[pure-silver] Re: Experts: Ansel Adams photos found at garage sale worth $200 million
- From: Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:14:06 -0400
Eric Neilsen Photo wrote:
> Well, here is an ethical question then. Does the guy that owned them and
> sold them for a fraction of what they're worth deserve a piece of what ever
> comes from the net sales?
This is a question that has been around for a long time. There may be a
distinction between moral right and legal right. I think there is.
Legally, unless fraud was committed, when an object is sold, all right,
title, and interest that the seller has passes to the new owner. Now in
the case of copyrighted works, typically copyright does not pass with
it. E.g., if I buy a copy of a copyrighted book, I may sell it, but I
may not make copies of it (ignore fair use for this discussion).
Now in the case of Ansel Adams's photographs, I do not know when he
started copyrighting them. I believe his portfolios were copyright. I
have a print of Moonrise over Moonrise and Halfdome that I bought from
him in 1974 and I do not believe it is marked copyright. I bought the
print, not the negative, so even were I to copy it, it would be inferior
in technical quality from the original. Copyright changes from
time-to-time. Sometimes it has been necessary to send a copy of the
copyrighted work to the U.S.Government (I forget where) with a form to
obtain copyright. Other times (including now, I believe) the other
obtains copyright the instant the work is created, although more
protection is available if copies are sent to the government.
That is the legal stuff.
Now, morally, there are those who argue that this should be changed for
works of art. They maintain that each time a work of art (such as a
painting) changes hands, part of the profit should be shared with the
original artist. Were this also the law, this could be managed for
unique objects, but for "mass-produced" things like photographs and
artistic prints (engravings and lithographs, for example), it might be
quite difficult to enforce.
Also open might be the question if I sell a work of art at a loss,
should the artist share part of the loss? I do not know if anyone is
arguing that (s)he should, but my sense of symmetry says he should.
And what happens after the artist is dead? Does this expire along with
the artist, or does this persist with the artist's estate?
As far as I know, no country has laws that reflect this, but I am not a
legal expert.
> They did take care of them for some time. And
> while they ultimately gave them away, should they be shut out of that
> economic pie? Just bad luck, ignorance, etc? At what point do we look out
> for that kind of problem, if we would agree that teaching special needs
> people is a good thing? Lack of economic values, scruples, what ever you
> want to call it, was it just good luck for one, and bad luck for someone
> else? Some of you are in the business of selling your photographs.
>
> As pure silver, in the context of art, this is a very valid question. As a
> guy working in a darkroom making prints, I can see where this has no place
> in your life. Choose to respond or not. For those that want to get bent out
> of shape, find your delete key now and kiss my ................... or just
> reply off list.
>
>
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 21:00:01 up 2 days, 23:52, 3 users, load average: 4.49, 4.71, 4.73
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
