Home The 1% Club Podcasts Editorial News Picture Gallery Two Views Sommelier Chef's Table Front-of-House Features Book Reviews Travel The Guides Michelin Guide Relais & Chateaux National Guides Europe 25 Contact |
Home The 1% Club Podcasts Editorial News Picture Gallery Two Views Sommelier Chef's Table Front-of-House Features Book Reviews Travel The Guides Michelin Guide Relais & Chateaux National Guides Europe 25 Contact |
| Copyright fine-dining-guide.com 2004-2005. All Rights Reserved. |
Restaurant Food Photography in the Information Age
(December 2009)
Today we discuss the fashion of photography being
applied to fine dining restaurants and examine the
implications for the future as well as the benefits and
drawbacks to restaurants in the present.
Long before the first photographs were made, Chinese
philosopher Mo Ti described the concept of a pinhole
camera in the 5th century B.C.E
According to Wikipedia, the word photograph was coined
in 1839 by Sir John Herschel and is based on the Greek
φῶς (phos) meaning light and γραφή (graphê) meaning
drawing, together meaning "drawing with light."
While significant progress was being made in Britain
during the 1820s and 1830s, notably by William Fox
Talbot, it could be argued that French inventors were
slightly ahead in the race to complete the task of
producing the first public photograph.
It would appear that while Herschel coined the popular
name, the first actual public photograph was taken in the
same year (1839) – by a Frenchman of a Frenchman -
captured having a shoe shine in a Parisian street.
At the same time a significant part of the western world
was living through a new industrial age – a corollary of
which was an exploration of the power of markets, where
‘commodities’ could be ‘owned’ and ‘traded’ by private
individuals.
At any time of significant change there is a reaction – a
high swinging pendulum of activity before a sensible
middle ground is found. For example, there developed a
movement of Romanticism in art, literature and music,
that placed emotion above rationality.
The changes happening in the world were perceived to
be toward a cold, calculating, ‘scientific’, industrial,
money making society and Romanticism harked back to
interpretations of strong emotions and the aesthetics of
beauty.
Another anti-industrial age movement began in
philosophy – that of Subjectivism. Putting it (probably
too) simply this states that the world exists purely in the
mind of the perceiver and it is the sum of on-going social
experiences and interactions, in ever changing
environments, that dictate perception at any given time.
My understanding is that those who apply this philosophy
to art suggest that there is no such thing as ‘creative
genius’ as the list of contributing sources from the sum
of past experiences to any ‘work of art’ would be so long
as to render any definition of ‘ownership’ worthless –
there is nothing new under the sun.
Currently the rules and regulations of the industrial age
hold sway in the modern age – there are markets,
commodities, traders and money. A work of art can be
attributed to an ‘entity’ (a person) and traded between
‘entities’ (people) for a price.
Intellectual Property (IP) law is the mechanism through
which the ownership value of a creative work is
protected. For example, a composer with his music, an
author with his books, an artist with his paintings or a
programmer with his computer software – all make use
of IP law to protect their assets from ‘theft’.
A high resolution photograph of a work of art would have
the rights associated remain with the artist; like the
photocopy of a book with the author; like the file copy of a
song with the composer; like the function, look and feel of
a software application with the developer.
Re-use may be completely prohibited by the ‘creator,’
through to a license being required with associated fees
for re-use. In certain instances terms of ‘fair use’ are
explicitly agreed, such as photographs of fine art being
granted free licenses to non commercial academic
institutions.
At the dawning of the internet digital age, Microsoft and
Apple fought out a multi-year, multi-million dollar court
battle over the 'look and feel' of their desktop operating
systems. One could argue that over the years Microsoft
have proven the undisputed champions of navigating
their way through IP laws in software applications to their
significant benefit.
However, should one take a photograph in a restaurant,
of people and/or of the food they are eating, the rights
associated with the photograph remain with the
photographer.
Neither people nor indeed the chefs’ creation can qualify
for IP protection. This blurring is partly covered by a
separate set of laws around privacy and appropriate or
otherwise invasions of privacy.
As far as the budding fine dining restaurant blogger is
concerned (or fine-dining-guide for that matter)
photographs taken of the chefs’ creations are of interest
to like minded enthusiasts and get published on sites all
over the world.
The blogger or webmaster retains the right to enforce
copyright (IP) as they see fit – usually by allowing Google
image indexing access for free.
(December 2009)
Today we discuss the fashion of photography being
applied to fine dining restaurants and examine the
implications for the future as well as the benefits and
drawbacks to restaurants in the present.
Long before the first photographs were made, Chinese
philosopher Mo Ti described the concept of a pinhole
camera in the 5th century B.C.E
According to Wikipedia, the word photograph was coined
in 1839 by Sir John Herschel and is based on the Greek
φῶς (phos) meaning light and γραφή (graphê) meaning
drawing, together meaning "drawing with light."
While significant progress was being made in Britain
during the 1820s and 1830s, notably by William Fox
Talbot, it could be argued that French inventors were
slightly ahead in the race to complete the task of
producing the first public photograph.
It would appear that while Herschel coined the popular
name, the first actual public photograph was taken in the
same year (1839) – by a Frenchman of a Frenchman -
captured having a shoe shine in a Parisian street.
At the same time a significant part of the western world
was living through a new industrial age – a corollary of
which was an exploration of the power of markets, where
‘commodities’ could be ‘owned’ and ‘traded’ by private
individuals.
At any time of significant change there is a reaction – a
high swinging pendulum of activity before a sensible
middle ground is found. For example, there developed a
movement of Romanticism in art, literature and music,
that placed emotion above rationality.
The changes happening in the world were perceived to
be toward a cold, calculating, ‘scientific’, industrial,
money making society and Romanticism harked back to
interpretations of strong emotions and the aesthetics of
beauty.
Another anti-industrial age movement began in
philosophy – that of Subjectivism. Putting it (probably
too) simply this states that the world exists purely in the
mind of the perceiver and it is the sum of on-going social
experiences and interactions, in ever changing
environments, that dictate perception at any given time.
My understanding is that those who apply this philosophy
to art suggest that there is no such thing as ‘creative
genius’ as the list of contributing sources from the sum
of past experiences to any ‘work of art’ would be so long
as to render any definition of ‘ownership’ worthless –
there is nothing new under the sun.
Currently the rules and regulations of the industrial age
hold sway in the modern age – there are markets,
commodities, traders and money. A work of art can be
attributed to an ‘entity’ (a person) and traded between
‘entities’ (people) for a price.
Intellectual Property (IP) law is the mechanism through
which the ownership value of a creative work is
protected. For example, a composer with his music, an
author with his books, an artist with his paintings or a
programmer with his computer software – all make use
of IP law to protect their assets from ‘theft’.
A high resolution photograph of a work of art would have
the rights associated remain with the artist; like the
photocopy of a book with the author; like the file copy of a
song with the composer; like the function, look and feel of
a software application with the developer.
Re-use may be completely prohibited by the ‘creator,’
through to a license being required with associated fees
for re-use. In certain instances terms of ‘fair use’ are
explicitly agreed, such as photographs of fine art being
granted free licenses to non commercial academic
institutions.
At the dawning of the internet digital age, Microsoft and
Apple fought out a multi-year, multi-million dollar court
battle over the 'look and feel' of their desktop operating
systems. One could argue that over the years Microsoft
have proven the undisputed champions of navigating
their way through IP laws in software applications to their
significant benefit.
However, should one take a photograph in a restaurant,
of people and/or of the food they are eating, the rights
associated with the photograph remain with the
photographer.
Neither people nor indeed the chefs’ creation can qualify
for IP protection. This blurring is partly covered by a
separate set of laws around privacy and appropriate or
otherwise invasions of privacy.
As far as the budding fine dining restaurant blogger is
concerned (or fine-dining-guide for that matter)
photographs taken of the chefs’ creations are of interest
to like minded enthusiasts and get published on sites all
over the world.
The blogger or webmaster retains the right to enforce
copyright (IP) as they see fit – usually by allowing Google
image indexing access for free.
The case for allowing this practice is made stronger by
the fact that the vast majority of top end restaurant food
photographs are taken by non-profit making non-
commercial sites that are maintained by enthusiasts.
Further, we live in the middle of Bill Gates prophesized
‘Information superhighway’ and all information is
expected to be freely and instantly available for
immediate consumption and disposal - Witness even
information injunctions in the UK High Court that are
‘shouted down’ by the twitterati within minutes.
The pendulum swings strongly from side to side but the
momentum is with freedom of information – no matter
how damaging that may be to people in general or to
their livelihoods.
No doubt, as with all things, the pendulum will swing to a
happy balance of common sense. Since Plato, in The
Republic, the need for censorship and information
protection in society has been understood.
In 2004, fine dining guide were one of the first sites to
carry a diary of restaurant picture gallery images on the
internet.
The last six years has seen an explosion of content on
the net of recorded visits to top end restaurants – couple
this with the digital world’s demand and appetite for
information, then surely this is both an unstoppable trend
and further, a good one!
From the chef/patron’s perspective a wider audience
than ever before has access to seeing what visiting a top
end restaurant is likely to entail. The awareness, PR and
marketing potential are enormous and can only help
boost trade for the industry. Or does it?
There is a double edged sword to such things. The
chef/patron of the restaurant has no control.
It is assumed thus far that the photographer of restaurant
food is a budding enthusiast with their heart in the right
place. Even where this is the case there is no guarantee
of adequate lighting, nor indeed capable photography –
proportions, editing, focus, perspective and so on –
equally the chef may just have a bad day at the office.
In other words there’s no guarantee that the photographs
taken are a positive and fair reflection of the food on offer.
It was once said that the camera may never lie, it just
doesn’t tell the truth. With fine dining guide we often have
chefs delighted to participate, however on one occasion
the pictures were said to “not represent me, my
restaurant, or my cooking.”
Even though it would appear that the chef had no
enforceable rights to have them taken down, the site was
quick to politely oblige.
There are of course always those who are mischievous,
have an axe to grind or are just plain malicious, and set
out to misrepresent a restaurant’s food. In the
information age these people, too, have a significant
platform and audience.
So what may chefs do to protect themselves? We see
The Fat Duck restaurant website making IP statements
about the re-use of images on their site. This is yet to
extend to photographs taken of food in the restaurant.
Surely it could be argued that each dish is a created and
re-created work of art that retains IP rights. Even though
each dish is consumed from plate to stomach, it is a
three dimensional object created by arguably an artist.
This would also serve to protect the chef from theft – are
not his recipe and architectural creation two separate
things equally worthy of intellectual ownership rights?
This is where the pendulum might start to swing back to
a sensible middle ground – perhaps in the short term we
may see top end restaurants start to enforce privacy rules
(erecting a sign to the effect) that photographs cannot be
taken on private property.
At the same time, perhaps making available a catalogue
of ‘note perfect’ food photographs on their websites for
free re-use to enthusiasts.
This naturally assumes that chef’s feel the need for
control – the restaurant picture gallery remains the
most visited collection of pages across the 250 page fine
dining guide site. This no doubt will be true of a
multitude of other restaurants sites and blogs that yield a
free marketing, awareness and PR machine.
Perhaps the strength of the information age and the
pendulum reactions against it mirror those of the last era
of significant change – the industrial era - where art,
literature, music and philosophy recoiled against change
but found a happy middle ground that sustained the
goodness, while the acceptable face of change was
monitored and managed to the benefit of societies.
The information age, too, brings extraordinary sweeping
benefits to a generation; it too may need to settle into a
happy middle ground to the benefit of the common global
society.
the fact that the vast majority of top end restaurant food
photographs are taken by non-profit making non-
commercial sites that are maintained by enthusiasts.
Further, we live in the middle of Bill Gates prophesized
‘Information superhighway’ and all information is
expected to be freely and instantly available for
immediate consumption and disposal - Witness even
information injunctions in the UK High Court that are
‘shouted down’ by the twitterati within minutes.
The pendulum swings strongly from side to side but the
momentum is with freedom of information – no matter
how damaging that may be to people in general or to
their livelihoods.
No doubt, as with all things, the pendulum will swing to a
happy balance of common sense. Since Plato, in The
Republic, the need for censorship and information
protection in society has been understood.
In 2004, fine dining guide were one of the first sites to
carry a diary of restaurant picture gallery images on the
internet.
The last six years has seen an explosion of content on
the net of recorded visits to top end restaurants – couple
this with the digital world’s demand and appetite for
information, then surely this is both an unstoppable trend
and further, a good one!
From the chef/patron’s perspective a wider audience
than ever before has access to seeing what visiting a top
end restaurant is likely to entail. The awareness, PR and
marketing potential are enormous and can only help
boost trade for the industry. Or does it?
There is a double edged sword to such things. The
chef/patron of the restaurant has no control.
It is assumed thus far that the photographer of restaurant
food is a budding enthusiast with their heart in the right
place. Even where this is the case there is no guarantee
of adequate lighting, nor indeed capable photography –
proportions, editing, focus, perspective and so on –
equally the chef may just have a bad day at the office.
In other words there’s no guarantee that the photographs
taken are a positive and fair reflection of the food on offer.
It was once said that the camera may never lie, it just
doesn’t tell the truth. With fine dining guide we often have
chefs delighted to participate, however on one occasion
the pictures were said to “not represent me, my
restaurant, or my cooking.”
Even though it would appear that the chef had no
enforceable rights to have them taken down, the site was
quick to politely oblige.
There are of course always those who are mischievous,
have an axe to grind or are just plain malicious, and set
out to misrepresent a restaurant’s food. In the
information age these people, too, have a significant
platform and audience.
So what may chefs do to protect themselves? We see
The Fat Duck restaurant website making IP statements
about the re-use of images on their site. This is yet to
extend to photographs taken of food in the restaurant.
Surely it could be argued that each dish is a created and
re-created work of art that retains IP rights. Even though
each dish is consumed from plate to stomach, it is a
three dimensional object created by arguably an artist.
This would also serve to protect the chef from theft – are
not his recipe and architectural creation two separate
things equally worthy of intellectual ownership rights?
This is where the pendulum might start to swing back to
a sensible middle ground – perhaps in the short term we
may see top end restaurants start to enforce privacy rules
(erecting a sign to the effect) that photographs cannot be
taken on private property.
At the same time, perhaps making available a catalogue
of ‘note perfect’ food photographs on their websites for
free re-use to enthusiasts.
This naturally assumes that chef’s feel the need for
control – the restaurant picture gallery remains the
most visited collection of pages across the 250 page fine
dining guide site. This no doubt will be true of a
multitude of other restaurants sites and blogs that yield a
free marketing, awareness and PR machine.
Perhaps the strength of the information age and the
pendulum reactions against it mirror those of the last era
of significant change – the industrial era - where art,
literature, music and philosophy recoiled against change
but found a happy middle ground that sustained the
goodness, while the acceptable face of change was
monitored and managed to the benefit of societies.
The information age, too, brings extraordinary sweeping
benefits to a generation; it too may need to settle into a
happy middle ground to the benefit of the common global
society.