Petapixel.com carried this rather amusing story about a photographer fighting for damages resulting from the use of the images.

"In its new motion, Getty and AFP argue that their conduct was “careless” but not willfully malicious, thus shielding them from the maximum penalty. They argue the most Morel is entitled to is a single DMCA penalty of $2,500 and actual damages of $200,000 — legal fees in the case are estimated to have reached northwards of $8 million."

The last bit probably gets photographers worried. If a DMCA damage is only 200K, WTF is the legal fees all about?

Stolen Goods and Usage Abuse

Having your pictures stolen is probably as old as prostitution itself. These days, someone will rip your image and use it unconditionally via Instagram, posters or a soup kitchen. But there are generally two types of infringes you need to be concern about. People who stole your goods, and the people who abuse the limited copyright license of the image.

The first kind is what AFP and Getty got themselves into. They have to show that they had taken sufficient care in finding out the real owner of the pictures instead of just picking the first guy that is associated with it. By right, the photographer in this case should have sued both the thief and Getty+AFP. But the case does not mention this so I can't be sure if it did happen.

The second ones are those who bought a limited copyright license from you and used it on everything they can think of, including the condom packaging you found from a third world country. These you can do nothing about. They are after all your clients and no carefully worded demand for additional payment is going to win you compensation. 

Thieves like Us

Upscaling a low resolution picture is relatively easy as long as you have the right software. There are a few out there that does just this. Often, you can upscale or enlarge a stolen picture by 3 times. Perfect Resize 8 has a fancy patented, fractal-based interpolation algorithms that makes sure your image stays the same once upscaled.

Any stolen picture from the Internet can be given a new lease of life, including the humble screen capture image. This means no picture is safe, and to post your picture up onto the Web is in some ways giving it away. I am sure as hell you haven't got a team of lawyers looking after your images.

How Pictures get Stolen

Instagram, Flickr and any image hosting service. That's how popular these spots are image thieves. I have known some restaurants or cafes who have stolen images used on their menu. Heck, why shouldn't they? You posted it, and there is no water marking or demand for payment, so sue me!

Even with watermarking, you're just adding a layer of inconvenience as any good photoshop digital artist will be able to do away with it.

Searching for Misused Images

Google Image search is probably the best way to find them. They index more pages than you have read books. Drop an image onto the Google Image search bar and you'll be given all the results. Neat. So now you know your image has been abused and misused. What do you do now?

For someone who has stolen your image, you can issue an Internet take down, which is hardly useful if pictures of your beloved Pomeranian Husky is used in a restaurant Menu in Vietnam or for that matter, for the site to be hosted on a Web server that resides in Somalia. DMCA infringement take downs are as useful as a dog whistle—not everyone will hear it. Fair use compensation? That's like asking for a free blowjob while negotiating with a Hooker.

Why Copyright Does not Pay

In the US, you need to register for a copyright of the said image to enjoy additional protection. If you do sue the party involved, your lawyers are looking at the $$$ legal fees as oppose to staking your claim. If you lose, you still have to pay the lawyer. They don't work for free Starbucks coffees.

Legal fees are totally separate from actual damages. If you wish to pursue a case against someone who has infringed on you, make sure you have a good lawyer who doesn't charge that much and are in love with your work. Or for that matter, an avid photographer himself so that he's as interested as you are in protecting image rights. Everything else is secondary.

By now, we have all heard how the Indiegogo project called Enfojer failed on lift off and couldn't get the funding needed to go commercial. That's really sad but then again, who needs to print photos? There is always the colorlab option if you need a few quick ones.

Digital sharing has negated the need for anyone to share photos physically. Instagram's new Direct Sharing method is probably a good example of how you can send private photos to people. As long as they have an Android or iOS device, they will receive your photos, however explicit they maybe, for your eyes only.

Dark Room Revisited

I have played around in dark rooms, and it's pretty fun. It takes hours to come out with the prints you want and that's the problem....you need to spend time on this particular hobby to be any good at it. The dodging and burning is a method to expose parts of an image and you only have the light on the Enlarger to guide you. It is fun but never easy. For this you could use your hands to dodge and burn or some other home made tools. Part of the fun is the hours you spend on it. It is clearly not a simple process and it takes plenty of time.

De Vere is a name well known in the analogue dark room enlarger market and they have a similar product to Enfojer if you care to check them out. They make digital enlargers, where photos are projected to photo sensitive paper. The 504DS model is fully digital.

The complete solution: 17 Megapixel LCD Panel Precision Enlarger Column Front of Baseboard Controls Power Suppy 50mm Rodenstock Lens PC System with DS Software Choice of two light sources: DigiLite Tungsten LED Technology

This means you can output any digital file from your computer to the enlarger for printing. Unlike Enfojer's complete solution, you need to go out to buy your own paper and chemicals for the wash and bath. Not easy to find if you live in a small city.

Frankly, if you asked me personally about the cost of printing on film and on a digital printer, well, the cost are about the same.

First, we are restricted by certain sizes with a digital printer. If you have an A3 printer, well, it's cool but you probably need to spend a small fortune on ink—which I dare say, is never cheap.

Then you have the De Vere Enlarger, which prints to film paper—not cheap either if you take into account the chemicals you need to do this. Photographic paper can last up to 70 years when kept well, while photo printer papers claim to have the exact life expectancy, I can't really vouch for such claims.

Photo sensitive paper have expiry dates and so does the chemicals. Whereas photo print paper for the bubble jet paper has no expiry date and at worst, the ink would dry up anyway once you open them up for use.

My advice is simple. Do what makes you happiest. If you are happy playing around in the darkroom, spending countless hours dodging and burning your pictures, then go for it. But if you are the sort who don't want to spend a lot of time indoors and prefer to go out to shoot more, then by all means go indulge yourself.

There is simply no right or wrong way to print your photos so remember to have fun while you're at it.

Conclusion?

There are some people who spend hours upon hours shooting pictures. Others spend hours and hours behind a computer enhancing and editing photos. Regardless of what you enjoy doing most, a digital darkroom is probably one of the best options if you are in the market of printing your own photos on photo quality paper. The De Vere Enlarger is probably a good investment for those who are artisans, creating one of a kind prints using photographic paper.

When James Thurber wrote his story of Walter Mitty, little did he know that Ben Stiller would turn it into a homage of sorts to analogue film. Thurber wrote this short story in 1939 and it was actually made into a film back in the 1947 but this remake with Ben Stiller starring and directing became something of a nostalgic journey for many.

The movie featured Sean Penn as a photographer, who worked exclusively on film but in one scene, a camera seen in the movie was paired wrongly with an AF-S 300mm f/2.8 VR G lens. That's a bit of a misuse of creative license for historical accuracy for that matter.

Nikon F3T paired with an AF lens?

The Nikon F3T was the very last workhorse from the dark ages of film photography. I remember the F3 well, I wanted to own one but never had the chance to. Here's a short quote from Wikipedia on the F3.

A significantly more durable, robust titanium version of the F3HP was also offered, called the "F3/T", initially in a more natural titanium finish or 'champagne' coloring, and later in a less conspicuous black. It weighs 20 grams less than the comparable F3. The champagne offering was introduced in 1982 and was quickly discontinued around 1985, making it the rarer (and costlier on the used market) of the two titanium models. The F3/T featured titanium clad viewfinders (DE-4), titanium back, titanium top and bottom plates. It also benefited from the conformal coating of the internal circuit board. The mechanical specifications between the black finished F3/T and the natural finish F3/T were identical.

Beautiful things don't ask for attention- James Thurber

The camera is manual but to a point. You can only fire it at one speed, 1/80 sec if you don't have any batteries. It uses two LR44 batteries sold at most watch shops. There were several variations of the F3, including the HP (high eyepoint which the FT is based) and the P for Press. This version had a dedicated hotshoe ontop of the petaprism bulkhead. This meant you could use a standard flash with the hotshoe mount as opposed to a dedicated hotshoe mount found on far left of the camera. This was in fact a pain for some to use as the Nikon hotshoe was non-standard.

For those of us old enough to remember, seeing Life magazine featured in the movie brought back many memories. It was the only way to see the best of what photojournalism has to offer.

Life was an American magazine that from 1883 to 1936 was published as a humor and general interest magazine. Time founder Henry Luce bought the magazine in 1936 solely so that he could acquire the rights to its name when it became a weekly news magazine launched by Luce with a strong emphasis on photojournalism. Life was published weekly until 1972; as an intermittent "special" until 1978; and as a monthly from 1978 to 2000.^[1] It became a weekly newspaper supplement published by Time Inc. from 2004 to 2007 and was included in some American newspapers. The website, life.com, existed from March 2009 to January 2012, as a joint venture with Getty Images under the name See Your World, LLC,^[2] which in January 30, 2012, became a photo channel on Time.com.

Death of Photojournalism?

Life Magazine's final demise was in 2000. It was just after the Dotcom bubble of the 90s. For that, I think the movie had it right as up until then, there were still film photographers but Instagram? That's another creative license which was abused by Hollywood for the sake of entertainment.

Today, real photojournalist are a rare breed. Many who enter the profession now have to spend a big load of cash on equipment alone, and the big payoff is a myth unless you were a paparazzi.

Molhem Barakat, the Reuters freelance photojournalist killed recently while covering the Syrian conflict was paid only a hundred bucks for uploading his pictures. He was 18 years old. His gallery of work can be viewed here.

I don't think Reuters would have paid him pittance if we were all shooting on film. Digital photography has in some way depreciated the value of images regardless of where they come from. There is nothing more rewarding than to see your work pay off in some way and to be able to do what you do best.

Digital photography is not sacred. It can be tampered with, edited and enhanced with a computer. Analogue photos on the other hand exist in celluloid. Shooting a picture is only one part of the equation. You had to find a way to develop the film and send it over to the News agencies. Not easy I tell ya.

I remember working in a darkroom where a photo was developed by hand, the print had to be dried and later line scanned transmitted to the head office. It was fucking hard work compared to what people had to do now. Developing film has two stages, the first is to develop the roll into a negative and the next, using an enlarger, a hardcopy print was made from that frame. This is what you see in "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty". Digital photographers today have no idea how this was done and couldn't understand the process to appreciate it. In the age of digital, the last thing you needed to do was to create a two step process to sharing your pictures to the world. For this I can proclaim one thing.

Photojournalism is dead. Long live the Selfie.