pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ansel Adams public domain  (Read 16010 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron

« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2014, 16:44 »
0
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.
He may have meant 10 or 20 years after death?
Thats still idiotic.


« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2014, 16:46 »
+1
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.
He may have meant 10 or 20 years after death?

That's not what he said.

Why try to rewrite his views? If he meant something different he can always say so for himself.

« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2014, 16:49 »
0
Im 71...How old are you? I can't remember anything.

Too young to have been in on the fun, obviously; and too old not to regret having been too well-behaved all my life!

« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2014, 16:49 »
0
,
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:21 by tickstock »

« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2014, 16:50 »
+2
...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.

If an artist wants to release their work as public domain they always have that option. But during an artist's lifetime to say that they no longer have ownership and control over their work seems completely crazy to me. No one would ever be able to sustain themselves making art if that were the case?

You could possibly argue about extension of copyright after the artist's death.

If you don't believe in any type of property ownership - land or buildings or anything else, then saying artists can't own their created works would fit in nicely. But if you don't want me to come and take bits of your home and pull up flowers from your garden, think about how that is different from suggesting that people who write, paint, take pictures, etc. should not own the rights in what they make?

« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2014, 16:52 »
0
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.
He may have meant 10 or 20 years after death?

That's not what he said.

Why try to rewrite his views? If he meant something different he can always say so for himself.
I'm not trying to rewrite anything, from the context that's what I thought he meant.  Just throwing it out there no need to get angry.

I'm angry at him, not you, I had to delete my original comment in response to him because it was so incandescent. It could be read as you suggest, but I think it is a bit of a stretch.

« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2014, 18:39 »
0
If you've seen a large Ansel Adam's original in person than you understand why someone would get upset seeing this watercolor filter over screen grab crap.

Clyde Butcher is the only living artist I've seen who can create such amazing darkroom landscape magic.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #32 on: March 26, 2014, 19:15 »
0
I'll try again and with some specifics. Might just be a language problem. Sorry about that, if it is...

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.

An internet forum guy is not a source for legal information that you would want to risk your reputation or a lawsuit for some sales. You didn't make it clear that it was a specific set of images only. No #1

From what I understand all Ansel images have been released to the PD by the National Archives and Records Administration. No #2

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.
That's No #3

So its not that clear then, Pete? I did say I wasnt sure if I understood correctly.

It seems using font 20 red is popular these for ramming opinions down peoples throats.  ;)


That's a yes, and more than an opinion, but I'm researching my facts before a complete statement.

You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. You may not sublicense the Work. You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform.


http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 19:59 by Uncle Pete »

Ron

« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2014, 01:12 »
0
Well thats a crooked sentence, I meant after a discussion on FAA, and seeing a guy selling the images, it seemed legal, and referred to the link I posted. So you got confused because of my poor English. I specifically used words as seems and if I am correct etc to indicate I wasnt sure.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2014, 01:50 »
0
Yes I can appreciate that, people who live here can't speak English (their own language) and the people in the UK find us even less appealing for the way the Americans murder the language.  :)

But saying ALL Ansel Adams pictures are public domain is a bit of a stretch?

Saying you can sell them as you please is also a rather broad statement.

Not picking on your language skills, you do just fine. If I had a second language I wouldn't do as well as you do...

I was busy today and tonight. I'll get working on the details tomorrow. But read that Creative Commons license thing that I linked to. Basically it says, if you make an image using this source material, you can't own the rights and anyone else can use your image.

I really don't know how good of an idea it is to spend a bunch of time, editing Ansel Adams photos, in the first place. Maybe it is, but lets say you and 100 other people on FAA all decide this is a great way to make some money. Where does that lead? LOL

I might make one for myself, for my own wall? His work is amazing and interesting. Truth is, I hardly print my own stuff. I have a few oil paintings (by friends) that I accumulated through college and over the years. I'm happy with those.


Well thats a crooked sentence, I meant after a discussion on FAA, and seeing a guy selling the images, it seemed legal, and referred to the link I posted. So you got confused because of my poor English. I specifically used words as seems and if I am correct etc to indicate I wasnt sure.

Ron

« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2014, 02:00 »
0
The article says ALL of his 220 images are available. Like I said for a third time, I wasnt sure if I understood correctly. I posted the OP to get some input. No need to check my ever word with a magnifying glass.

« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2014, 02:00 »
0
Going off topic - it's really quite fascinating how much difference there is between different prints of the same frame on the site that controls his copyright. I assume all the prints were made by Adams. It really goes to show that the impression his books give of the printing being so finely controlled that prints will be almost identical is very far from the reality.
I had wondered how a process of dodging and burning could be so finely controlled and now I see that it can't.
I apologise for bringing photography into this  ;D

« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2014, 02:03 »
0
The article says ALL of his 220 images are available. Like I said for a third time, I wasnt sure if I understood correctly. I posted the OP to get some input. No need to check my ever word with a magnifying glass.

Ron, it means all 220 images he took in 1941 for that particular project. He took many others - probably many thousand others.

Ron

« Reply #38 on: March 27, 2014, 02:07 »
0
The article says ALL of his 220 images are available. Like I said for a third time, I wasnt sure if I understood correctly. I posted the OP to get some input. No need to check my ever word with a magnifying glass.

Ron, it means all 220 images he took in 1941 for that particular project. He took many others - probably many thousand others.
I came to that conclusion yesterday after reading some comments here. It means that this Floyd guy on FAA is indeed selling the images illegally.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #39 on: March 27, 2014, 03:57 »
0
no offence to Ansel Adams but who's going to pay for his shots apart art galleries and collectors ?

we're in 2014, i can't see where's the value in his stuff compared to the abysmal amount of amazing landscape photos shot by the best pros around the world.

« Reply #40 on: March 27, 2014, 05:34 »
+1
no offence to Ansel Adams but who's going to pay for his shots apart art galleries and collectors ?

we're in 2014, i can't see where's the value in his stuff compared to the abysmal amount of amazing landscape photos shot by the best pros around the world.

It's a historical record, a different medium (B&W film vs digital) and a personal style. Adams's historical importance plays into it, along with the rarity of originals. So it is strictly for museums and collectors.

« Reply #41 on: March 27, 2014, 08:47 »
0
...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.

If an artist wants to release their work as public domain they always have that option. But during an artist's lifetime to say that they no longer have ownership and control over their work seems completely crazy to me. No one would ever be able to sustain themselves making art if that were the case?

You could possibly argue about extension of copyright after the artist's death.

I suppose that was a little "incandescent" of me  ;)   ... I'll agree 10 years is too short. 20 still sounded reasonable until Jo Ann pointed out loosing control of your work in your lifetime.

However, there are several points. Public Domain does not mean (at least to my understanding) that Model Releases wouldn't still be needed for commercial use. The photographer still manages those and decides who to assign them to and what they want to charge for that.

I guess, long before I was a professional photographer, I came to really despise this creation of artificial scarcity. We're almost living in an age where people could have anything they need. (3d printing, open source software, open source 3d models, etc.) And as we approach that, it seems like we toss up more and more artificial barriers to create haves and have not's. Now that I earn money from photography, I have a vested interest in copyright. But I don't want to be entirely hypocritical or forget the other side of the coin.

Copyright (as with patents) ought to incentivize creation and, for a limited time, create a monopoly for the IP holder. However, there is a bargain to be struck for the right balance. I don't think anyone here is so genius that their work should provide for generations. Certainly not Lauren  ;)  (Hey buddy, it's Brian from Frederick, I highly admire your skill and am still glad you're making money on your National Geographic intro.)

An opposing factor to copyright is culture. When you create art, photography, music, and publish it, it becomes part of the culture if it is good. It was also built or derived from a mixture of art, culture, and context in the time it was created. It freaks me that culture could be owned so strictly in some senses. It's a give and take, and I think the pendulum has swung too far towards take.

And listen, this is not anti-photographer. The same extreme uses of the IP umbrella are the reasons we can't sell photos that include certain trademarked SHAPES. ie cars. It's gotten rediculous. I'm glad AA's stuff is entering public domain. I'd like Grim's fairey tails and the old Disney stories based on them to hit PD soon too. And great music. But if it will stop people calling me an "idiot" I'll say maybe lifetime (or 20 years, whichever happens to be longer) should be the outer limit for a copyright. 


« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2014, 09:20 »
0
I find it odd that you want to use model releases to control commercial usage. If a model signs a release, why should the photographer have any right to limit the usage of a released image?  Once the photographer has asserted that a release exists by offering it for commercial use, I reckon that should be good enough for everyone. So as soon as the copyright expires, everybody should be able to reproduce it for any purpose they like. What's wrong with that? Or would your theory of model release sanctity protect your personal interests?

You do realise that scrapping copyright after 20 years will mean a lot of the need for stock disappears, since there will often be freely available material out there to be had for nothing. I'm sure that uninspired individuals would set up agencies selling other peoples just-out-of-copyright stuff for pennies. Look at the industry in publishing expired copyright books, usually by scanning the pages of an old volume and reprinting from that.

Our images are our property, they have some continuing value - otherwise people wouldn't want to get hold of them copyright-free. So if you want to take away my image files and give them to other people to make money from the moment I die, then why don't you do the same with my house and my bank account?  Of course, there are political systems that broadly reject the idea of any form of inherited wealth, but I don't happen to subscribe to that: I want my kids to have whatever is left over from my efforts.

And here's something else for you to ponder: Say I stop producing new work, living the life of Riley on the back of my previous efforts, then after 20 years I die. You would then make all my work available free, destroying its remaining value. What would my widow live on then? Isn't 50 years after death more reasonable?

 

Uncle Pete

« Reply #43 on: March 27, 2014, 12:22 »
0
Let me join you?  :)

Old VHS show I have somewhere, that I used to watch now and then when I was bored at work. I think it was the PBS show (which appears can be viewed online?)  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/

Anyway, he goes into his processing and the special enlarger and shows the light box. He does dodging and multiple exposures (of the same negative, different parts to get them exactly the exposure he wants)

So yes, you would expect that many of the prints, will be different, if each one is made, one at a time. I suppose if someone was reproducing them, they could make an inter-negative and then produce more which looked the same.

Part of the show, he's printing something and doing a test. He creates a print, tears it in into a smaller piece, tosses it into the microwave and says, he wants to get it dried so he can see what it looks like. Cracked Me UP!

I think that his work, like old masters of painting, are in some instances, timeless. Not "everything" just some that stand out, above the rest of the wonderful visions that he produced. I find that Feiniger, and Alfred Stieglitz, or a bunch of people from "Group f /64" were interesting. I don't happen to be a Dorothea Lange fan, but everyone isn't the same? I like her photographic skills, I'm just not interested.

The whole idea of zone printing and tones for black and white has never left me. I like contrast and black black, white white. The Zone System says that every element has it's own luminance. (my interpretation)

And that's why every print will be individually processed and exposed in a series of exposures, to get every single object, precisely the way that the artist wants it to be seen.

Now we have Photoshop, and it's easier to adapt an image and do the same kind of precise vision of the way it should be portrayed to a viewer.


Going off topic - it's really quite fascinating how much difference there is between different prints of the same frame on the site that controls his copyright. I assume all the prints were made by Adams. It really goes to show that the impression his books give of the printing being so finely controlled that prints will be almost identical is very far from the reality.
I had wondered how a process of dodging and burning could be so finely controlled and now I see that it can't.
I apologise for bringing photography into this  ;D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: March 27, 2014, 13:22 »
0
I'd like Grim's fairey tails and the old Disney stories based on them to hit PD soon too.

The Grimm's fairy tales have been PD for many years, and are freely available on Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2591/old/grimm10.pdf

The Disney films, not so.

« Reply #45 on: March 27, 2014, 14:20 »
0
Ansel Adams was a great figure in the conservation movement and bringing photography into the spotlight as fine art.  He was also developed amazing technical skills and taught others through workshops, books, videos.  He was generous to the end, donating his negatives to colleges.  Someone to respect not exploit.

« Reply #46 on: March 27, 2014, 14:37 »
0
I find it odd that you want to use model releases to control commercial usage. If a model signs a release, why should the photographer have any right to limit the usage of a released image? 

Quite simply, the MR is an agreement between model and photographer. I would have thought you were clear on that. The release may include language to allow the photographer to assign it to others but the existence of a release agreed to by two parties does not mean anyone else may freely assume they are party to it.

In cases of unauthorized image use, I presume the publisher is setting themselves up for a bigger liability by publishing without a release than they are for copyright infringement since so few images are actually registered with the USPTO. (Yes, work in the US is automatically copyright to the photographer, however statutory damages are off the table unless registered.)

« Reply #47 on: March 27, 2014, 15:13 »
0
I find it odd that you want to use model releases to control commercial usage. If a model signs a release, why should the photographer have any right to limit the usage of a released image? 

Quite simply, the MR is an agreement between model and photographer. I would have thought you were clear on that. The release may include language to allow the photographer to assign it to others but the existence of a release agreed to by two parties does not mean anyone else may freely assume they are party to it.

In cases of unauthorized image use, I presume the publisher is setting themselves up for a bigger liability by publishing without a release than they are for copyright infringement since so few images are actually registered with the USPTO. (Yes, work in the US is automatically copyright to the photographer, however statutory damages are off the table unless registered.)

I really don't see the difference between transferring the rights to an agreement to the public domain and transferring the rights to a photograph to the public domain.  It's just a broader way of meeting your desire to prevent people controlling the rights to work they create, isn't it?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
7902 Views
Last post May 08, 2009, 09:56
by davey_rocket
20 Replies
8423 Views
Last post July 30, 2010, 17:45
by OM
Public Domain Images?

Started by traveler1116 « 1 2  All » Image Sleuth

45 Replies
20330 Views
Last post June 25, 2011, 21:10
by djpadavona
11 Replies
4324 Views
Last post April 09, 2013, 08:15
by RacePhoto
9 Replies
4834 Views
Last post March 21, 2014, 08:12
by Karimala

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors