Michael Adams Sues over Proposed Auction of Ansel Prints

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Just saw this on MSNBC, sort of LF related I suppose.

Kind of interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35714455...ts_books_more/

[John Bowen]

I'm no lawyer, (I just play one on TV) but my understanding of the bankruptcy laws is that almost every contract can be voided by a bankruptcy judge. That's how bankrupt companies get out of leases, labor agreements, etc. I doubt Michael stands a chance of winning this one.

[Richard K.]

If it was donated, then to me that's just theft. If they're going bankrupt, then they should donate it in turn to a worthy similar institution. Here is another case in which the law is potentially an ass. I would hope that Adams' lawyer could successfully argue that this type of liquidation is not in the spirit of the original agreed purpose and that the prints should be donated or returned to the family.

Can one condition donations to prevent opportunistic theft?

[Merg Ross]

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.

[Jan Pietrzak]

Merg, et al

Being involved with the court actioned Polaroid sale of the Polaroid Collection. I feel I need to add some words. As, artists we have be give things to institutions with the hopes of a long life and stay. Today that is not the case. My legal support has now told me the give things, loan things as stated. That these images are on permanent loan to the institution. Yes you don't get any tax deal, but you can still control the work. We will see how this all plays out. Just like we will see how the Polaroid Collection and the Adams prints play out.

Just some ideas

Jan Pietrzak

[Kirk Gittings]

Interesting idea Jan, I never thought of the loan approach. Frankly I never thought that far ahead.

The O'Keefe Estate has had issues with a museum selling off part of a collection that Stieglitz had given them. I can't remember the name of the museum, but the estate prevailed and the museum did not sell off the collection.

[Robert Brummitt]

I have given my local art museum two large prints by a known working photographer and I have given audiobooks to my local library.
I understood that these were gifts and once they leave my possession they become property of the institutes I gave them too. I know that museum has the two prints and added more work of the same photographer. That's good.
I also know that one audiobook has been sold by the library to get a newer copy of the same book. If the selling of it help pay for newer copy. I'm fine with that as well. If it went to buy a book that I didn't support. I don't have a say in the matter.
My feeling is the AA prints were given as a gift and since the museum is no longer around and has debts to be paid. The prints are a fair asset.
As they say, "The devil is in the details." We don't know what or if there was a contract with the Adams family and the museum. All we can do is watch and see. Let the lawyers duke it out.

[Jan Pietrzak]

Kirk,

That museum was not in northern New Mexico was it.

All I know is that it is time for artists to charge of their work, plan for the future and think of where the work goes. A number of photographers and artists are discussing these things. And it is time we take charge of our work now because know one else will. If we think that galleries and collectors will look out for us well think again.

Like I said before, these are just my thoughts and some of others.

Jan Pietrzak

[Jan Pietrzak]

Robert,

I have not problem with the giving of some thing, thats just an understood. I have given works to groups to sell and raise money for projects. And that's Ok. If a museum paid me for my prints and then later sold them the only thing that I would like to know is who the buyer was. All of that is fine. To knowingly give a gift, and not know what will happen to it is some thing else.

We just need to stand up for ourselves. As artists do we get any breaks no, tax cuts no. We just need not to be used. If we give and image to a group, to sell for what ever WE NEED TO KNOW WHO GOT IT. That is only fare.


But like I said these are only my thoughts

Jan Pietrzak

[Kirk Gittings]

Jan it was Fisk University:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifesty...llection_N.htm