FAQ

Questions and Answers

Why are you so fascinated with other people’s photographs? 

Photography is one of the most important cultural techniques of modern society with everyday or vernacular photography being the most widespread, neglected and underrated. Billions of photographs have been produced worldwide and most of them are hardly ever noticed outside their utilitarian context. 

The anonymous production of vernacular photographs is a treasure, both as a document of modern society and as a visual artefact. I decided to explore this field by looking for recurring patterns, by highlighting particular aspects that I find interesting. 

We live in a world of images, and being interested in the world we live in I think it is important to pay as much attention to these images as to any other part of reality. It can be the most fascinating form of social documentation, and for me an infinitely interesting subject for commentary.

How do you edit your found images, if at all?

This very much depends on the individual project and I set different criteria for each project. The Pictures from the Street are completely unedited, i.e. all the photographs I find in public spaces become part of the ongoing series. I decided to employ this non-editing strategy because I am interested in what’s out there, that is to say I am interested in what the pictures are and not what I want them to be. The work is not about my personal view, but about observing and documenting society. 

In other projects such as Archiv or the more recent series Other People’s Photographs the editing process is key. I start gathering as many photographs as possible and then select the ones that go together well, both visually and conceptually until the group is well balanced. Because of this selection process there is more of my own work in these projects, even if they are also based on other people’s photographs. 

Do you ever take photographs yourself or do you exclusively appropriate and recycle other people’s photographs? 

Whenever I feel the need to use a camera, I do. However, I must admit this doesn’t happen very often. An example for photographs I have taken myself is the series entitled Very Miscellaneous. Here I looked for a way to show particular texts in a suitable manner and photographs proved to be the most convincing solution. For this reason I used a camera instead of a photocopy machine or a scanner.

Has a person ever recognised themselves in your work?

No, this has never happened, and is a very unlikely prospect. Finding a photograph on the street is not only a rare occurrence but completely random. Another factor is that I only usually exhibit a selection of my serendipitous findings. For instance let’s say I exhibit a selection of 100 photos in London; it would be fair to say that maybe only two or three of them would have been found in London. How likely is it that one of the two or three people who may be depicted in these pictures actually come to my exhibition – one person out of a population of more than ten million people? I’d say chances are close to nil.

Other than that I am amazed that this is my most frequently asked question. To me it is a rather uninteresting thing to ponder.

Do you care about the personal rights of the people depicted in your works? Do you even have their permission to exhibit their work?

Most of the photographs I use in my works are anonymous, i.e. I do not know the people who made them and I do not know the people depicted in them. Nobody has ever ‘allowed’ me to use these photographs. However, all my photographs were found in a public space and I work on the assumption that people who display or abandon their pictures in a public domain do not mind if strangers see them. I do not break into people’s houses and steal their pictures. People who care for their personal rights in this way should be more careful with the way they treat their own photographs. If you don’t want them to be seen by strangers you should not display them in public. 

Does your artistic practice of appropriating other people’s photographs constitute a violation of copyright? 

In my humble opinion it doesn’t, however, I am well aware that I am operating in a grey area. This is because copyright itself is a rather delicate and complex subject. According to general consensus copyright protection can only be granted to works of authorship meeting a minimum threshold of originality. People who presume my practice constitutes a violation of copyright usually assume there’s a general copyright protection for all photographs including snapshots, studio portraits, and what have you. This assumption is wrong. There’s also no general copyright protection for digital photographs found on photo sharing sites; even if the host says so. Copyright protection depends on the individual photograph’s originality. The vast majority of photographs do not meet the required threshold of originality. 

The photographs I gather and use for my works are uninspiring vernacular photographs; these by definition are the most common and redundant types of photographs and I am interested in them for exactly this reason. In some particular cases their originality may be arguable, but as a general rule the photographs I appropriate do not meet the required threshold of originality that would grant copyright protection.

Other than that, the photographs I use in my works as documentary material are merely integrating parts of larger artworks. They do not constitute reprints or duplications in breach of the fee provisions of copyright law. 

Are your own works protected by copyright? 

Yes, my works are protected by copyright. However, you may notice that copies of many photographs you find on my website can be found on many other sites all over the net. I don’t mind if people copy and paste photographs they find on this page as long as they mention who made them and where they come from; links are welcome, too. I do mind if people alter my work or if my photographs are used for commercial purposes. I shall take appropriate action if I learn about such cases. 

What would you do if somebody else used your photographs in their work? And what do you think of works made by other artists who are inspired by or plagiarise your work? 

Every now and then a prankster comes up with the idea to make copies of my works and sell them. These people suggest it is fair and just that they do to my work what I do to other peoples. They work on the assumption that I make copies of other people’s works and sell them which is not true – I make my own work based on other people’s photographs. 

These people also work on the assumption that selling my works is a piece of cake. This is not true either. 

The collectors and museums that purchase my work do this because they appreciate the originality and quality of my work. The pranksters will soon learn that the lack of originality of their own work is not similarly appreciated. Usually they understand this before they make any serious attempts to copy my work. 

Other than that I think it is more interesting to come up with one’s own ideas rather than copying existing ones. However, I understand that people who don’t have any ideas of their own depend on other people’s.

Why are comments closed on your blog?

I don’t allow comments any more because unfortunately too many people do not know the difference between a comment and an anonymous insult. Of course it is everybody’s right to think that their kids are better artists and their dogs understand more about photography than I do but I don’t see why I should provide a platform for publishing these opinions.