You flatter yourself if you think you’ve made an artwork. Copying photos off the internet and having them printed and bound does not an artwork make.

I think of No Man’s Land work as a comment on the internet, street view, and documentary photography. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint), we seem to spend most of our lives interacting with the world via the internet. To make artwork based on that new reality seems appropriate and necessary.

Locations in the book were sourced from online communities where people look for sex workers, often in the regions where they live and often using Street View. These people look for these women for various reasons – the obvious voyeurism, sometimes because they want to share information on where they can buy sex, and sometimes because they’re concerned about the areas where they live.

As far as defamation and libel goes, in response to the many legal challenges they faced when Street View was launched, Google developed an algorithm that automatically blurs people’s faces out and therefore conceals their identities. That same blurring is apparent throughout the book.

And this absolutely sucks as an artistic idea. Basically a bunch of found photos that the author didn’t even have to leave his computer to find. None of them compositionally very interesting. Nor with any larger social point beyond, “Hey, look, hookers!”. But printed out and sold for $65, its “art”! Damn shame this gets recognition, considering I can think of plenty of talented photographers who’s work never gets seen beyond Flickr.

Quite apart from how I feel about the book (crap idea, exploitative, didn’t this kind of so-called publishing pretty much play itself out in 2006?) there are some troubling legal angles that have perhaps not been considered either by the ‘author’ or the publisher.

The first is that identifying someone as a sex worker who is not is one of the strongest types of defamation according to UK law. Since the author is British, and the book is available in the UK, this leaves the publisher open – and I mean WIDE open – to having to pay out a huge settlement if one of the women is not a sex worker and decides to take it to the famously libel-happy British courts.

The second is the title being identical to the recent memoir by Ruth Fowler, No Man’s Land (also published as Girl, Undressed). While hers is a nonfiction book about her experiences as a stripper in NY, nevertheless, there is potential scope for confusion. While ‘No Man’s Land’ the phrase is not copyrightable in the most general sense she could very easily demand payment if there is any chance they could be viewed as trading on her reputation. I know this, after all, because I was threatened several times by the estate of Joseph Kessel for appropriating ‘Belle de Jour’. Only I kind of doubt the publisher have the legals and backing to fight it like I did.

I sent them a complaint that also pointed out both these issues but have not, as yet, had a reply.

Almost all of these images are from Italy. The rest are form Spain.

Page 42 especially, there’s a wrecked car at the split and the woman is looking angrily down the road and wearing all her clothing. Maybe she wrecked her car and is waiting for her friend or the tow truck. All I’m saying is that Miska wasn’t there and doesn’t know how it went down. You’re definitely right, they’re cool photos. It’s also a good racket to charge 65$ for a book that you simply compiled and didn’t have stock in making. Plus I’m guessing a book titled, “A bunch of Google Earth pics of chicks on the side of the road” would make less money than, “Check it out! Hookers!” But still. Dubious.