would you suggest that I get a print?  If there is some sort of moral/ethical impediment to me getting such a print then there's not much point in it being in the public domain, is there?

MMDesign wrote:
She shot it in 1936. I think enough people have seen it.

If that's a judgment of ethics, then the conclusion is to remove all copies of the photo from public view (to stop more people seeing it).

If you're just judging his business sense, then time will tell: either enough people will buy prints at the price he's charging or they won't. Perhaps, as suggested above, someone else will produce prints cheaper (or people will print them off themselves): then people can decide if Mike's prints are of sufficiently better quality to warrant the higher price.

TXPhotog wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with this at all.

Movies go out of copyright.  Should a theater offer to show old movies for free?

He's not claiming the picture is his, he's very up front about it.  He is offering a value-added service, and charging for it.  The fact that it is in the public domain makes it legal and ethical for him to do it.

You're right. But he is profiting from someone else's image! Everybody's opinion is right. I personally think it is unethical. I do appreciate the feedback though. I posted this for the feedback, not to say that I was right.

MMDesign wrote:
You're right. But he is profiting from someone else's image! Everybody's opinion is right. I personally think it is unethical. I do appreciate the feedback though. I posted this for the feedback, not to say that I was right.

Sure he's profiting from someone else's image.  So what?

The grocery store profits from someone else's cabbage, too.  If the owner of the store also happens to have a garden, does that make him unethical? 

The picture is legally and morally in the public domain.  It is, in principle, available to everyone.  Cabbage is also in principle available to everyone.  But you pay the guy who sells you food, and allow him to make a profit for finding the food, procuring it, making it available to you, and perhaps even delivering.  The grocer is charging for a service, and without that service, you would either have to spend a lot more effort feeding yourself, or be hungry.

This guy, who also happens to be a photographer, is charging for a service, and without it people (maybe not you) would have to either spend a lot more effort to find, acquire and print the image, or go without.

The original photographer, who has no financial interest in the picture, is served by many people seeing and owning her work who otherwise would not.  I have to tell you, if I knew now that someone 100 years from now were going to be selling my pictures to people, I'd be thrilled.

Try as I might, I cannot see any ethical issues here.

MMDesign wrote:

It's not that it's hurting anyone, I just can't get past the fact that he's selling a famous print from another photographer and profiting from it. That just stuns me. I don't know, maybe I'm not looking at all sides of the issue?

Oh man come on, he didn't break the law, nor did he do anything sinful against someone who isn't god. The original print is here in my area at the Oakland Museum. Dorothea Lange lived in my area here in Berkeley. 


Don't get me worng here, there is a thing called respect when it comes to photographers from the past. But tt's another when they treat them like Gods.

Farenell Photography wrote:
Wasn't Dorethea Lange working for US gov't at the time? The mission being to document the effects of the Great Depression?

Yes,k the f64 group.

Farenell Photography wrote:
Wasn't Dorethea Lange working for US gov't at the time? The mission being to document the effects of the Great Depression?

Actually, she was working for the Farm Security Administration.

TXPhotog wrote:

Sure he's profiting from someone else's image.  So what?

The grocery store profits from someone else's cabbage, too.  If the owner of the store also happens to have a garden, does that make him unethical? 

The picture is legally and morally in the public domain.  It is, in principle, available to everyone.  Cabbage is also in principle available to everyone.  But you pay the guy who sells you food, and allow him to make a profit for finding the food, procuring it, making it available to you, and perhaps even delivering.  The grocer is charging for a service, and without that service, you would either have to spend a lot more effort feeding yourself, or be hungry.

This guy, who also happens to be a photographer, is charging for a service, and without it people (maybe not you) would have to either spend a lot more effort to find, acquire and print the image, or go without.

The original photographer, who has no financial interest in the picture, is served by many people seeing and owning her work who otherwise would not.  I have to tell you, if I knew now that someone 100 years from now were going to be selling my pictures to people, I'd be thrilled.

Try as I might, I cannot see any ethical issues here.

That analogy is quite the stretch don't you think? I understand your point though, I just happen to disagree with it.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Oh man come on, he didn't break the law, nor did he do anything sinful against someone who isn't god. The original print is here in my area at the Oakland Museum. Dorothea Lange lived in my area here in Berkeley. 


Don't get me worng here, there is a thing called respect when it comes to photographers from the past. But tt's another when they treat them like Gods.

Wow, points for getting God into the conversation! How is my thinking what he's doing is unethical treating her like God?

MMDesign wrote:
Wow, points for getting God into the conversation! How is my thinking what he's doing is unethical treating her like God?

I didhn't say MMdesign worships the photographers of the past as if they are Gods. I did addressed that there are some that do. I think that you are getting too emotional about this. The photographer's work that you are tripping off of is public work. It wasn't owned by her. She was working for another when she did these projects. F64, along with Ansel Adams, Gordon Parks Jr etc..


It's just like you working for the Press or newspaper. Even if you are taking a famous image at that time, the images doesn't solely belong to you. You are getting paid to do a job. This is what Dorothea was doing.

Also, understand this, Dorothea, when she was hired, was hired to photograph the dust bowl during the depression. That image was one of many that Dorothea and taken. The image became famous because of the newspaper in San Francisco published it to address the issues of poverty in this country during those years.


The image is cool, but I've seen much more powerful work by some who aren't even well kown. I'm not takng anything away from  her neither.

Legacys 7 wrote:

I didhn't say MMdesign worships the photographers of the past as if they are Gods. I did addressed that there are some that do. I think that you are getting too emotional about this. The photographer's work that you are tripping off of is public work. It wasn't owned by her. She was working for another when she did these projects. F64, along with Ansel Adams, Gordon Parks Jr etc..


It's just like you working for the Press or newspaper. Even if you are taking a famous image at that time, the images doesn't solely belong to you. You are getting paid to do a job. This is what Dorothea was doing.

Also, understand this, Dorothea, when she was hired, was hired to photograph the dust bowl during the depression. That image was one of many that Dorothea and taken. The image became famous because of the newspaper in San Francisco published it to address the issues of poverty in this country during those years.


The image is cool, but I've seen much more powerful work by some who aren't even well kown. I'm not takng anything away from  her neither.

You're up early!

No, I'm not getting emotional. I'm just trying to get some discourse going on the issue and I appreciate your input. Everybody has their own opinion. I am surprised though that I'm the only one here that feels it's unethical.

MMDesign wrote:
You're up early!

No, I'm not getting emotional. I'm just trying to get some discourse going on the issue and I appreciate your input. Everybody has their own opinion. I am surprised though that I'm the only one here that feels it's unethical.

I'm honestly surprised by your surprise (and I'm not being condescending).  What is it about "Public Domain" that you don't agree with?  As many have said before.. he's not making money off the image per-se (he's not taking credit for the image).  He's making money off of his printing skills.  It honestly seems pretty cut and dry to me.

MMDesign wrote:
I'm an island of one on the matter. I posted the same query on photo.net and received the same response as I got here (only some less politely).

Now that you mention it... I have noticed a resurgence of polite discourse here on MM.  What the hell happened?  Is it because of x-mas?

wandering eye wrote:

Now that you mention it... I have noticed a resurgence of polite discourse here on MM.  What the hell happened?  Is it because of x-mas?

You're probably right. I'm sure it will get back to normal with the post new years hangovers.

MMDesign wrote:
I don't know, maybe I'm not looking at all sides of the issue?

You seem to be considering various perspectives, which is laudable, and you've decided that you're not comfortable with the idea of printing another photographer's work (regardless of copyright issues), which is fine.

Btw, if you follow the link that Johnston provides to the Library of Congress "Migrant Mother" page, there's a link there to an interesting New Times article which touches on a variety of issues connected to the image:

http://www.newtimes-slo.com/archives/co … 72002.html

With the notable exception of FSA photographer Russell Lee, whose largely overlooked body of work actually captures the dimensions of "everyday living," Lange and her colleagues focused almost exclusively on human suffering. That is most certainly the reason that people like Florence Owens Thompson–and many others who appeared in FSA images–resented their photographic portrayal.

Anyway, thanks for bring up this discussion.