Supposed Ansel Adams Negs Found at a Garage Sale
-
A
- Thread starter david b
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale For Sale: 10 rolls of 120 film
- Started by Brad Bireley
-
Free Free; Bright Lab Jr. Safelight for Shpg Cost
- Started by waynecrider
-
Free Free; AV / Photo Lamp For Shipping Cost
- Started by waynecrider
-
For Sale Yashica Lynx 14 and Lynx 14e.
- Started by Chan Tran
-
For Sale 4x5 film holders
- Started by Early Riser
Forum statistics
- Threads
- 199,026
- Messages
- 2,784,865
- Members
- 99,779
- Latest member
- Deezfluffybutternutz
- Recent bookmarks
- 0
- Status
So you can posts 'classifieds' as a Member, as long as you don't do so in the Classifieds... I see... 
And if such appear to be rather iffy, the worst that can happen is that they perhaps might be bannished, moved to the Lounge?
Hmm...
And if such appear to be rather iffy, the worst that can happen is that they perhaps might be bannished, moved to the Lounge?
Hmm...
Pre-1976 copyright provisions are horribly complex, especially with transition arrangements - there is no guarantee that they are still in copyright, whoever took them. On the other hand, the prints from the negative may attract their own copyright as derivative works, assuming that they embody at least a modicum of creativity.
I see this as, above all else, an attempt to garner support in the film photography community for the findings and claims of the panel.
First, 'See what we found' and not rebuttal or support of claims.
Second, creating a scandal about ownership, creation, etc.
Third, . . .
Well, the list could go on and on. They are decent negatives. $1500 is nuts for an inkjet, seconded. I would much rather Michael Adams and the AA Galleries be consulted to authenticate (get up with the likes of Alan Ross, et al) and then make any prints that might be sold as a result. They cannot in good conscience be marketed as Ansel Adams' prints without going through channels already in place to produce an existing product.
And we're back to this, if they were made by the master himself in the first place. If not, then all of this talk and bluster is problematic at best.
First, 'See what we found' and not rebuttal or support of claims.
Second, creating a scandal about ownership, creation, etc.
Third, . . .
Well, the list could go on and on. They are decent negatives. $1500 is nuts for an inkjet, seconded. I would much rather Michael Adams and the AA Galleries be consulted to authenticate (get up with the likes of Alan Ross, et al) and then make any prints that might be sold as a result. They cannot in good conscience be marketed as Ansel Adams' prints without going through channels already in place to produce an existing product.
And we're back to this, if they were made by the master himself in the first place. If not, then all of this talk and bluster is problematic at best.
Yes, every thread the OP has made on APUG has just led up to this commercial end ... time for some moderation?
Just my opinion. It's really just disguised spam.
***Irony Alert*** See http://www.kalisher.com/ "Copyright Infringement!"
Well you can buy a "Genuine" Ansel Adams Inkjet replica print for $129, rather shows what a rip off these people are trying perpetrate on the gullible public.
Ian
Ian
Digital prints of Ansel Adams's work. The pure thought give me the shivers!
However, I could stomach a digital print by AA Galleries alot sooner than I would a hack trying to make a buck from two five letter words. Those being ANSEL ADAMS.
Absolutely!
I have been following this Norsigian story for some time...and I feel that this is exactly what they are. Despite the fact that many of them look like compositions Adams would not have made, much of the evidence seems to point, though not entirely conclusively, to that fact that he did shoot these. It would seem reasonable that Adams made 65 bad, never-seen-by-the-public compositions for every great, famous one that we have seen, especially in his youth. Interesting for us to see the work of a young, developing photographer before he was considered a "master," but something Adams himself would likely never have shown (just like his limited color work). They are of historical significance only, not photographic. The printing quality appears to be atrocious, the tonality is entirely non dramatic, and the compositions leave much to be desired. I am not going to rush out of my house to go across town to see some of Adams' suckier early work, let alone pay anything for it. I might by a book, if it was reasonably priced (under $50).
At any rate, this belongs in the gallery show announcement forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ansel taught a class in LA early in his career. My believe these are his "seconds" rather than fine negatives used for teaching that he forgot when he quit teaching there.
As to "ownership", whether left behind, misplaced or whatever, the A A Trust owns them. With their deep pockets, I know who I'd bet on.
As to "ownership", whether left behind, misplaced or whatever, the A A Trust owns them. With their deep pockets, I know who I'd bet on.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
how can they own he images
if they don't want them and they
were purchased by a private party ?
The AA gallery or who ever is taking care of AA stuff probably owns the AA signature,or has it copy righted.The negs I would not know,go to court I suppose.
You can't own a signature.
If Adams signed a print, gave that to you, or sold it to you, you own it. Completely. There's nothing more to it.
You can own the right to put that signature on something, yes.
But that doesn't give ownership of something the signature is on to anyone.
The thing here is that they are going to sell reproductions (i.e. prints or scans) of work that is copyrighted. Who holds that copyright is yet to be decided. They claim Adams made the images they want to reproduce.
So they better be sure that they have the right to reproduce them as well as the negatives themselves.
Why hasn't this sales pitch been banned to the Classifieds? Or why hasn't it been deleted?
If Adams signed a print, gave that to you, or sold it to you, you own it. Completely. There's nothing more to it.
You can own the right to put that signature on something, yes.
But that doesn't give ownership of something the signature is on to anyone.
The thing here is that they are going to sell reproductions (i.e. prints or scans) of work that is copyrighted. Who holds that copyright is yet to be decided. They claim Adams made the images they want to reproduce.
So they better be sure that they have the right to reproduce them as well as the negatives themselves.
Why hasn't this sales pitch been banned to the Classifieds? Or why hasn't it been deleted?
Does it need to be ?
It's highly unlikely there's an APUG member stupid enough to want to buy from them.
It would be interesting to here what an expert on Ansel Adams work actually thought about the negatives and resulting images.
The choice of validators seems to be just enough to prove possible provenance in a coort without any consideration of their actual importance in context to his existing negatives & prints.
Ian
I think the point is this guy has started at least three threads on the subject, including this one which is clearly only for financial gain. Add to that, he starts threads, then doesn't appear back in them (save the one where he argued his status as a lawyer.) As I stated before, its just disguised spam IMHO.
Can a moderator please move this to either the classifieds or the lounge (or the soap box)?
+4
Digital print - it is a joke, and a bad one.
Digital print - it is a joke, and a bad one.
**QUOTE REMOVED by me, the author - Really not necessary to the conversation**
While I don't agree with the way this has been brought to our attention (yep, this is spam), I find both the story of the find, the investigation and the outcome intriguing.
I also do wonder, that maybe the people involved have done their homework and research and have negated any risk about being sued for breaches of copyright...... Just putting it out there.
While I don't agree with the way this has been brought to our attention (yep, this is spam), I find both the story of the find, the investigation and the outcome intriguing.
I also do wonder, that maybe the people involved have done their homework and research and have negated any risk about being sued for breaches of copyright...... Just putting it out there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed, it's an interesting topic of conversation.
I suspect that as well as having a fairly strong legal case, they wouldn't mind too much if they were sued because any publicity is good publicity - especially if they win the case.
What I find interesting is the valuation of their product. The product, as far as I can see it, is a print from an old and relatively poor quality negative. Without AA's name the print would possibly be worth $50 if it's well made, but with AA's name attached to it the valuation skyrockets to $7,500 - a whopping 15,000% increase. And presumably people who buy at $7,500 will be doing it as an investment so they must be expecting the price to go even higher over.
The art market is sometimes baffling...
Aint that the truth! Its like people buying bottles of wine for investment purposes.....
7500 for a real AA print made by some dude which does not have the same darkroom skills were eventually the picture is made is a big lough....
Moderators? Please? Classifieds? Or soap box? What do you think?
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |