Then there are not so clear cases that include people in the far distance, people with blurred faces, with backs to the camera, wearing uniforms with numbers, not the main subject of the photo, etc.

This is that dubious grey area of the law that leaves it up to the individual microstock site to define and set guidelines for model release requirements, and these guidelines are determined in part by how much risk a site wants to take. Unfortunately, it isn't until a lawsuit is filed and settled that the involved parties know whether the site took too much risk.

So who exactly is at risk? Pretty much everyone. Site, photographer, and customer. That's right. The customer too. If an image buyer uses an unreleased image that has been determined to contain identifiable people, then the buyer could ultimately be held accountable.

So, in the end, a better-safe-than-sorry model release policy benefits and protects everyone, and it should be seen as a competitive advantage because it contributes to the quality and reliability of the product and service.

For more information on model releases, read Dan Heller's excellent Model Release Primer.

Their iconic brand has been built by the many record-breaking allstars the team has fielded throughout its history. We've all heard of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, etc. My guess is that for most people, these names are much more familiar than the number of World Series the team has won.

For the Yankees to continue to build their brand and legacy, they don't necessarily need many more World Series championships (although they will still need one or two to appease the fans), they need a star player who actually sticks around for a while, and New-York-born Rodriguez is the only player in baseball today worthy of sustaining the Yankees brand (sorry Jeter). He is the only current player who has a realistic shot at breaking the greatest of all records, Barry Bond's home-run record(*?).

The expected 10 year $275 million deal, with bonuses for breaking the home-run record, is definitely a risk for the Yankees, but it's a risk they have to take. It's the best way to ensure that that ubiquitous NY logo remains a timeless, timely,and profitable design.

According to the article, "Dickinson said there is need for better homes that don’t break the bank for average buyers. There is also a need to offer the same level of services, and thus quality of living, to low-income families and groups who can’t afford the high cost of hiring an architect and building a new home."

Whether it's fashion, architecture, graphic design, etc., I'm a big believer of good design for all for many reasons, but primarily because when rich folk are the only ones who can afford good design, it actually cheapens and obscures it. Good design becomes a superficial luxury, not a necessity, and then we don't value it as much. It becomes obscured because we then associate good design with size. We think anything that is big is well designed, whether it's a McMansion or a castle. And then it's the size we desire.

I'm glad to see Dickinson say that a well-designed home that caters to a family's individual needs is much better than a cookie cutter McMansion, and I applaud his organization for trying to educate and reach out to the public about this issue.

If you know of anyone who might be interested in CORA, have them check out their website. It contains valuable resources, news, a mission statement, and info on different ways to get involved—either as an architect, related creative professional, or homeowner.

At this point, most of you are familiar with microstock photography. Contributors submit their work online to sell for usually under $10.00 per image. Money is obviously made on quantity as well as quality. The reason microstock sites such as Stockxpert have thrived in such a short time is because of the quality of the images.

Of course there are still many older critics and neysayers who hold microstock responsible for ruining their photography business, but the blame is misplaced. To blame microstock, you would have to blame the Internet and digital photography, and I'm sure many of these critics already embrace one or both of these technologies.

The critics claim that because of microstock many of their images will now only fetch 1/10 - 1/100 of what they should get for them.

This is partly true only because their images are now only worth 1/10 - 1/100 of what they think they should get for them.

It's all about supply and demand and competition. Technology has made it possible to streamline the photographic workflow to the point where it is feasible for competent hobbyists from around the world to produce, upload, and sell hundreds of high-quality images per week in their spare time or full time. The price of many photographic subjects and styles has dropped considerably because of this.

There will always be a high-end market for customs, exclusive stock, and masterpieces only a handful of experts can distinguish anyway, but now the legions of mom and pops and non profits of the world have access to high quality images that look just as good to their customers at first glance.

So, what choice does the mid-level commercial professional photographer who feels threatened by microstock photography have?

If microstock is a threat to his business, he needs to embrace microstock photography, try to penetrate that high-end market, shoot weddings, or, what the hell, do all three. He just needs to figure out what sells where. And who knows? One may lead to the other.

But what he can't do is resist. He must change. He he must adapt. He must mutate or die.

The September 2001 survey cites with illustrations 130 examples (still only a tiny sampling) of advertisements that use the saxophone in some way as a visual element to convey, according to Habla, "youth, fun, action, temptation, eroticism, strength, and freedom." From booz to BMWs to banks, many industries have found the saxophone to be an important sales tool.

For much of the time since its invention by Adolphe Sax around 1840, the saxophone has been the bane of the establishment and the voice of the people. Authoritarian governments, oppressive organizations, and even papal entities have attempted to ban the instrument and jail those who played it. But, like the old saying goes, you can't keep a good thing down.

Due in part to a few visionaries within the establishment and the adoption of the instrument by traveling military bands during the 19th century, the saxophone quickly infiltrated the global music scene and seduced all that heard it.

But what about the saxophone is so seductive? What gives the saxophone that universal voice?

The book contains countless saxophone testimonials from players and aficionados, but it also cites theorists who have argued that musical instruments evolve to imitate or evoke the expressive qualities of the human voice.

Whether that is true or not, Segell points to studies that measure the frequencies of both the human voice and the saxophone. Researchers have found that the two fall within the same frequency range and similarly distribute energy throughout the full range of frequencies. So, not only does the saxophone somewhat resemble the sound of the human voice, it also mirrors its complexity. This allows the player to create a very unique and personal sound. It also means that the saxophone can achieve great success in evoking in the listener "the five basic emotions—happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and love/tenderness" by delivering many of the musical cues associated with these feelings.

As for the visual appeal of the horn? With what Segell tells us about the instrument's tumultuous past, the serpentine shape seems almost prophetic. The shape also resembles the human spine. This could imply the saxophone is an extention of one's being. From an aesthetic point of view, it simply complements the natural curvature of the human form.

Every day designers rely on objects, shapes, colors, and lines to communicate a particular message and evoke a response. Sometimes it's valuable to look beyond the design world to understand and appreciate where some of these tools evolved from. More important, it's absolutely necessary in order to broaden the design horizon and spark new ideas. And because visual design and music share common goals, it's only logical that there be connections between the two.

Current Readers Choice entries include all the Design 100 winners as well as almost 200 runners up. Together these represent the top 10% of total submissions to the Design 100 competition as determined by the judges. The five entries receiving the most "yes" votes will be published in the Readers Choice Award category of the March/April 2007 STEP Design 100 annual.

A free graphics.com membership is required to vote.

Because this is the first Design 100 Readers Choice competition, we consider this a "beta" run. So please share with us any ideas, comments, questions or concerns you may have at step100@dgusa.com. Or feel free to leave a comment here.

Microsoft has even incorporated the character into the latest version of Internet Explorer (IE 7):

For those of you who aren't familiar with the name of this chevron-shaped symbol, it is called the guillemet. According to Merriam Webster, the guillemet is "either of the marks « or » used as quotation marks in French writing."

According to Wikipedia's entry, guillemets are used in many languages to indicate speech, so perhaps many of you are familiar with the character (if so, I apologize for my ignorance).

The guillemet is rendered a few ways online. Some simply use two angle brackets, such as ">>", others use the ascii code equivalent », while a few even use ».

Web design usage seems to be consistent—an icon to help direct the reader to related content.

It's an appropriate, and even catchy, character for this purpose, but looking at some of the examples above, it seems dangerously close to being overused.

If you have more to add about this character that has achieved fresh ubiquity on the Web, do tell!