[pure-silver] Re: Experts: Ansel Adams photos found at garage sale worth $200 million
- From: Don Sweet <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:35:15 +1200
A good answer to this question must also deal with the possibility that they
aren't by Adams.
The more I read the lawyer's statement as reported in the CNN article the
less confident I became. It sounds like a closing address to a jury:
Experts, including a former FBI agent and a U.S. attorney, "came to the
conclusion that, based on the evidence which was overwhelming, that
no reasonable person would have
any doubt that these, in fact, were the long-lost images of Ansel
Adams," Arnold said
So, if all the "reasonable" people are later shown to be wrong, and some
future buyer is looking at a loss of $200m, who should compensate whom?
Don Sweet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric" <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:02 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Experts: Ansel Adams photos found at garage sale
worth $200 million
Jean-David, While your post was thoughtful, it circled my point; what of the
lose to that guy that sold the box of negs? Does the buyer in this case have
any moral obligation to share in the bounty of negs. Say for instance when
the seller is unable to understand the value, but could certainly use the
$200 million or a portion of it to substantially improve their life. $85 no
knowledge = $200 million with knowledge. Do those that have the knowledge
have any responsibility for those that don't? (a steal of a deal)
Eric
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214-827-8301
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
SKYPE ejprinter
Let's Talk Photography
-----Original Message-----
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jean-David Beyer
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:14 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Experts: Ansel Adams photos found at garage sale
worth $200 million
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.
====================================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.
=============================================================================================================
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:
