Michael Adams Sues over Proposed Auction of Ansel Prints

[Richard K.]

If Michael has a case, it will depend on the wording of that donation agreement. I have gifted work, not mine, to museums over the years; in every case, it has been stipulated that once the prints are donated, they become the property of the museum, and can be sold at their discretion. In other words, a gift is a gift, perhaps in this case with strings attached.

So, I can only asume that this was a differently worded agreement between Ansel and the Fresno Museum from those with which I am familiar.

Edit: For clarification, the above noted stipulation was that of the museum, not my wish. So far, all of my donated photographs remain with the museums, available for viewing, as was my intention.

Merg any idea of how your donation would have been received if you conditioned that it can only be donated to another museum or returned to family and never sold? I guess there should be a difference between donating art and donating an asset and the stipulation should be clear at the start.

[r.e.]

Here is a more detailed story from yesterday's Fresno Bee: http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/04/...et-museum.html

It is perhaps worth noting that in some countries (e.g. the US, but not, for example, the UK) collectors and artists who make gifts of their work, as distinct from loans, get a charitable tax deduction. In other words, they get paid for their gift. In the US, these gifts, and the associated tax breaks, are the foundation of a lot of collections.

Museums, quite apart from the agreements between them and collectors and artists, do not have free reign to sell work (deaccessioning to use the jargon of the trade), although insolvency is a pretty good reason to do so. There's lots about deaccessioning, and about recent/controversial cases, on the internet, including a blog dedicated to the subject: http://clancco-theartdeaccessioningblog.blogspot.com/

[Brian Ellis]

Yes, I agree. And when I learned today that the director of a local small museum received an $85,000 bonus, to complement a $367,000 salary, I am not surprised.

This sort of activity was the demise of the AA Center in San Francisco; too much paid to salaries and overhead. Ansel's dream was sabotaged from within.

Me too. I sometimes wonder what the people running these organizations are thinking of. I seem to recall reading that the Fresno museum recently added a new wing or new building that cost $15 million or thereabouts. I don't know enough about the Museum's finances or the circumstances surrounding the decision to add the new wing or building to say they were crazy but on the surface it sure sounds like very bad financial management.

[Brian Ellis]

Here is a more detailed story from yesterday's Fresno Bee: http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/04/...et-museum.html

It is perhaps worth noting that in some countries (e.g. the US, but not, for example, the UK) collectors and artists who make gifts of their work, as distinct from loans, get a charitable tax deduction. In other words, they get paid for their gift. . . .

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea - in the U.S. an artist who donates his or her work gets what usually is the tiniest of tax deductions, just the cost of the materials used which for a photographer is like $3 maybe. There have been efforts made from time to time to change that rule but artists as a group don't carry much weight when it comes to lobbying power in Washington. In fact they carry none at all. I can just imagine who gets in to see Nancy Pelosi or John McCain (to be bi-partisan) when lobbyists for a labor union, an insurance company, and the local art league are sitting in the waiting room.

[Jan Pietrzak]

Brian,

Thank you for confirming my deductions. Now if I give you a print, and you donate it you can take off the full amount/value of the print ?????? I understand that in California if a print is re-sold, the artist and get a commission. I think it is like 1 or 5% of the new sale and they have to go looking for you, (I have this bridge that.....).

Jan Pietrzak

[John Bowen]

Just so nobody gets the wrong idea - in the U.S. an artist who donates his or her work gets what usually is the tiniest of tax deductions, just the cost of the materials used which for a photographer is like $3 maybe. There have been efforts made from time to time to change that rule but artists as a group don't carry much weight when it comes to lobbying power in Washington. In fact they carry none at all. I can just imagine who gets in to see Nancy Pelosi or John McCain (to be bi-partisan) when lobbyists for a labor union, an insurance company, and the local art league are sitting in the waiting room.

You forgot to add Roger Clemens to the list....

[Louie Powell]

This is probably going to be one of those instances where the only winners will be the lawyers.

I'm not a lawyer, but I know that it is possible to stipulate conditions on a gift or donation in ways that reduce the options open to the recipients. One example: here in New York, it is fairly common for churches to find that their old, inner-city facilities are a financial albatross - expensive to heat and requiring a lot of expensive repairs (mainly because limited operating budgets have forced them to defer maintenance over the years). And the value of those properties to commercial developers makes it attractive for the church to sell out and invest the revenue in modern facilities in the suburbs. But they can't - because somewhere back in the late 1800's or early 1900's, someone made a significant donation toward the building with the stipulation that if the building is ever sold for non-religious purposes, the donation reverts to the estate of the donor.

[Terry Hayden]

The underlying shame of this whole situation is that, as Merg
pointed out, the Met just recently reopened after a two + year
closure for remodeling.

During that time they radically overspent their budget. The City of
Fresno had enough of a stake in the museum that they took possession
of the building and the land. There is talk of putting one or more charter
school in there.

So, yes, the museum did itself in.

As the Bee article pointed out, the Adams family had altered the standard
donation agreement to disallow resale of the work for the benefit of the
Museum.

Unfortunately, if it goes through bankruptcy, that could probable be voided.

We still have the Fresno Art Museum to carry on here in town. They, ufortunately, are down to a skeleton staff themselves due to budget shortfalls.

In a perfect world, the Met's collection would have been transfered to the
Fresno Art Museum.

But, perfect worlds don't exist - sadly, bad financial managers do.

[mdd99]

The bottom line, as I see it, is (1) always get a lawyer (preferably an expert in the field) and (2), to paraphrase Yogi Berra, "it isn't always over, even when you think it's over."

[Frank Petronio]

Ansel got a lot of work and freebies from Polaroid so why not let it wash? There are probably plenty of more obnoxious and exploitive examples... isn't this a case of a greedy lawyer and heir throwing down another suit in hopes of getting some "go away" money from the defendant?