Well, after a discussion on FAA yesterday about stopping image theft and some guy selling Ansel images as POD on FAA, it seems that that is in fact legal.

From what I understand all Ansel images have been released to the PD by the National Archives and Records Administration.

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/28/bringing-ansel-adams-to-wikimedia-commons/

It seems I can get my hands on scans and sell them as I please. I might be mistaken, but thats what I get from the article.

You can see all 220 photos now, in high resolution, on Wikimedia Commons, and the original TIFF files from the scans are going to be available soon. This is not a special case, though; the National Archives has put no restrictions on what we can obtain from their already-digitized files, and they would even like to work with any scanning volunteers to help digitize more.

The US Govt/Library of Congress have issued many of their commissioned images into the Public Domain. The one I know for sure about is this one: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/fsa1998021539/PP

The link I clicked on suggested that all of the images on that site are PD; I'm not certain about that I didn't see a universal announcement of same on the home page). I clicked on several images at random, and they were all 'no known restrictions on publication'.  http://www.loc.gov

Well, that's a surprise. But it only applies to 226 of his works that were commissioned by the US Parks authority in 1941.  For those wishing to nick large scans of them and flog them here are the links http://www.archives.gov/research/ansel-adams/
The US Government has kindly got them ready scanned for you, so you can just right click. The scan quality seems to be incredibly poor, but, hey, who cares? Joe public will still be able to own a genuine Ansel Adams print!

with all due respect for someone who has a bigger name in photography than I'll ever have...

Some (many) of those images are really horrible.

Just like the work done by the FSA photographers like Dorothea Lange's work for the RA and FSA.  It was work for hire from the government so famous images like "Migrant Mother" are available to the taxpayers who paid for it.

That bozo on FAA has posted some of the most iconic Adams images, usually with a crummy watercolor filter applied. AND SELLS IT UNDER THE NAME "ANSEL ADAMS"

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/aspens-northern-new-mexico-ansel-adams.html

Call me a retro crank, but  the legal situation isn't really what makes me angry, it's just the sliminess of selling other people's work.   Even if it's legal in some sense - via a tortured interpretation of of existing law - it's wrong, and it's contemptible.   And it's certainly incompatible with the stated mission of FAA.   Someone who figures out he can legally resell NASA photos is hardly an "artist".

 

Copidosoma - I think the appearance of those scans the government has online is due to inept attempts to copy a print and does not reflect the skill level Adams had. I certainly wouldn't judge him by those but I would like to see some of his original prints.

Yes, and we all know that anything before 1923 is Public Domain and could be used as source material, legally. Call it art if you want. I have some vintage images, which are scans of old photos from the 1800s. I didn't shoot them. (Nope I'm not a vampire) I did edit them from fairly crappy originals. But I'm not going to put them on FAA or take credit for them either. 

They are vintage images. Same goes for some old woodcuts from the 1870s that I found and scanned. They are "vintage woodcuts" not my creative work.

OK back on topic. I think we all agree that it's the National Parks Collection that's in the public domain and it was all the time, because taxpayers paid for the work. One thing that the US has right about using tax dollars and who owns the product of those dollars being spent.

There's also a question, if the archives own the prints and did the scans and edited them, "who owns the rights to those scans". So it's not all that simple. I had a library tell me, if I wanted to scan one of their maps and use it, I'd have to pay a fee. But wait, it's not a map they made, they just own it, and it's from the 1800s. What's the catch?

Property Release. They own the map!

I'm doing further investigation, might take a day or two. I have to go to the office one day a week and pretend I have a job.  But the question would be, if these are public domain, and I went to the archives and did my own scan, then maybe I could claim the right of use. That's easier to determine.

If the national archives are taxpayer funded, it's very likely that the subsequent scans are also PD.

So before I take a leap of faith into any conclusions, I want to do more research. On the surface there shouldn't be any reason why people can't use any scan from the Library of Congress collection or National Archives. It's owned and paid for by the public.

"I'll be back" 

Glad these works are in public domain. And would love to see more music and art fall into the public domain. Copyright makes sense for a limited time, but it shouldn't be a perpetual/in perpetuity source of income for an entire family line. 10 years, maybe 20, great. Whatever we have now is more than enough, it should be less.

But it does raise a point I hadn't thought about for staging realistic looking homes and offices. Would these photos make great substitutions for blank frames or empty walls? I've occasionally used my own photos or art and provided a PR, but I'm no Ansel Adams

Glad these works are in public domain. And would love to see more music and art fall into the public domain. Copyright makes sense for a limited time, but it shouldn't be a perpetual/in perpetuity source of income for an entire family line. 10 years, maybe 20, great. Whatever we have now is more than enough, it should be less.

But it does raise a point I hadn't thought about for staging realistic looking homes and offices. Would these photos make great substitutions for blank frames or empty walls? I've occasionally used my own photos or art and provided a PR, but I'm no Ansel Adams

Do you want your 2006 work to be free for grabs in 2 years from now? Some people have been submitting for 10 years to Shutterstock so their first images should now be Public Domain according to you? You have got to be kidding.

Copidosoma - I think the appearance of those scans the government has online is due to inept attempts to copy a print and does not reflect the skill level Adams had. I certainly wouldn't judge him by those but I would like to see some of his original prints.

Certainly hope so.

Call me a retro crank, but  the legal situation isn't really what makes me angry, it's just the sliminess of selling other people's work.   Even if it's legal in some sense - via a tortured interpretation of of existing law - it's wrong, and it's contemptible.   And it's certainly incompatible with the stated mission of FAA.   Someone who figures out he can legally resell NASA photos is hardly an "artist".

Correct!!!!! BOTTOMLINE!!!!!!!!!

When you're twenty-something, 10 years of copyright protection probably seems like a very long time.  When you're sixty-something it seems like a narrow window of opportunity.

Yes, I really see little difference between 10 years and one year. But I think you would need to be an utter idiot at 20 to sign something giving away your family's future once  you reach 30. I really can't see how someone with a serious record of sales could be so stupid.

I vaguely remember the Cuban missile crisis and the assassination of Kennedy. The Falklands war is a recent event.

Im 71...How old are you? I can't remember anything. I lived through the 60's.  Like they say, If you remember the 60's...You weren't there.LOL