Gallery owner arrested for forged and stolen Ansel Adams photographs

[sharktooth]

Read about this at another site (linked below)

https://www.diyphotography.net/gallery-owner-arrested-for-forged-and-stolen-ansel-adams-photographs/

This got me thinking about how easy/difficult it would be to forge photographs these days. I say this, since the use of "real" photographic paper is in serious decline, and many of the old "classic" photographic papers are no longer even being made.

Is it possible to chemically/physically differentiate photographic papers from the past century from current papers?

[Mark Sampson]

It has happened. In the early 2000s, the well-known photographer Walter Rosenblum was found to have sold photographs allegedly by Lewis Hine; the fraud was exposed when it was found that the "Hine" prints had been made on modern photo paper. IIRC conservators found optical brightening agents in the "Hine" prints that did not exist in his time. So the answer to your last question is yes. The whole story was published in the photo press and as they say, "You could look it up".
Of course replacing original photos with offset lithographs (posters or calendar images), as is alleged in the case you've mentioned, is another story entirely.

[sharktooth]

It has happened. In the early 2000s, the well-known photographer Walter Rosenblum was found to have sold photographs allegedly by Lewis Hine; the fraud was exposed when it was found that the "Hine" prints had been made on modern photo paper. IIRC conservators found optical brightening agents in the "Hine" prints that did not exist in his time. So the answer to your last question is yes. The whole story was published in the photo press and as they say, "You could look it up".
Of course replacing original photos with offset lithographs (posters or calendar images), as is alleged in the case you've mentioned, is another story entirely.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of optical brighteners, but that's a good one. I'm trying to remember if some paper makers put product names or marks on the back. I think Kodak and Fuji did for color paper, but not sure for B&W.

[Oren Grad]

Here's an article from the Atlantic on the Hine/Rosenblum affair - it has some information on how the analysis came about and how it was pursued:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/06/too-much-of-a-good-thing/302751/

The article notes that in addition to analyzing brand marks on the back and OBAs it's also possible to analyze paper fibers, and mentions the expertise of this firm:

https://ipstesting.com/our-services/fiber-science/age-dating-paper-forensics/

[sharktooth]

Here's an article from the Atlantic on the Hine/Rosenblum affair - it has some information on how the analysis came about and how it was pursued:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/06/too-much-of-a-good-thing/302751/

The article notes that in addition to analyzing brand marks on the back and OBAs it's also possible to analyze paper fibers, and mentions the expertise of this firm:

https://ipstesting.com/our-services/fiber-science/age-dating-paper-forensics/
.
Thanks for the links. That was a fascinating read on the Hine/Rosenblum affair. The whole affair definitely isn't black and white, it's an subtle murky grey. It makes you think about what a photograph really is, and does one person actually control it in all cases. The work of Vivian Maier comes to mind here. I recall the words of Ansel Adams in a video I watched a few days ago, where he talked about his photos being like a musical piece whose interpretation may change over time, just as he printed his photos differently over time.

[Mark Sampson]

Thank you Oren, that was the article I was thinking of. Hope I wasn't too inaccurate.

[Vaidotas]

It’s simple task for any paper coservationist just because paper producing industry went throgh dramatic change in the end of XX century.What fits offset printing doesn’t fit lithography based printing machines. Books, published 50 years ago are much more comfortable to read.
Nice example - the last D’agostini book, printed with laser printer on cheap semiglossy paper.

[Drew Wiley]

Perhaps not photos alone, but I recall FBI stings on entire "gallery rows". Cheating artists and scamming buyers is awfully commonplace, especially in "tourist trap" locatons. It's really not hard to spot fakes or unauthorized restrikes of photos if they were of the kind very finely darkroom printed to begin with, or conversely, if they simply look too clean to be era vintage. But the general public rarely has the kind of specific experience to recognize that kind of thing. Many a gallery crook has gone from rags to riches, and then inevitably back to rags.

[jnantz]

It's surprising there aren't more "in the style of" being sold as the real thing. So many people do similar things, sometimes there's people pulling a fast one.

[Mark Sampson]

Art forgeries have been being made for centuries. It's only when the values rise up sky-high that a) it's worth the effort to forge a work, and b) it's worth the cost to track down a forgery. Conservators and image scientists don't come cheap. And of course conservation and image science are relatively new disciplines; until the recent past (and even today) the "connoisseur's eye" was how pictures and art works were authenticated.
The culture of the time plays a part, too; we as a culture see different things in an artwork at different times in history. There's a fine book by Edward Dolnick, "The Forger's Spell". It tells the story of Hans Van Megeeren, whose really terrible imitation Vermeers were widely accepted as real for many years. Yet looking at those forgeries today, none of us would think that they were by that mysterious Dutch master. So do your homework, friends, before you buy that "Adams" or "Weston".

[Pete Roody]

The gallery was a respected photo dealer in business since 1969. They were always at the AIPAD show in nyc.

https://aipad.com/Exhibitors/Galleries/The-Halsted-Gallery

It just goes to show how far people can fall!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Merg Ross]

This unfortunate situation should not reflect poorly on Tom Halsted, who opened the gallery in 1969 as noted. Tom died in 2018 at the age of 81. He was a founding member of AIPAD, and also president. His daughter Wendy, apparently has taken the gallery in another direction.

[Pete Roody]

This unfortunate situation should not reflect poorly on Tom Halsted, who opened the gallery in 1969 as noted. Tom died in 2018 at the age of 81. He was a founding member of AIPAD, and also president. His daughter Wendy, apparently has taken the gallery in another direction.

Yes to be clear it was Wendy who was arrested. I met her at an AIPAD show about 6 years ago. She seemed genuinely enthused about continuing the business her father had started. Their exhibit was well represented with great prints. Obviously something changed with her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jnantz]

What is the Nicephore Niepce print worth ?

[Serge S]

I read that book. It was fascinating how he perfected his process to doctor the paintings with the oven, etc. The thought was it a different period in his work - it was so ugly, it's hard to believe people fell for it. I guess it was greed.
The recent Basquiat fake was uncovered when the FedEx material it was painted on had the newer font that was not of the period - of the work:)


Art forgeries have been being made for centuries. It's only when the values rise up sky-high that a) it's worth the effort to forge a work, and b) it's worth the cost to track down a forgery. Conservators and image scientists don't come cheap. And of course conservation and image science are relatively new disciplines; until the recent past (and even today) the "connoisseur's eye" was how pictures and art works were authenticated.
The culture of the time plays a part, too; we as a culture see different things in an artwork at different times in history. There's a fine book by Edward Dolnick, "The Forger's Spell". It tells the story of Hans Van Megeeren, whose really terrible imitation Vermeers were widely accepted as real for many years. Yet looking at those forgeries today, none of us would think that they were by that mysterious Dutch master. So do your homework, friends, before you buy that "Adams" or "Weston".

[jnantz]

I read that book. It was fascinating how he perfected his process to doctor the paintings with the oven, etc. The thought was it a different period in his work - it was so ugly, it's hard to believe people fell for it. I guess it was greed.
The recent Basquiat fake was uncovered when the FedEx material it was painted on had the newer font that was not of the period - of the work:)

at least the guy in "leverage" knows what to do, he gets his info (while hiding out in a van with poached wifi ) from a web forum for forgers on the dark web

[John Layton]

Another thing is when an image gets appropriated without the owner's consent...as happened to me many years ago when I dropped into a "high end" gallery and there on the wall was a large oil painting - which, aside from having been crafted from a different media...was otherwise an exact (slightly cropped) facimile of a photo I'd had published a year before in Vermont Life magazine!

Realizing that the gallery owner might possibly have not been aware of this blatant rip-off...and thinking that had I complained then and there - the gallerist, possibly being protective of the artist, may have taken a negative stance to my complaint - I instead feigned interest in the work and told her that I was seriously considering a purchase, but could I possibly contact the artist on my own first?

At this point it could have been argued that I should have then called my lawyer - but instead I chose to phone the artist directly and give him a mild chewing out, saying that he should have at least gotten my permission first (which I'd certainly have given him). I then ended the conversation by telling him how flattered I had felt that he'd chosen my image, and to see this "re-created" as a truly nice painting!

[knjkrock]

After watching the video I wondered if the gallery owner substituted “ special edition” prints for the originals-
Estate authorized silver gelatin prints?

[Willie]

So, is this actually worse than Thomas Kinkade "Limited Edition" of over 34,000 of one painting - signed with ink with one drop of his blood in the vat so he can claim he signs them with his DNA?

[Vaughn]

After watching the video I wondered if the gallery owner substituted “ special edition” prints for the originals-
Estate authorized silver gelatin prints?

Those are limited to 8x10 prints. My guess since they were from 'gift shops' -- matted prints from the calendars...they were excellent reproductions, but still easy to tell they are not silver gelatin prints, as images on silver gelatin paper usually are not made of dots. I have a stack of the calendars...someday when I get too lazy to make my own anymore, I'll start matting up the calendars and giving them to my fellow inmates at the Home for the Feeble Minded.

Pretty crazy, but at the same time one wonders at the pressures to maintain one's lifestyle, prestige, personal/business/family names, and sense of importance. It is not a slippery slope...one steps off into a huge sinkhole.

[Serge S]

A number of year's ago, a friend (who's was a national geo staff photog at the time) told me he walked into a yacht club & to his astonishment saw his photograph - The image was appropriated for an oil painting hanging over the club's fireplace! I don't think he bothered doing anything about it. He was a nice guy:)
One time I walked into a local bank that had a brochure rack & saw a photo I had taken. It was in a school brochure rack card. Puzzled to this day how they got it hi res enough to use....


Another thing is when an image gets appropriated without the owner's consent...as happened to me many years ago when I dropped into a "high end" gallery and there on the wall was a large oil painting - which, aside from having been crafted from a different media...was otherwise an exact (slightly cropped) facimile of a photo I'd had published a year before in Vermont Life magazine!

Realizing that the gallery owner might possibly have not been aware of this blatant rip-off...and thinking that had I complained then and there - the gallerist, possibly being protective of the artist, may have taken a negative stance to my complaint - I instead feigned interest in the work and told her that I was seriously considering a purchase, but could I possibly contact the artist on my own first?

At this point it could have been argued that I should have then called my lawyer - but instead I chose to phone the artist directly and give him a mild chewing out, saying that he should have at least gotten my permission first (which I'd certainly have given him). I then ended the conversation by telling him how flattered I had felt that he'd chosen my image, and to see this "re-created" as a truly nice painting!

[jnantz]

A number of year's ago, a friend (who's was a national geo staff photog at the time) told me he walked into a yacht club & to his astonishment saw his photograph - The image was appropriated for an oil painting hanging over the club's fireplace! I don't think he bothered doing anything about it. He was a nice guy:)
One time I walked into a local bank that had a brochure rack & saw a photo I had taken. It was in a school brochure rack card. Puzzled to this day how they got it hi res enough to use....


It's funny, I did some work for people years ago and they took what I made them and turned them into Christmas cards ( and had the gall to mail me one. LOL ) , others took images and made made them into sleep screen/screen savers on their work computer, others made 20x24 prints on their wall. what can you do, not like I gonna bother to bring the case to Judge Wapner, not worth the time ... the worst though is when you do a job for someone as a news-ist and they pay you a pittance and then sell it's use to the city for like $30G and you see it on busses, billboards, newspapers, brochures &c and you aren't even given a by-line. LOL. whatever.

[jnantz]

So, is this actually worse than Thomas Kinkade "Limited Edition" of over 34,000 of one painting - signed with ink with one drop of his blood in the vat so he can claim he signs them with his DNA?

IDK. for years I have thought that the whole limited edition 1/xx photograph makers are kind of a strange thing. use a different developer or a different stop bath or toner or whatever, it's not part of the original edition. the greatest thing about photography ( being able to produce hundreds or thousands of copies of an image off a negative or file ) is it's biggest flaw. I don't know which Weston it was who cut his negatives and included them with the print, but at least he and the people buying his work knew there weren't many of them. are there may forged daguerreotypes or tin/ambro types or retina prints ? I kind of like Kinkade's work, he knew how to paint light well that's for sure..

[Alan Klein]

The gallery was a respected photo dealer in business since 1969. They were always at the AIPAD show in nyc.

https://aipad.com/Exhibitors/Galleries/The-Halsted-Gallery

It just goes to show how far people can fall!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A few years back, I attended the Association of International Photography Art Dealers, or AIPAD, as it's more commonly known, held at the Park Avenue Armory, in NYC. There were lots of Ansel Adams B/W prints. Many dealers apparently sell his stuff and each had their booth selling the prints. I saw three different Sunrise over Hernandez's. One dealer had his at around $80,000; another dealer at $115,000 and the last at around $140,000.

So I'm standing at the last dealer, the one with the $140,000 edition, when in flows this attention-grabbing couple. He, a rather ordinary fifty-something-year-old dressed to kill, and she, a knock-out blond about half his age. So I overhear him telling her, "This is nothing. My Hernandez cost me $180,000." As they drifted away, arm in arm, he had a self-loving smile on his face. And she, well, I think she was impressed as well. I was. But not about the $180,000. Or that he could afford an Adams' Hernandez. I was impressed that he had such a hot girlfriend. Even the dealer selling the Hernandez seemed impressed as he winked at me in agreement.

[Alan Klein]

A number of year's ago, a friend (who's was a national geo staff photog at the time) told me he walked into a yacht club & to his astonishment saw his photograph - The image was appropriated for an oil painting hanging over the club's fireplace! I don't think he bothered doing anything about it. He was a nice guy:)
One time I walked into a local bank that had a brochure rack & saw a photo I had taken. It was in a school brochure rack card. Puzzled to this day how they got it hi res enough to use....

My friend Mel Greifinger who's passed away recently was a commercial artist. He used some of my photos as backgrounds for paintings he did. I emailed them to him so I guess he had official permission to use. Did he? In any case, another painting he did with me in it I eventually bought from him and it's hanging on my wall behind me right now. Actually he took the photo with his camera but the geese weren't in the original. Artist's creativity. He had a good sense of humor.

[CantikFotos]

Remember the Man Ray scandal back in the 90s?

https://thefrailestgesture.com/the-fake-man-ray-prints/

[Jim Noel]

IDK. for years I have thought that the whole limited edition 1/xx photograph makers are kind of a strange thing. use a different developer or a different stop bath or toner or whatever, it's not part of the original edition. the greatest thing about photography ( being able to produce hundreds or thousands of copies of an image off a negative or file ) is it's biggest flaw. I don't know which Weston it was who cut his negatives and included them with the print, but at least he and the people buying his work knew there weren't many of them. are there may forged daguerreotypes or tin/ambro types or retina prints ? I kind of like Kinkade's work, he knew how to paint light well that's for sure..

It was Brett.

[Merg Ross]

It was Brett.

Sorry Jim, never Brett. It was Kim Weston.

Best,
Merg

[CantikFotos]

Here's my tale of woe and lost riches. In the Summer of 2005, I snapped a photo of my soon to be 2 year old daughter blowing me a kiss in Taipei. I cropped it and posted it on Flickr. A few days later I got a message from a guy who said he was an artist and would make a drawing my photo. I said sure and forgot about it. Two years goes by and a British friend sends me a message and link to a London newspaper story. It's been claimed to be a Banksy but I doubt it.
Regardless, since 2007, Amazon, Ebay, Redbubble, Etsy....every online market in the world has been selling my daughter's photo.....on everything from canvas hangings to tshirts, hoodies, coffee mugs....even iPhone cases and Covid masks. I've never gotten a dime. My wife did order 2 hoodies from the UK.....one for me and one for my daughter. She's in college here in South Carolina and loves to show it off.

https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/exhibitions/smile-please-it-s-a-banksy-6607227.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=banksy+smile+girl+&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwja5dWI6_b6AhWCO1MKHcLSDO0Q2-cCegQIABAA&oq=banksy+smile+girl+&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1D1DVj1DWDDEGgAcAB4AIABW4gBoQGSAQEymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=g3RVY5qYBoL3zALCpbPoDg&bih=1032&biw=1728&rlz=1C1YTUH_enUS1014US1014


232004

232003

[Joshua Dunn]

There is a movie on Netflix about the Knoedler Gallery in New York selling fake works and they made millions before they were caught. It's called "Made You Look: A Tue Stork About Fake Art."

-Joshua

[Drew Wiley]

Kincade infamously mass-produced fancy "posters" assembly-line fashion, then would personally add one or two tiny spots of paint on them to claim they were original paintings, and sell them under false pretenses. That's like waving a red flag at a bull when it comes to art fraud laws in both CA and NY. But his whole overall marketing strategy was basically a fashion of investment fraud at a certain point in his career, and, without going into details or nitpicking that statement, is what finally got him indicted. Peter Lik is basically the photographer equivalent; but he's mainly based in Las Vegas and Lahaina, and has been known to wave a lot of red flags of his own. But every tourist trap gallery row potentially has some version of that kind of nonsense. New Yorkers know better, so prefer to get defrauded by better fakes. The temptation to mass-produce counterfeits (valuable manuscripts, at least) goes clear back to the invention of wood block presses. All kinds of technology has been pioneered by crooks.

[jnantz]

Kincade infamously mass-produced fancy "posters" assembly-line fashion, then would personally add one or two tiny spots of paint on them to claim they were original paintings, and sell them under false pretenses. That's like waving a red flag at a bull when it comes to art fraud laws in both CA and NY. But his whole overall marketing strategy was basically a fashion of investment fraud at a certain point in his career, and, without going into details or nitpicking that statement, is what finally got him indicted. Peter Lik is basically the photographer equivalent; but he's mainly based in Las Vegas and Lahaina, and has been known to wave a lot of red flags of his own. But every tourist trap gallery row potentially has some version of that kind of nonsense. New Yorkers know better, so prefer to get defrauded by better fakes. The temptation to mass-produce counterfeits (valuable manuscripts, at least) goes clear back to the invention of wood block presses. All kinds of technology has been pioneered by crooks.

don't really think any of them are frauds they all did / do whatever they can to sell their work.
a lot of photographers don't print their own work, are they frauds?
not sure what the difference between Lik, Adams and Kincade are.
All seem to be idealized landscapists/primevilists to me.
Is your comment a "taste" / "insult" thing?

[Alan Klein]

Many artists copy their art on silk screens or other methods and then add paint strokes to each of the results and sign them personally. This is well-known and perfectly legal. Buyers know what they're buying. Of course, the original all-oil painting goes for a lot more. It's no different than a photographer having a limited edition of his photo.

[nitroplait]

Bob Dylan apparently also used photographs as "inspiration" for his paintings:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-bob-dylan-rip-off-cla_b_985296

[jnantz]

Bob Dylan apparently also used photographs as "inspiration" for his paintings:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-bob-dylan-rip-off-cla_b_985296


is this bad ? people use other people's tripod holes, and emulate other people's style ( with a camera ) all the time, is that bad too ?

[Tin Can]

Exactly

There is a saying

'We stand on the shoulders of giants!'

Some also believe in Synchronicity

or

Nothing new under the Sun

many here emulate

[Drew Wiley]

Alan - you're missing the point. A photomechanical press reproduction of a painting is not legally an original painting; nor is something based on a paint-by-numbers map filled in with colors in another country by an assembly line of workmen. Even the legal definition of a serigraph (silkscreen) or lithograph has certain stipulations, and technique-inherent quantity limits, different from mechanically mass-produced things like posters, whether they're done cheaply or good. Things go terribly awry otherwise. For example, Dali signed stacks of blank paper even on his deathbed, without even seeing the end result, which was in fact, thousands of ordinary posters of his work, which ended up selling for high prices due to his own signature, but which inevitably proved almost worthless to gullible collectors who thought they were getting a sound investment.

"Investment" is the deceptive hook in the bait. It's what one hears, or at least distinctly implied, walking into a Lik gallery, and what got Kincade into a lot of trouble. If you just happen to like a particular gernre and want it on your walls, and don't mind spending the money, fine. But there are legal limits to what the seller can claim about it before transgressing the boundary of fraud. What finally bagged Kincade was the manner his franchisees became defrauded; but he had been waving a red flag at a bull all along, failing to notice another angry bull was also watching.

There's certainly nothing wrong with the manner Kincade came up with an especially high quality manner of making reproductions, or even offering those in custom colorized fashion to match specific client decor (though it's not to my own taste). Rather, it was when he got highly successful and overextended himself, and like numerous others before, was facing financial collapse to his oversized house of cards, which by then included his own theme-park-like real estate venture, that he finally overstepped the line conspicuously enough to get into real trouble. But he had been flirting with that fate for quite awhile, as if almost teasing authorities.

[jnantz]

Alan - you're missing the point. A photomechanical press reproduction of a painting is not legally an original painting; nor is something based on a paint-by-numbers map filled in with colors in another country by an assembly line of workmen. Even the legal definition of a serigraph (silkscreen) or lithograph has certain stipulations, and technique-inherent quantity limits, different from mechanically mass-produced things like posters, whether they're done cheaply or good. Things go terribly awry otherwise. For example, Dali signed stacks of blank paper even on his deathbed, without even seeing the end result, which was in fact, thousands of ordinary posters of his work, which ended up selling for high prices due to his own signature, but which inevitably proved almost worthless to gullible collectors who thought they were getting a sound investment.

"Investment" is the deceptive hook in the bait. It's what one hears, or at least distinctly implied, walking into a Lik gallery, and what got Kincade into a lot of trouble. If you just happen to like a particular gernre and want it on your walls, and don't mind spending the money, fine. But there are legal limits to what the seller can claim about it before transgressing the boundary of fraud. What finally bagged Kincade was the manner his franchisees became defrauded; but he had been waving a red flag at a bull all along, failing to notice another angry bull was also watching.

There's certainly nothing wrong with the manner Kincade came up with an especially high quality manner of making reproductions, or even offering those in custom colorized fashion to match specific client decor (though it's not to my own taste). Rather, it was when he got highly successful and overextended himself, and like numerous others before, was facing financial collapse to his oversized house of cards, which by then included his own theme-park-like real estate venture, that he finally overstepped the line conspicuously enough to get into real trouble. But he had been flirting with that fate for quite awhile, as if almost teasing authorities.

Dali was a fraud too ? and collectors who buy signed artwork are gullible ?
I think it would be easier if you could tell us who you believe WASN'T a fraud, naive and gullible. it might be easier
you didn't answer my question about people who seek out other people's style or tripod holes and sell the work as their own
are they frauds, or just everyone else ?

[Bernice Loui]

All this brings up another "art world" personality.. Andy Warhol... copier or originator or ?_?_?_?


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

... mostly a monotonous abomination as far as I'm concerned. A Starbucks on every street corner, but even more Warhols, ad nauseum. I'd pay to join any modern art museum which refuses to show him and offers something fresh instead. An illustrator of common commodities who became just another common commodity.

[Bernice Loui]

Yet, Andy Warhol made millions and others millions more to this day... why?

Meh, think pop-music..
Bernice



... mostly a monotonous abomination as far as I'm concerned. A Starbucks on every street corner, but even more Warhols, ad nauseum. I'd pay to join any modern art museum which refuses to show him and offers something fresh instead. An illustrator of common commodities who became just another common commodity.

[Drew Wiley]

There's no secret about Dali, John. If you want an actual Dali painting, you make an appointment with a very select gallery, they research your credentials, and the armed security guard unlocks the door after seeing your ID, and you send em a two million dollar certified check. If you want a signed Dali poster, you walk right into a gallery along Fisherman's Wharf or Ghiardelli Square in SF, drop four or six thousand dollars because the slick salesman tells you it will be worth fifteen grand in six months; and then you eventually end up discovering it isn't even worth 10% the value of the frame it comes with! I am not exaggerating in the least. Because I had accounts with framing wholesalers, I got all kinds of wholesale price lists sent to me. Those mass-produced Dali posters carried a wholesale price of around 15 dollars apiece, and thousands of them were printed at a time. The number of sheets of paper he personally signed in advance of even printing is hard to say; and he certainly didn't need the money, and most of it didn't go to him anyway, but all added up in that style of economic empire. And rich n' famous conspicuous consumption was his lifestyle.

The same could be said about any number of famous painters. But no truly great artist ever got greedy or ever committed a crime, did they? They're all immaculate saints deserving their pedestal. You might want to ask Caravaggio about that one. C'Mon, John, this is the real world.

The AA trust is legit. But that doesn't stop others from trying to illicitly get a piece of the action. And as far as "tripod holes", I've probably been over more of the Sierra Nevada with a big camera than Ansel himself. And that fact makes me appreciate his sensitivity to the light far more than most, and NOT depreciate it, as you seem to be insinuating. But it also intuitively informs me there are infinitely more things there to inspire film capture than just what Ansel himself saw, and many other ways of doing so, composition and printing wise. Frankly, I wish I had another eight lifetimes to see more of that one range, if only they'd be pre global warming years, and hopefully pre-REI jogging shoe Muir Trail mentality too.

[jnantz]

There's no secret about Dali, John. If you want an actual Dali painting, you make an appointment with a very select gallery, they research your credentials, and the armed security guard unlocks the door after seeing your ID, and you send em a two million dollar certified check. If you want a signed Dali poster, you walk right into a gallery along Fisherman's Wharf or Ghiardelli Square in SF, drop four or six thousand dollars because the slick salesman tells you it will be worth fifteen grand in six months; and then you eventually end up discovering it isn't even worth 10% the value of the frame it comes with! I am not exaggerating in the least. Because I had accounts with framing wholesalers, I got all kinds of wholesale price lists sent to me. Those mass-produced Dali posters carried a wholesale price of around 15 dollars apiece, and thousands of them were printed at a time. The number of sheets of paper he personally signed in advance of even printing is hard to say; and he certainly didn't need the money, and most of it didn't go to him anyway, but all added up in that style of economic empire. And rich n' famous conspicuous consumption was his lifestyle.

The same could be said about any number of famous painters. But no truly great artist ever got greedy or ever committed a crime, did they? They're all immaculate saints deserving their pedestal. You might want to ask Caravaggio about that one. C'Mon, John, this is the real world.

The AA trust is legit. But that doesn't stop others from trying to illicitly get a piece of the action. And as far as "tripod holes", I've probably been over more of the Sierra Nevada with a big camera than Ansel himself. And that fact makes me appreciate his sensitivity to the light far more than most, and NOT depreciate it, as you seem to be insinuating. But it also intuitively informs me there are infinitely more things there to inspire film capture than just what Ansel himself saw, and many other ways of doing so, composition and printing wise. Frankly, I wish I had another eight lifetimes to see more of that one range, if only they'd be pre global warming years, and hopefully pre-REI jogging shoe Muir Trail mentality too.


Drew you paint every single "artist" whose style you don't appreciate as a fraud and people who appreciate them to be a moron. It's really kind of comical to be honest. I've got no problem with Warhol, American Post/Modernists, Expressionists &c I wish there was more of that, and less rocks and trees to be honest. I'm not insinuating the depreciating of anything, but you make claims over and over again as if what you say is "fact" when it's opinion. You trash people as frauds and without a idea of originality in their whole body yet it's OK for others to make photographs like AA and /or find tripod holes, steal other people's style, and claim they are doing "original work". it's a bit much.

[Alan Klein]

Alan - you're missing the point. A photomechanical press reproduction of a painting is not legally an original painting; nor is something based on a paint-by-numbers map filled in with colors in another country by an assembly line of workmen. Even the legal definition of a serigraph (silkscreen) or lithograph has certain stipulations, and technique-inherent quantity limits, different from mechanically mass-produced things like posters, whether they're done cheaply or good. Things go terribly awry otherwise. For example, Dali signed stacks of blank paper even on his deathbed, without even seeing the end result, which was in fact, thousands of ordinary posters of his work, which ended up selling for high prices due to his own signature, but which inevitably proved almost worthless to gullible collectors who thought they were getting a sound investment.

"Investment" is the deceptive hook in the bait. It's what one hears, or at least distinctly implied, walking into a Lik gallery, and what got Kincade into a lot of trouble. If you just happen to like a particular gernre and want it on your walls, and don't mind spending the money, fine. But there are legal limits to what the seller can claim about it before transgressing the boundary of fraud. What finally bagged Kincade was the manner his franchisees became defrauded; but he had been waving a red flag at a bull all along, failing to notice another angry bull was also watching.

There's certainly nothing wrong with the manner Kincade came up with an especially high quality manner of making reproductions, or even offering those in custom colorized fashion to match specific client decor (though it's not to my own taste). Rather, it was when he got highly successful and overextended himself, and like numerous others before, was facing financial collapse to his oversized house of cards, which by then included his own theme-park-like real estate venture, that he finally overstepped the line conspicuously enough to get into real trouble. But he had been flirting with that fate for quite awhile, as if almost teasing authorities.

I don't know what Lik or Kincade told their buyers. I wasn't there. What I'm saying is that many oil painters sell copies of their work that are reproduced mechanically and then they add a few oil strokes and sign their name on it as the artist and sell them as editions. The people buying them are not told they are original paintings but rather are editions of the original. Perfectly legal. The cruise ships have these auctions all the time on every cruise ship. We bid for one ourselves. Actually I thought someome would outbid my bid but no one raised their hand and we got stuck with it. Plus 15% to the auctioneer.

Here's a description of the process on ships:
These auctions mostly feature prints by contemporary artists, such as Tarkay, Britto and Yaacov Agam. The pieces are created with a process called Giclée, French for fine spray. This requires a very expensive ink-jet printer dropping miniscule dots of very fine ink. One Giclée print can cost $50 to manufacture, and the quality is amazing. One of the most recognizable artists is Peter Max, and his pieces usually fetch a good price on any ship. Max’s affiliation with cruises even led to a commission by Norwegian Cruise Line to create the artwork for the hull of the line’s newest ship.

Peter Max often adds considerable cachet to his cruise ship pieces by not only signing them, but adding a unique dab of paint to each prints making it slightly different. But you need to know that Peter Max has made thousands of these pieces, so even though yours (which can cost several thousand dollars) is technically unique, it isn’t exactly rare. Check the online market for Peter Max before you cruise to see what I mean.

https://www.foxnews.com/travel/guide-to-cruise-ship-art-auctions

[jp]

Drew you paint every single "artist" whose style you don't appreciate as a fraud and people who appreciate them to be a moron. It's really kind of comical to be honest. I've got no problem with Warhol, American Post/Modernists, Expressionists &c I wish there was more of that, and less rocks and trees to be honest. I'm not insinuating the depreciating of anything, but you make claims over and over again as if what you say is "fact" when it's opinion. You trash people as frauds and without a idea of originality in their whole body yet it's OK for others to make photographs like AA and /or find tripod holes, steal other people's style, and claim they are doing "original work". it's a bit much.

I like rocks and trees and I can't stop photographing them.

But yes we need a wholesale review that art business practices and postmodern styles and influences are here to stay. Among Gen-x like myself, there's an attitude that if it's good, it will get copied and re-born somehow in another flavor.. We're the generation that attained world domination in the cmoputer field with open source. Creative commons licenses for photography was adapted from the software business. It's a massive shift that can't be undone. Stock imagery is worthless. Creativity is forever changed. Napster & p2p. Spotify/Pandora instead of rare CDs. Music Sampling. The Beastie Boys knew more about post modern art than we do. Artificial limitations via editions common to LF photography are sometimes just as sus as Lik or Kinkade. I expect a younger generation would be even more laissez faire about the content protection business.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, the law isn't that casual. The wild west frontier of all these new digital implications might not have gotten ironed out yet; but it is already on the ironing board under inevitable review.
Even I will personally admit the digital revulsion has attained the summit of world composting, at least if e-waste actually decomposed without poisoning everything around in the process.
But I don't know how one would go about "editioning" large format prints if they're like me, and rarely print two exactly the same, and seldom more than two of the same image. I'm just hinting how your own kids will likely rebel from the all the digi obsession of their parents' generation, and go back to vinyl and turntable music. Being cool is only cool until it's no longer cool.
"Post-modern" was becoming a worn-out passe expression probably before you were born, and was basically nonsense art-speak gibberish to begin with. But everything revolves in cycles, and it even it will be back if all this digi technology doesn't exterminate life on earth first.

Glad to hear that you think rocks n' trees are still worthwhile. I can't live without them. I grew up near rocks 14,000 ft tall plus the biggest trees on earth, and right on the edge of the second deepest canyon on the continent (the very deepest was slightly to the south of there). And I pity anyone who thinks "culture" is only a Noi Yoik thing. It's greatest achievements and skyscrapers are puny compared to what God did using the basics of geology. Not even the Cathedral of Notre Dame holds a candle to many of the glacially sculpted pinnacles I've photographed. And up there, no need for stained glass either.

[jnantz]

I like rocks and trees and I can't stop photographing them.

But yes we need a wholesale review that art business practices and postmodern styles and influences are here to stay. Among Gen-x like myself, there's an attitude that if it's good, it will get copied and re-born somehow in another flavor.. We're the generation that attained world domination in the cmoputer field with open source. Creative commons licenses for photography was adapted from the software business. It's a massive shift that can't be undone. Stock imagery is worthless. Creativity is forever changed. Napster & p2p. Spotify/Pandora instead of rare CDs. Music Sampling. The Beastie Boys knew more about post modern art than we do. Artificial limitations via editions common to LF photography are sometimes just as sus as Lik or Kinkade. I expect a younger generation would be even more laissez faire about the content protection business.

I know the feeling .. it's not the I don't like rocks and trees but to basically make claim that everything else is fraudulent to me is a bit much. and I couldn't agree more about the Beastie Boys, was just listening to some of their music. Made me sad when I learned that MCA passed.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know of a single photographer on this forum who EVER claimed everything but rocks n' trees is fraudulent. Not even close. Where did that idea come from?

[jnantz]

Where did that idea come from?

Not hard to read between your lines. As I said it's pretty comical some of the things you have said over the years.
Between people being illegitimate, frauds, or "wasting precious resources" ... it's a bit much.

[r_a_feldman]

It's funny, I did some work for people years ago and they took what I made them and turned them into Christmas cards ( and had the gall to mail me one. LOL ) , others took images and made made them into sleep screen/screen savers on their work computer, others made 20x24 prints on their wall. what can you do, not like I gonna bother to bring the case to Judge Wapner, not worth the time ... the worst though is when you do a job for someone as a news-ist and they pay you a pittance and then sell it's use to the city for like $30G and you see it on busses, billboards, newspapers, brochures &c and you aren't even given a by-line. LOL. whatever.

The US Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case Lynn Goldsmith brought against the Andy Warhol Foundation for (mis)use of her photo of Prince. Apparently (according to NPR) the justices had a fun time in their questioning and even Justice Thomas asked questions. The main qustions are what constitutes “Fair Use” and if Warhol’s work was “transformative” of Goldsmith’s photo.

Here is a link to an analysis of the case, from the perspective of someone who supports the Warhol Foundation’s position: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/supreme-court-considers-whether-warhol-violated-copyright-law-with-prince-portrait/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Gazette%2020221012%20(1)

[Drew Wiley]

What's the difference between "reading between the lines" and putting words in other people's mouths, John? Did I give you permission to speak for me? Talk about re-purposing without permission! Don't worry, only a minor inconvenience. I won't go to the Supreme Court with it. No harm, no foul.... just a difference in philosophy I guess.

[Merg Ross]

Those are limited to 8x10 prints. My guess since they were from 'gift shops' -- matted prints from the calendars...they were excellent reproductions, but still easy to tell they are not silver gelatin prints, as images on silver gelatin paper usually are not made of dots. I have a stack of the calendars...someday when I get too lazy to make my own anymore, I'll start matting up the calendars and giving them to my fellow inmates at the Home for the Feeble Minded.

Pretty crazy, but at the same time one wonders at the pressures to maintain one's lifestyle, prestige, personal/business/family names, and sense of importance. It is not a slippery slope...one steps off into a huge sinkhole.

Vaughn, I had the same thought; likely matted from the calendars. I just pulled out my '86 Ansel calendar and the reproductions are indeed excellent, printed by Gardner/Fulmer Lithograph, of course. Most are nominal 11x14 in size and represent some of his most famous photographs.

[bdkphoto]

The US Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case Lynn Goldsmith brought against the Andy Warhol Foundation for (mis)use of her photo of Prince. Apparently (according to NPR) the justices had a fun time in their questioning and even Justice Thomas asked questions. The main qustions are what constitutes “Fair Use” and if Warhol’s work was “transformative” of Goldsmith’s photo.

Here is a link to an analysis of the case, from the perspective of someone who supports the Warhol Foundation’s position: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/supreme-court-considers-whether-warhol-violated-copyright-law-with-prince-portrait/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Gazette%2020221012%20(1)


There's a webinar on Wednesday from ASMP, NPPA, and APA that's open to all discussing the case from a photography perspective - https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_rs1L602yTP-QWKXLlBf2zg

It seem to me that the gallery case is about actual fraud and forgery, not really an issue of copyright infringement and fair use per se.

[Alan Klein]

The US Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case Lynn Goldsmith brought against the Andy Warhol Foundation for (mis)use of her photo of Prince. Apparently (according to NPR) the justices had a fun time in their questioning and even Justice Thomas asked questions. The main qustions are what constitutes “Fair Use” and if Warhol’s work was “transformative” of Goldsmith’s photo.

Here is a link to an analysis of the case, from the perspective of someone who supports the Warhol Foundation’s position: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/supreme-court-considers-whether-warhol-violated-copyright-law-with-prince-portrait/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Gazette%2020221012%20(1)

I read this article explaining the Supreme Court's verbal hearing. Based on my interpretation of the article's leaning, the Supreme Court is going to confirm the lower court's ruling that the copyright was violated. The original photographer should have been paid for the use of his photo. If they allow the use without payment, no one's original work will be protected much.
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/10/13/us-supreme-court-warhol-foundation-lynn-goldsmith-prince-copyright-infringement

[jnantz]

I read this article explaining the Supreme Court's verbal hearing. Based on my interpretation of the article's leaning, the Supreme Court is going to confirm the lower court's ruling that the copyright was violated. The original photographer should have been paid for the use of his photo. If they allow the use without payment, no one's original work will be protected much.
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/10/13/us-supreme-court-warhol-foundation-lynn-goldsmith-prince-copyright-infringement

A friend who is very involved in recovering thousands of photographs of his family that somehow ended up as part of a greeting card business and sold to a stock-house told me in a long conversation ... in order for something to be transformative something like 5 changes have to happen, there seem to be more than 5 changes in the Warhol works. It is interesting that this image in the article is so important ( dec pop star I guess ) and other silk screened images. from car wrecks &c haven't caused similar problems. I won't even mention Richard Prince and Sherrie Levine, oops I guess I just did.

[bdkphoto]

A friend who is very involved in recovering thousands of photographs of his family that somehow ended up as part of a greeting card business and sold to a stock-house told me in a long conversation ... in order for something to be transformative something like 5 changes have to happen, there seem to be more than 5 changes in the Warhol works. It is interesting that this image in the article is so important ( dec pop star I guess ) and other silk screened images. from car wrecks &c haven't caused similar problems. I won't even mention Richard Prince and Sherrie Levine, oops I guess I just did.

There is nothing codified in the amount of changes that need to happen for something to be considered transformative or not, there are examples of both where works have been altered in a similar fashion to Warhol - Shepard Fairey comes to mind with his Hope poster - he lost his case and was found to have infringed Mannie Garcia's photo, and conversely Richard Prince prevailed on several works he did almost nothing to alter..

If you are actually interested in the Warhol case the link to the town hall meeting above (in post#53) will be informative, the participants from NPPA ASMP etc all took part in the case with amicus briefs, and attended the hearings.

[jnantz]

There is nothing codified in the amount of changes that need to happen for something to be considered transformative or not, there are examples of both where works have been altered in a similar fashion to Warhol - Shepard Fairey comes to mind with his Hope poster - he lost his case and was found to have infringed Mannie Garcia's photo, and conversely Richard Prince prevailed on several works he did almost nothing to alter..

If you are actually interested in the Warhol case the link to the town hall meeting above (in post#53) will be informative, the participants from NPPA ASMP etc all took part in the case with amicus briefs, and attended the hearings.

Im surprised The Estate of Andre the Giant, and his Posse didn't sue.

[Alan Klein]

A friend who is very involved in recovering thousands of photographs of his family that somehow ended up as part of a greeting card business and sold to a stock-house told me in a long conversation ... in order for something to be transformative something like 5 changes have to happen, there seem to be more than 5 changes in the Warhol works. It is interesting that this image in the article is so important ( dec pop star I guess ) and other silk screened images. from car wrecks &c haven't caused similar problems. I won't even mention Richard Prince and Sherrie Levine, oops I guess I just did.

When Hollywood uses a book to create a screenplay and movie, there are many changes the most obvious being from the written word to film and acting with live people being recorded. Yet, author Mario Puzo got paid for his book The Godfather when they made the movie. He even got paid for the movie sequels that were not written in the book. I think the Supreme Court is going to see this Warhol matter as a copyright violation, otherwise, nothing will be able to be protected. You could draw a mustache on the guy's face and claim it's transformative.

[jnantz]

When Hollywood uses a book to create a screenplay and movie, there are many changes the most obvious being from the written word to film and acting with live people being recorded. Yet, author Mario Puzo got paid for his book The Godfather when they made the movie. He even got paid for the movie sequels that were not written in the book. I think the Supreme Court is going to see this Warhol matter as a copyright violation, otherwise, nothing will be able to be protected. You could draw a mustache on the guy's face and claim it's transformative.

I thought when someone wanted to make a movie from a book they "optioned" the book, and paying for the rights to use it in a movie.
Sure, it is transformative, just like drawing a mustache and beard on the Mona Lisa and writing L.H.O.O.Q, ...
is photographing a building ? plenty of people photograph buildings without paying the architect who designed it.

[jnantz]

What's the difference between "reading between the lines" and putting words in other people's mouths, John? Did I give you permission to speak for me? Talk about re-purposing without permission! Don't worry, only a minor inconvenience. I won't go to the Supreme Court with it. No harm, no foul.... just a difference in philosophy I guess.

Do you actually read the things you write about to people whose "stuff" &c you don't appreciate? If you don't like the reputation of a person who calls others illegitimate hacks because they don't do the kind of artwork you appreciate, they use photoshop, are an academic or whatever, maybe you should have someone proofread your posts and soften your stance ..
Me personally? I think the more art that's out there, any kind of art, the better. If people were making art instead of war we'd all be better off.

[Paul Ron]

ooops

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know how to respond to such comments. I don't like eggplant or rap music either. Is that a crime? As far as making art and not war, heck, half of art history would be missing - all the way from the conquest hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt to the grand oil painting glamorizations of the Napoleonic Wars. Forget Triumphal arches too. Just how sanitized does esthetic taste have to become to make it palatable to everyone? Different tastes are the nature or the game. Don't like the fact that personal opinions, and personal esthetic tastes, exist? Well, there's no way of getting around them. They're everywhere, and always will be.

On a different forum I just posted that I don't know why people think AA is the ultimate standard of either exposure or printing. That's not undermining his real contribution in any manner, or dissing him, though it's inevitable certain people will be offended by that statement. I have a perfect right to my own set of eyes and own kind of photographic and printing experience. So those who read between the lines can think anything they want. Others will appreciate my actual meaning, especially if they compare posts where I've repeatedly stated how I probably have more ability to actually appreciate AA's sensitivity to light far more than most people, because I outright grew up in that very light - the high Sierra was all around me. But even so, I don't feel compelled to somehow copy him. I have my own standards, and own way of looking at things.

[Alan Klein]

I thought when someone wanted to make a movie from a book they "optioned" the book, and paying for the rights to use it in a movie.
Sure, it is transformative, just like drawing a mustache and beard on the Mona Lisa and writing L.H.O.O.Q, ...
is photographing a building ? plenty of people photograph buildings without paying the architect who designed it.

Photographs of buildings as well as art works can violate copyright under certain circumstances.
http://thecopyrightzone.com/?p=458

[r.e.]

Photographs of buildings as well as art works can violate copyright under certain circumstances.
http://thecopyrightzone.com/?p=458

@jnantz was talking about buildings, not art works, and your link is not inconsistent with what he says.

In most countries, including the U.S., photographing a building is perfectly legal if the photo is taken from a public place. A photo from private property raises the issue of trespass. The situation in some European countries is different. In some instances, photographing a building from a public place can violate copyright.

[alan_b]

plenty of people photograph buildings without paying the architect who designed it.

I prefer it when the architect pays me to photograph the building. Maybe I'm just not "Fine Art" enough.

[Drew Wiley]

An architect should be flattered if people photograph their work (without trespassing, that is). Light itself doesn't belong to anyone unless it belongs to everyone. But yeah, being paid to do it ain't bad either.

But Alan - read your own link more carefully. It's not photographing the building per se which matters, but pirating its specific identity in such a manner as to constitute a conflict, like using its image unauthorized for your own brand logo or own advertising focal point.

[alan_b]

There are architects who "buy" jobs (severely underbid and operate at a loss to get a signature project or block competitors). Maybe they're the ones who expect to be paid to photograph their work.

[Drew Wiley]

What fool sucker of a photographer would fall for that? And if the architect himself is so incompetent he has to "buy" a job, what kind of fool developer would actually hire him? That's something I never have encountered, even though I've known a number of otherwise incompetent architects. They still had to eat. But I suppose a bottom-feeder culture exists in all kinds of trades, not just wedding and web design photography.

[r.e.]

When Hollywood uses a book to create a screenplay and movie, there are many changes the most obvious being from the written word to film and acting with live people being recorded. Yet, author Mario Puzo got paid for his book The Godfather when they made the movie. He even got paid for the movie sequels that were not written in the book.

I think that talking about commercial feature films has limited value in this context. The people who make them are businessmen who have serious money invested. The last thing they want are lawsuits for things like copyright infringement and violation of privacy. They take steps and spend money to avoid both, even if they may not need to as a strict matter of law.

I wish that I could remember the name, but the makers of a feature film that takes place in New York, and was made guerrilla-style (relatively low budget, skirt the NY film shoot permit system), included a behind the scenes in the DVD about how the film was made. The filmmakers made damn sure that there was nothing in the shots that could conceivably give rise to a copyright or privacy lawsuit, even one without merit. For example, there's a scene in the film that takes place in a video rental shop. The filmmakers took down posters on the shop walls advertising popular feature films. Why? The posters, at least in theory and despite them being free advertising, could have attracted a lawsuit for copyright violation.

The Godfather is a particularly bad subject for discussion. It's a work of fiction, not non-fiction, and Paramount only paid US$80,000 (some sources say $50,000) for the rights. Then the book took off. It's a long, complicated story, but Puzo's book became a huge bestseller and Puzo wrote the screenplay for the film. From the perspective of Paramount, Puzo's involvement was a benefit both creatively and financially in terms of ticket sales. The film also helped boost sales of the book and therefore Puzo's and his publisher's own profits. Then The Godfather became a lucrative film franchise, to the benefit of Paramount, Puzo and Puzo's publisher. That $80,000, obviously supplemented by subsequent agreements, became an extraordinarily good investment.

[jnantz]

There are architects who "buy" jobs (severely underbid and operate at a loss to get a signature project or block competitors). Maybe they're the ones who expect to be paid to photograph their work.

no that's not what I am talking about, but im sure there are some high flyers who are like that .. Alan was talking about compensation to creators for usage, if images are made of a structure / object one is technically supposed to have the creator sign an object release form and paid compensation, just as one would have a model sign a model release form, and compensated. The problem is that photographers often times think they can do whatever they please, and they do whatever they please. the internet spreads false information because people use the internet to create hysteria and anger based on untruths. The reality is photographers really can't do whatever they want. This same hysteria was seen after 9-11 when photographers (usually amateurs or pro-maturers (amateurs with professional grade gear )) made photographs of federal buildings or installations and cried foul when they were escorted off site by security (not before creating a scene of course), or when people photograph inside stores that don't allow photography of any sort, or when photographers raise a stink with TSA people at airports. Unfortunately a lot of photographers have a sense of entitlement, and people reinforce this entitlement on the internet and afterwards the stink they raise on the internet / and off makes it harder for people who follow the rules.

[Alan Klein]

An architect should be flattered if people photograph their work (without trespassing, that is). Light itself doesn't belong to anyone unless it belongs to everyone. But yeah, being paid to do it ain't bad either.

But Alan - read your own link more carefully. It's not photographing the building per se which matters, but pirating its specific identity in such a manner as to constitute a conflict, like using its image unauthorized for your own brand logo or own advertising focal point.

That's what I said. "Photographs of buildings as well as art works can violate copyright under certain circumstances." and then referred you to the article that clarified the points.

[Alan Klein]

I think that talking about commercial feature films has limited value in this context. The people who make them are businessmen who have serious money invested. The last thing they want are lawsuits for things like copyright infringement and violation of privacy. They take steps and spend money to avoid both, even if they may not need to as a strict matter of law.

I wish that I could remember the name, but the makers of a feature film that takes place in New York, and was made guerrilla-style (relatively low budget, skirt the NY film shoot permit system), included a behind the scenes in the DVD about how the film was made. The filmmakers made damn sure that there was nothing in the shots that could conceivably give rise to a copyright or privacy lawsuit, even one without merit. For example, there's a scene in the film that takes place in a video rental shop. The filmmakers took down posters on the shop walls advertising popular feature films. Why? The posters, at least in theory and despite them being free advertising, could have attracted a lawsuit for copyright violation.

The Godfather is a particularly bad subject for discussion. It's a work of fiction, not non-fiction, and Paramount only paid US$80,000 (some sources say $50,000) for the rights. Then the book took off. It's a long, complicated story, but Puzo's book became a huge bestseller and Puzo wrote the screenplay for the film. From the perspective of Paramount, Puzo's involvement was a benefit both creatively and financially in terms of ticket sales. The film also helped boost sales of the book and therefore Puzo's and his publisher's own profits. Then The Godfather became a lucrative film franchise, to the benefit of Paramount, Puzo and Puzo's publisher. That $80,000, obviously supplemented by subsequent agreements, became an extraordinarily good investment.

Are you suggesting that Hollywood should not have paid him otherwise? That they wouldn't be violating copyrights?

[drj52]

That's what I said. "Photographs of buildings as well as art works can violate copyright under certain circumstances." and then referred you to the article that clarified the points.

Your link says:

“The copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place.”

That would seem to clearly contradict you. How does the link support your argument?

[r.e.]

Are you suggesting that Hollywood should not have paid him otherwise? That they wouldn't be violating copyrights?

Rather the opposite. In my view, there was no room to argue that using The Godfather without purchasing the rights was legal. Consequently, I think that the film is irrelevant to this discussion. More broadly, I think that copyright practice in feature film production, and indeed in commercial documentary production, is not a good indicator of what's legal and what isn't. There are financial and practical reasons (e.g. avoiding the risk of having distribution of your film enjoined until a lawsuit is over) to take a broad view of copyright protection in both.

[Alan Klein]

Your link says:

“The copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place.”

That would seem to clearly contradict you. How does the link support your argument?

Ths is also in the article:
"Generally speaking, only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. The copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. Generally you don’t need permission to be in a public place and photograph a public building. There may however, be trademark issues at play. For example use of the Empire State Building in an ad for “Empire State Fashions” without a release, contract or consent from the building owners may lead to legal disputes likely resulting in a trademark action."

It's my understanding if you use a picture of a particular building as part of ad for your product to advertise it, you are going to run into copyright issues. It's sort of like people. You can photograph people on the street in a public area, but you can't use that picture of them in an ad without paying them and getting a release.

Now I'm not a copyright lawyer. So I'd check with yours before doing anything.

[Alan Klein]

Rather the opposite. In my view, there was no room to argue that using The Godfather without purchasing the rights was legal. Consequently, I think that the film is irrelevant to this discussion. More broadly, I think that copyright practice in feature film production, and indeed in commercial documentary production, is not a good indicator of what's legal and what isn't. There are financial and practical reasons (e.g. avoiding the risk of having distribution of your film enjoined until a lawsuit is over) to take a broad view of copyright protection in both.

I agree that copyright and patent law and intellectual property rights in general are very complicated. It's easy to run afoul of them. One should be cautious and get good advice from a lawyer who practices in this area.

[Mark Sampson]

Or better yet, just go to the ASMP website and take advantage of their knowledge of both copyright law, and their activism on behalf of all photographers (and thus creative people).
Less enjoyable than uninformed speculation, rumor, and hearsay, I admit.

[r.e.]

Or better yet, just go to the ASMP website and take advantage of their knowledge of both copyright law, and their activism on behalf of all photographers (and thus creative people).
Less enjoyable than uninformed speculation, rumor, and hearsay, I admit.

Note that the ASMP guide is U.S. specific. It is not reliable, and in some cases is plain wrong, when it comes to other countries.

[bdkphoto]

Or better yet, just go to the ASMP website and take advantage of their knowledge of both copyright law, and their activism on behalf of all photographers (and thus creative people).
Less enjoyable than uninformed speculation, rumor, and hearsay, I admit.

Thank you Mark- As someone who has spent many years on the National Board of ASMP, and the local ASMP board here in NYC, I am always a bit bemused by these discussions. Threads like this tend to drift in many directions and folks tend to conflate all kinds of ideas - criminal fraud, copyright infringement and rights of privacy with each other.

[bdkphoto]

Note that the ASMP guide is U.S. specific. It is not reliable, and in some cases is plain wrong, when it comes to other countries.

ASMP is fully informed on international copyright law, and how it applies to our profession.

[r.e.]

ASMP is fully informed on international copyright law, and how it applies to our profession.

The ASMP guide only covers U.S. copyright law and U.S. copyright process. It dos not accurately reflect the situation in civil law jurisdictions, which is the system of law in the whole of Europe except the U.K. I haven't looked into it myself, but a common example of the differences is that commercial photography of the Eiffel Tower at night, if done without permission, violates copyright.

One of the important U.S. copyright defences is Fair Use. Canada and the U.K. have a concept called Fair Dealing which is analogous, but Fair Dealing is not identical to Fair Use and the Canadian and U.K. rules on Fair Dealing are not themselves identical. I don't know what the situation is on this question in Australia and New Zealand.

It is simply not the case that the U.S. creates copyright law for the entire world. Other countries have their own national legislatures and their own ideas on copyright protection. This is why Hollywood and other U.S. entertainment industry interests, which have the U.S. Congress in their pocket, are constantly complaining about copyright protection elsewhere.

[bdkphoto]

"The ASMP guide only covers U.S. copyright law and U.S. copyright process. It dos not accurately reflect the situation in civil law jurisdictions, which is the system of law in the whole of Europe except the U.K. I haven't looked into it myself, but a common example of the differences is that commercial photography of the Eiffel Tower at night, if done without permission, violates copyright.

One of the important U.S. copyright defences is Fair Use. Canada and the U.K. have a concept called Fair Dealing which is analogous, but Fair Dealing is not identical to Fair Use and the Canadian and U.K. rules on Fair Dealing are not themselves identical. I don't know what the situation is on this question in Australia and New Zealand.

It is simply not the case that the U.S. creates copyright law for the entire world. Other countries have their own national legislatures and their own ideas on copyright protection. This is why Hollywood and other U.S. entertainment industry interests, which have the U.S. Congress in their pocket, are constantly complaining about copyright protection elsewhere."




ASMP is fully versed in international copyright law and the differences that occur from country to country - The Berne convention sets out the minimum requirements that all the signatory countries must adhere to for international copyright law. ASMP has always worked directly with our international counterparts and copyright organizations in Europe, and through the world - we've had a direct presence at the international meetings and conferences over the years - so yes we understand all of this, it is literally part of our mission, and job requirement for our in-house council. We have many members that work internationally and we (ASMP) can help them navigate the myriad issues that can occur for international working photographers.

You could probably benefit from joining, you'll get much better business, legal, and technical advice than here or on Youtube.

[r.e.]

ASMP is fully versed in international copyright law and the differences that occur from country to country - The Berne convention sets out the minimum requirements that all the signatory countries must adhere to for international copyright law. ASMP has always worked directly with our international counterparts and copyright organizations in Europe, and through the world - we've had a direct presence at the international meetings and conferences over the years - so yes we understand all of this, it is literally part of our mission, and job requirement for our in-house council. We have many members that work internationally and we (ASMP) can help them navigate the myriad issues that can occur for international working photographers.

You could probably benefit from joining, you'll get much better business, legal, and technical advice than here or on Youtube.

Hi Bruce,

I was talking about the free guide which until now was the subject of the discussion. I have no doubt that ASMP members can get access to excellent advice, including case specific advice, for jurisdictions other than the U.S. That said, I think that it's useful to point out that "legal discussions" on this forum tend not to take into account the fact that other countries and legal systems can have different rules from what is the case in a poster's local U.S. experience.