A few hours ago, right after I published a blog about an activity from a photography class I teach, out of curiosity, I Google-d my name and checked on the online links that all pertain to my identity online. This has been a habit and I do it every now and then, just to check on how my name fair in the world-wide-web. I seldom check on the "Images" tab of the Google homepage when I search my name on it, for, I know I would only see -mostly- my photographic works from either a personal project I shot or a client-shoot I have produced over the years working as a Fashion Photographer. So... as i was nonchalantly doing my business in looking at the photos I took in the Google Images I saw an image(a self-portrait I shot last February of this year) in the initial results of my search word(Enzo Mondejar), encircled image in the image below:

As a -diligent- web user, I clicked on the link... not for any reason, but mainly to check on why it seem like the treatment of my photo is 'different' compared to what I am usually known to do(and what I have originally published)

The image appeared on the link online:

The Original Photo I have published last February:

Okay, so maybe, that is just me being -overly- articulate about MY work and how it is being used(like any responsible professional working in the creative field)... BUT, as far as I am concerned, this is a 'personal photo' though, published online... posted with the intention to only share with my networks and followers, not to be used for any commercial purpose. You can check this link to see my original blog post I published about it --->

Okay, so here is the very essence of this post, A screenshot taken from

you can check on the this link to go to the actual post--->


As an instructor in one of the esteemed school in Fashion and Arts in Manila, I NOT only need to practice what I preach, but NEED to stress it more to my students, followers and to the rest of the creative community(particularly my fellow photographers)... that,  I don't find it appreciative(though made to look like I was a "Poster Boy" for a supposed trend in male hairstyle) to use my photo work(in this case, my self-portrait) WITHOUT any written permission coming DIRECTLY from me or the agency or people that represents me. I get it, you liked my photo, thought it was appropriate to use it for your Franck Provost write-up with

The thing is, materials online, once published, CAN(in some extent, but not totally) be considered for public use. The problem that I see here, is that, being a recognized publication like Philippine Daily Inquirer, and the writer of the article, Luis Carlo San Juan, could have, AT THE VERY LEAST, messaged me, in whatever way he can inn INFORMING me that He will use my photo in his article. A little professional gesture, from a professional to a fellow professional from his part maybe?... wouldn't produce a single drop of sweat from him. 

Photography is my profession, and I don't need to explain on why I do my work and on why I need to be properly notified when my work will be used for any published material(whether print or online), more so, I don't need to expound on the very same root of why I do my thing and expect compensation once the work USED in any print was published.

I find this treatment to photographers as an insult to our profession. I understand that the writer(Luis Carlo San Juan) put my name right below the photo THAT HE USED WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE. But I still need to be informed(now I know how that Christopher Lao felt NOT BEING INFORMED, but that is another story).

I don't really know who this Luis Carlo San Juan-person is, and from the looks of it, he doesn't know me personally as well(YET, HE MANAGED TO USE MY WORK WITHOUT MY CONSENT) ...

Hopefully, this becomes a lesson to all the writers who manage to pseudo-produce an article, thinking that it will be okay to use any material that they can find online, put a name of the source under the image and be fine with it. Most local photographers allow it to happen, that's why the discipline that is Photography, as a business, dwindles to nothing as a hobby or a mere output for support purposes of other media. Well, not for me.

My message to the writer:

Dear Luis Carlos San Juan,

Yes, we know, you had an awesome time having your haircut with Mr. Hebert, good for you! But please, do your research first, my hairstyle is NOT mohawk, definitely NOT a fauxhawk, or whatever hawk you wanna imply it with. It is called an UNDERSHAVE. It can be clearly seen in my self-portrait. The sides are shaved, that continues on the back(the nape is completely shaved). I've sported the look for years, my identity is mostly associated with it, so I know it very well.

Secondly, I am actually a nice human being. I entertain questions, queries and reactions. Message me if you need anything from me, my work or my business, and I'll gladly entertain you. I appreciate people hiring me to produce a job/work. It means they believe in me and the output that I produce. Just like you and your work in the publication as a writer, I take pride in it. So whatever undertaking needed to produce a material, you should -at the very least- be responsible to inform the people involved in your work. I did NOT appreciate you using my self-portrait in your article without my knowledge.

Finally, you have an option, either (a)Take MY photo down the PDI website and get it over with, (b)Give me proper compensation for my photo you used in publishing your article(whether print or online) and get it over with, or (c)Keep using my photo, but, with this, you can talk to my legal associates and advisers about the matter and... get it over with.

I don't know any of your personal contacts, but I am doing my best to reach to PDI via Twitter or Facebook through a link of this post.

I have no beef against you or your publication, in fact, partly I thank you too for considering to use my photo. But this is business for me, so, in the event that you'll be using my work in the future, and since, I haven't met you, and THIS is crazy, so next time, inform me, maybe.


Fashion Photographer and Instructor

It was misleading on your part to solely credit Migs Castro in the photos, wherein your readers might actually think my self-portrait was taken by him. You have given credit, but missed-out in giving an appropriate one.

No comments:

Post a Comment