Sebastian Kim is one of my favorite portraiture photographers. He has shot for Alexander Wang, H&M, Nina Ricci, W, Interview, Vogue, Vogue Germany/China/Japan/Russia, Muse, The New Yorker and more. Kim has a way of removing the fantasy from the image while still leaving his subjects untouchable. The images he creates are provocative and artistic. Here is a great interview with Kim, I suggest checking it out as his advice doesn't just apply to photography but to all things in life. "Don't get discouraged". 
http://www.thegroundmag.com/sebastian-kim-an-interview-with/

He's on Tumblr follow him here: 
http://sebastiankim.tumblr.com/

The work of Alice Hawkins based out of the UK reminds me of bubble gum, 1970's glamour and good old fashioned debauchery. I like viewing her images because there is something that makes me uncomfortable about them. They are almost too voyeuristic. Read more about her and her work by selecting the link below. http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG4526198/Alice-Hawkins-photography-and-fashion.html

Her portfolio is here: 
http://www.alicehawkins.com/

I was contacted today by a company claiming that I owed them $1,025 for the use of an image on this very post. I have since removed the image - it has been replaced with the "SCAM ALERT" image I created above. Here is what they sent me: 

What struck me as being odd is that while there are THREE images linking back to the original artists' work - only one image is being named as a copyright infringement? 
What was even more odd is this is a fairly obvious example of Fair Use. What is Fair Use? 

FAIR USE: 
Fair use is a US legal doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. It is similar to the fair dealing doctrines used in some countries outside the United States. While according to the Supreme Court fair use is an affirmative defense, in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.,[1] (the "dancing baby" case), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that fair use was not merely a defense to an infringement claim, but was an expressly authorized right, and an exception to the exclusive rightsgranted to the author of a creative work by copyright law. "Fair use is therefore distinct from affirmative defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no liability due to a valid excuse, e.g., misuse of a copyright." Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship. Although related, the limitations and exceptions to copyright for teaching and library archiving in the U.S. are located in a different section of the statute. Fair use provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.
The term "fair use" originated in the United States.[2] A similar-sounding principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions but in fact it is more similar in principle to the enumerated exceptions found under civil law systems. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.
Fair use is one of the traditional safety valves intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement.
*taken from Wiki here is the link 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

​When I contacted a representative at LCS and advised her of "Fair Use" on this post and how it links back to the original artist, her response was "well the other images are linked and that one is not so you need to purchase a license for that". 

Uh, no. 

I then told her I would remove the image in question (which I have done). 

Then I Googled LCS and things got interesting.... 

I found that they have a habit of sending out these extortion letters and making license payment demands. What I think they do is run an algorithm searching for linked images and then send out these letters - casting a wide net to see who is going to pay them. Kind of like the emails you'd get from the "Rich guy in Africa that needs you to send him $5,000 and once he gets that he'll mail you a check for a Million Dollars". Remember that one? Cute. 

Here's some great info for you besides fair use in case you get one of these extortion letters: 

“…with copyright, you only have to pay if (1) they have registered it via the copyright office and (2) they can prove damages. BOTH are required. This is true of anything that is copyrighted. If copyrighted but not registered, all they can ask for is you to remove it (cease and desist).”


So there you go. I removed the image they requested be removed and NO, I will NOT pay out $1,025 for a Fair Use image. Super gross that companies like this exist and are TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ARTISTS AND THEIR WORK. 

Don't be a victim to this kind of garbage. 

​Elle 

Yarn bombing. During my trip to Fargo this past weekend I noticed something weird on the light posts... Elaborately knit flowers lazily dripping down over the parking signs. This is yarn bombing, but not the bombing I'm used to seeing the Twin Cities - this is far more decorative and sophisticated in form and presentation. 

This is part of an art installation by Mara Morken. A local artist who started doing citywide installations in 2012 which are fully supported by the city of Fargo. Here is the odd part however - she doesn't actually knit herself. The work is subcontracted, and then installed. 

While the work is cute and charming, lets call it like it is - this is a safe way of creating "street art". In fact due to its nondestructive and decorative nature I wouldn't classify it as street art at all. It has no message and well, is placed so high up that if you weren't paying attention you'd miss it all together. 

What do you think? Is this street art? Or is this public decoration?