MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: etienjones on July 27, 2010, 03:22
-
From CNN
Experts: Ansel Adams photos found at garage sale worth $200 million
"Those boxes contained 65 glass negatives created by famed nature photographer Ansel Adams in the early period of his career."
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/27/ansel.adams.discovery/#fbid=lT_Vb9RjQW- (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/27/ansel.adams.discovery/#fbid=lT_Vb9RjQW-)
I know, I know . . . you young whipper snappers are going to say “what is a negitive?”
But seriously. What is interesting is the statement in the article:
“Norsigian, who has spent the last decade trying to prove the worth of his discovery, is now ready to cash in -- by selling original prints of the photographs to museums and collectors.”
Who owns the copyrights to the negatives found? At the back of the Ansel Adams Calendars it has “Copyright by the Trustees of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust”. I would think the copyright to those negatives still belong to the Adams family or Trust.
-
Depending on the dating, Norsigian might actually be able to sell prints. Remember the 1923 cutoff, where everything is out of copyright.
After that, I'd say the estate owns all rights. But in the end the lawyers will get to fight it out and my minor opinion doesn't matter. He mau make out better by donating them to a museum or selling them to someone who will donate them to an archive or museum, and in that way avoid all the litigation.
Here's a bit from the library of congress Ansel Adams collection. http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/382_adams.html (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/382_adams.html)
-
If Norsigian spent 10 years on this project so far I'll bet he's got good legal advice on his rights to sell prints. Maybe the glass plates aren't considered a protected work until printed. Just guessing.
In any case he owns the plates and can sell them or donate them to anyone.
-
Shame, to have to lose your copyright ownership because your estate is not retroactive ,etc.
Then again, if this person was a good aide of Ansel Adams , then maybe deserve more than the beneficiary to own the master work.
-
If Norsigian spent 10 years on this project so far I'll bet he's got good legal advice on his rights to sell prints. Maybe the glass plates aren't considered a protected work until printed. Just guessing.
In any case he owns the plates and can sell them or donate them to anyone.
Of course Mr. Norsigian is allowed to own the glass negatives but the question has to do with the rights to use those plates for commercial means. As a painter, when I sell a canvas to a client that client owns the painting but not the rights to use that work for commercial means. For example, the law in California is typical:
“Under California Civil Code 982, when a person buys a work of fine art, the reproduction rights remain with the artist or the artist's heirs, legatees, (persons taking under a will) or personal representative until it passes into the public domain.”
Or like RacePhoto reminded us about the 1923 cutoff, maybe those rights have passed into the public domain,
and as louoates stated . . . . the buyer has had time to get good legal advice.
-
I should have been more clear. He can sell (or lease) the owned plates to anyone...ESPECIALLY someone who does have rights to reproduce the images for commercial use. That would be worth more, right?
-
I should have been more clear. He can sell (or lease) the owned plates to anyone...ESPECIALLY someone who does have rights to reproduce the images for commercial use. That would be worth more, right?
Right, that would work . . . . . . if that was his only option.
I do look forward seeing some more work from the master.
-
I do look forward seeing some more work from the master.
I wonder if he'd be considered a 'master' of photography if he started out today. Don't get me wrong I like his photographs but a lot of that is because of what he went through to create them in the times that he did, not for the actual photographs themselves.
An old photographer who's work I like is Frank Sutcliffe, I've got a friend who lives in Whitby where most of his stuff was taken, bought a couple of prints from the gallery there.
-
I wonder if he'd be considered a 'master' of photography if he started out today. Don't get me wrong I like his photographs but a lot of that is because of what he went through to create them in the times that he did, not for the actual photographs themselves.
At the time there was no internet or 2,000 How-To books or hundreds of tours to take you to the exact place to put your tripod or much else. It's impossible to speculate how someone would do today based on their historic performance.
-
Isn't it only a print made by the artist at approximately the same time as the negative most valuable?
-
Isn't it only a print made by the artist at approximately the same time as the negative most valuable?
Probably, but in this case those glass negs sure seem to be worth a lot. I guess it's that "never before been published" scenario. I'm off to the garage sales ;)
-
Speaking of old masters there is a small but worthwhile show at the West Vancouver Museum of Cartier-Bresson if you live in the Vancouver area or are visiting. I'm sure he wouldn't be much of a master either in this day and age but what heck stop by and see it anyway.
-
Last month I attended an Adams exhibit at the Phoenix Art Museum. I almost didn't go because I've seen so much of his work before and thought I wouldn't learn much. Boy, was I wrong! For the first time I saw exhibited his architectural work, mainly of houses and some other buildings. It was amazing how he used his landscape compositional skills in this work. His framing of structures using trees, clouds and other natural objects taught me much about shooting otherwise mundane things.
I'm hoping that this newly discovered work of his --however convoluted the eventual outcome of copyright issues-- will contain other educational moments.
-
Wait just a moment!, there seems to be some problems for Mr. Norsigian:
From the telegraph.co.uk:
“But the photographer’s family rejected the claim and insisted that the photographs were fakes.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/7913901/Ansel-Adams-discovery-sparks-row-as-family-say-negatives-are-fakes.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/7913901/Ansel-Adams-discovery-sparks-row-as-family-say-negatives-are-fakes.html)
If you are interested in viewing some of the new (old) prints then here is the address:
http://www.ricknorsigian.com/ (http://www.ricknorsigian.com/)
It seems the prints are already for sale for $1,500 for a Digital Print!
-
With the ignorance of many of the stock site reviewers at Istock, Crestock and Veer, those photos, if they were submitted, would probably be rejected for lighting (because they are in black and white) and composition. If it were possible for someone to go photograph these places with the exact same conditions and same composition, then submit them, it sure would be interesting to see what the results would be.
-
With the ignorance of many of the stock site reviewers at Istock, Crestock and Veer, those photos, if they were submitted, would probably be rejected for lighting (because they are in black and white) and composition. If it were possible for someone to go photograph these places with the exact same conditions and same composition, then submit them, it sure would be interesting to see what the results would be.
You would need a large format camera, not the DSLR equipment most of us are using. These negatives are from a 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 inch glass plate camera. That is a BIG negative with LOTS of information!
-
[
You would need a large format camera, not the DSLR equipment most of us are using. These negatives are from a 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 inch glass plate camera. That is a BIG negative with LOTS of information!
Even so, you can be sure there would be noise (i.e. grain).
-
This subject is about exhausted but I thought this was interesting:
Historian Robert Taft listed nineteenth-century landscape photographer William Henry Jackson's typical photo gear for a summer's travels in his 1938 book, Photography and the American Scene. Jackson carried:
2 or 3 cameras for different size lenses
lenses and plate holders for each camera
2 tripods
dark tent or darkbox
10 pounds collodion
2 pints alcohol
1 pint ether
1/4 pound each ammonium iodide and ammonium bromide
1/4 pound each cadmium iodide and cadmium bromide
3 pounds silver nitrate
10 pounds ferrous sulfate
1-1/2 pounds potassium cyanide
6 ounces nitric acid
1 quart varnish
package of filter papers
canton flannel and rottenstone
3 negative boxes
processing trays
various bottles for chemicals
scales and weights
400 pieces of glass
Don't we have it good with a few Flash Cards and a battery charger.
-
Don't we have it good with a few Flash Cards and a battery charger.
Not really. I would very much like to carry around that much stuff (especially with a car!) to create some stunning unique photos. (Instead of the gazillion mediocre snapshots that people create all the time)
-
Don't we have it good with a few Flash Cards and a battery charger.
Not really. I would very much like to carry around that much stuff (especially with a car!) to create some stunning unique photos. (Instead of the gazillion mediocre snapshots that people create all the time)
Or a good mule like Ansel had when he started . . . . . . I read later he had an eight-passenger limousine with 5 x 9-foot camera platform on top.
-
Maybe it's me being mean but I don't think that original negs are worth anything like the price quoted. Yes, they are of historical/photographic interest but you can't put 'em on a wall in a frame and admire the beauty of them like you could a print made from them by the hand of the master.
Any print now made from them is worth what it costs to make the print (IMHO) because hundreds or thousands of prints can now be made from them. Maybe I get the feeling that this is getting all hyped up (just like everything else these days it seems).
The current owner of the negs, submitted them for research 10 years ago. Would have been an awful shame had they turned out not to be by Ansel Adams. Lotta bills to be paid to all those researchers and, of course, some auction house will be rubbing hands gleefully at the prospect of all that commission on their sale.
Desire is the father of thought. Mebbee :)