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/ns/entertainment-arts_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/lifestyle/2009-07-15-fisk-art-collection_N.htm

[Merg Ross]

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.



Jan Pietrzak

Jan, in the case of Ansel, he did plan for the future, and the CCP in Tucson is the result. He most likely stipulated that none of his prints would leave the Center, and would remain for study and exhibition. Take a look at the inventory, and you can only be impressed.

Ansel has prints in so many places, some in the homes of members here, that to become concerned over a few at the Fresno Museum becomes trivial, in my opinion.

[Mark Sawyer]

From the article: "Michael Adams is requesting an injunction to stop the auction, which he says would violate a donation agreement made years ago."

It appears there is a donation agreement which will hopefully clarify Adams' intentions about the gift.

(Personally, when I donate my work to a dumpster, I expect it to stay in the dumpster...)

[Merg Ross]

[QUOTE=Mark Sawyer;565907] It appears there is a donation agreement which will hopefully clarify Adams' intentions about the gift.


Mark, exactly the point of my initial post. Or, the agreement will clarify the conditions of acceptance posed by the museum. I can only conclude that Michael has the evidence, and this matter will be quietly resolved.

[Brian Ellis]

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.

I'm not sure the museum has actually filed bankruptcy proceedings. This article and a few others I've read just say they've closed up and are trying to pay their dets. I haven't seen anything that says they've filed for bankruptcy though they may have, I haven't read all that much.

[Merg Ross]

I'm not sure the museum has actually filed bankruptcy proceedings. This article and a few others I've read just say they've closed up and are trying to pay their dets. I haven't seen anything that says they've filed for bankruptcy though they may have, I haven't read all that much.

Exactly, and it brings back memories of the AA Center in San Francisco when it closed in 2001. It was done without bankruptcy by selling Ansel's prints.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_12_89/ai_80747820/

[Mark Sawyer]

I think the thing that is really sad is that established museums are closing their doors and liquidating their collections. Times are hard all over...

[Merg Ross]

I think the thing that is really sad is that established museums are closing their doors and liquidating their collections. Times are hard all over...
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.

[John Kasaian]

The Fresno MET has had a very rocky life. They had wonderful local support (the donations of the Ansel Adams prints among them) and it troubles me to see the people who have generously supported the MET experience this. The Adams prints, among many other works, were presented to the people of my town as cultural treasures. The MET was to be a repository for them and now with the METs failing, the cultural treasures are looked at by the MET as simply assets.
That view is an insult to the community as well as the generous supporters of the MET. I hope the court blocks the sale and Michael gets the prints back (and wonderful prints they are---I've spent quite a bit of time looking at them and they are a source of considerable inspiration as art should be)

[willwilson]

Jan it was Fisk University:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2009-07-15-fisk-art-collection_N.htm

They have not exactly decided the outcome on this one. In Nashville the Fisk-O'Keefe debacle has been a very hot topic. Alice Walton (Walmart) is trying to buy it.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100223/NEWS01/2230345/Door-is-left-open-for-Fisk-to-sell-Georgia-O%5C-Keeffe-art

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100223/NEWS01/100223038/Attorney-general-says-Fisk-has-no-right-to-sell-O-Keeffe-art


Definitely sounds like an unfortunate set of circumstances at the Fresno MET. Gifts are gifts but the artist intent should definitely be considered.

[cowanw]

What about the people who are owed money by the museum. Has the museum cleaning lady (and others) been paid? There may be another side to the story.
Regards
Bill

[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/2010/03/04/1846722/family-sues-over-adams-met-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/2010/03/04/1846722/family-sues-over-adams-met-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?

[Brian Ellis]

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?

I doubt that Ansel Adams' heirs need any "going away money" and even if they do a non-profit museum that's going out of business for lack of funds isn't much of a target. Not to mention the fact that no matter how greedy a lawyer might be, it still takes a client to file a lawsuit.

[Merg Ross]

The Adams prints, among many other works, were presented to the people of my town as cultural treasures. The MET was to be a repository for them and now with the METs failing, the cultural treasures are looked at by the MET as simply assets.
That view is an insult to the community as well as the generous supporters of the MET. I hope the court blocks the sale and Michael gets the prints back (and wonderful prints they are---I've spent quite a bit of time looking at them and they are a source of considerable inspiration as art should be)

John, you make a good point. In an earlier post I overlooked the value of these prints to the Fresno community. If/when Michael gets the prints returned, perhaps he will consider gifting them to the Fresno Art Museum. I understand that they also have budget woes, but hopefully will find a way to keep their doors open, and their collection intact.

[Bill_1856]

So you've got (or had) two competing art museums in Fresno? And both of them are in financial trouble?

[Merg Ross]

And both of them are in financial trouble?

For very different reasons. This story details the demise of the Met.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/06/1849472/what-killed-fresno-metropolitan.html

[Drew Wiley]

Only in some place like Fresno would that kind of renovation even be allowed without a more limiting engineering report in advance. Fault the museum staff if you will, but how on earth was a permit acquired in the first place or never adhered to? Just fits into my time-after-time-after-time stereotype of how building codes in that part of the world are routinely ignored.

[srbphoto]

The company I worked for went bankrupt and was liquidated last year. Once we went into bankruptcy nobody could touch our inventory (no matter how much we owed them). Everything freezes. We couldn't pay a window washer $45 for the work he did the month before. He had to file a claim. Vendors could get their fixtures (once we received court approval) but they couldn't come in and take the stuff we didn't pay for. We were still able to sell it (it was a retailer). Bankruptcy law is another world. Good luck to Michael.
As for the employees, good luck getting anything owed. They are usually the last on the list to get their money. It is up to the judge. Nobody in our company was paid their accrued vacation when we closed up. For some it is quite a bit of money. We all had to file claims. It's been about a year and nothing. Probably will never see any of it.

[tgtaylor]

This is reminiscent of the Hubble Space Telescope fiasco where the final testing of the optics was cancelled to save a few dollars. We ended up paying thru the nose for that FU.

[Michael Kadillak]

I can tell you from much experience in dealing with corporate lawyers that it is rare when these contractual agreements are set in motion where every conceivable situation is sealed in concrete from a legal perspective.

Add to the mix a financial escalation in the value of the works donated with an artist from the point where the contract was entered into many years ago. With the economy in the crapper the arts are taking the back seat in the bus if they can even get on the bus in some states. In PA. there is an important legal case of a significant art collection that is being moved out of the place designated by the artist (a small town) to Philly by the new trustees assigned based upon a set of economic criteria imposed by them. It is in direct violation of the agreement carefully crafted and spelled intricate detail by the artist but it is being trumped by the "better good" of those currently in judgement of the situation. From strictly a legal perspective the art should be put in boxes and mothballed if it cannot exist as contractually stipulated. But the trustees will counter in their argument is that even mothballs cost money.

At the end of the day what we know is simple and predictable. Money is the epitome of conflict. While we in our best efforts write contracts for extended periods of time it is amazing to me to see how rapidly the premises contained within are compromised. And when the lawyers get called in the game is already over. We just don't want to acknowledge the gravity of the situation.

I wish the family well.

[Scott Davis]

I can tell you from much experience in dealing with corporate lawyers that it is rare when these contractual agreements are set in motion where every conceivable situation is sealed in concrete from a legal perspective.

Add to the mix a financial escalation in the value of the works donated with an artist from the point where the contract was entered into many years ago. With the economy in the crapper the arts are taking the back seat in the bus if they can even get on the bus in some states. In PA. there is an important legal case of a significant art collection that is being moved out of the place designated by the artist (a small town) to Philly by the new trustees assigned based upon a set of economic criteria imposed by them. It is in direct violation of the agreement carefully crafted and spelled intricate detail by the artist but it is being trumped by the "better good" of those currently in judgement of the situation. From strictly a legal perspective the art should be put in boxes and mothballed if it cannot exist as contractually stipulated. But the trustees will counter in their argument is that even mothballs cost money.

At the end of the day what we know is simple and predictable. Money is the epitome of conflict. While we in our best efforts write contracts for extended periods of time it is amazing to me to see how rapidly the premises contained within are compromised. And when the lawyers get called in the game is already over. We just don't want to acknowledge the gravity of the situation.

I wish the family well.

Michael-

I think you're referring to the Barnes Collection in suburban Philadelphia. That's a different kettle of fish. Mr. Barnes was a very wealthy art collector who built a museum designed to his specification to display his collection of Impressionist art, furniture, decorative ironwork, and sculpture in a very unique system of juxtaposition to call attention to repeated motifs that spanned the various media, cultures and centuries. The collection is too large now to display in its entirety in the current building, the building lacks facilities to accommodate the volume of visitors (they have precisely timed admissions with fixed quantities of people for each hour), and the building was not designed to handle the side-effects of the volume of visitors (humidity control is a big problem for them). There are also stipulations both in the will and in the local building codes that make it extremely difficult to modernize and/or expand the existing facility. Thus the desire to build a new building in downtown Philadelphia near the Philadelphia Museum of Art where the issues that trouble the current location can be addressed.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael-

I think you're referring to the Barnes Collection in suburban Philadelphia. That's a different kettle of fish. Mr. Barnes was a very wealthy art collector who built a museum designed to his specification to display his collection of Impressionist art, furniture, decorative ironwork, and sculpture in a very unique system of juxtaposition to call attention to repeated motifs that spanned the various media, cultures and centuries. The collection is too large now to display in its entirety in the current building, the building lacks facilities to accommodate the volume of visitors (they have precisely timed admissions with fixed quantities of people for each hour), and the building was not designed to handle the side-effects of the volume of visitors (humidity control is a big problem for them). There are also stipulations both in the will and in the local building codes that make it extremely difficult to modernize and/or expand the existing facility. Thus the desire to build a new building in downtown Philadelphia near the Philadelphia Museum of Art where the issues that trouble the current location can be addressed.

Very interesting background. I was out photographing and listening to NPR on the radio when I heard the story. If this is in fact a cut a dry case then why did I get the impression in listening to a report on the story that there is a contractual dispute?

[mrladewig]

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.

To the best of my knowledge, the Okeefe's collection of her husbands work went to the National Gallery of Art in DC.

[Merg Ross]

To the best of my knowledge, the Okeefe's collection of her husbands work went to the National Gallery of Art in DC.

I believe the reference is to the Okeefe collection, given by her to Fisk University. Fisk's plan to sell a portion of the collection was challenged by the Okeefe Estate, and today a judge ruled that the collection must remain at Fisk.

[r.e.]

...today a judge ruled that the collection must remain at Fisk.

Where did you read that?

The actual court decisions are on-line, containing the whole story of how this mess happened, which as usual doesn't make anybody look good, but there is no decision saying that Fisk can't sell the collection. Indeed, the O'Keeffe Foundation's position has been dismissed. What has happened is that circumstances have changed and the whole thing is now up in the air.

[r.e.]

Michael-

I think you're referring to the Barnes Collection in suburban Philadelphia. That's a different kettle of fish. Mr. Barnes was a very wealthy art collector who built a museum designed to his specification to display his collection of Impressionist art, furniture, decorative ironwork, and sculpture in a very unique system of juxtaposition to call attention to repeated motifs that spanned the various media, cultures and centuries. The collection is too large now to display in its entirety in the current building, the building lacks facilities to accommodate the volume of visitors (they have precisely timed admissions with fixed quantities of people for each hour), and the building was not designed to handle the side-effects of the volume of visitors (humidity control is a big problem for them). There are also stipulations both in the will and in the local building codes that make it extremely difficult to modernize and/or expand the existing facility. Thus the desire to build a new building in downtown Philadelphia near the Philadelphia Museum of Art where the issues that trouble the current location can be addressed.

That's a pretty anodyne description of events that resulted in years and years of litigation and inflamed emotions to the point where the whole sordid affair has been the subject of both a film and a book, the film being The Art of the Steal, released a few months ago at the Toronto International Film Festival, and the book being Art Held Hostage: The Battle over the Barnes Collection :)

[Merg Ross]

[QUOTE=r.e.;567309] Where did you read that?

New York Times, March 8, 2010.

[r.e.]

[QUOTE=r.e.;567309] Where did you read that?

New York Times, March 8, 2010.

Interesting, it doesn't appear to be in the on-line edition nor is it on the Tennessean website.

A few days ago, the Attorney General of Tennessee, who has a kind of public trustee role in this, effectively told the Fisk not to act on the court decision that dismissed the O'Keeffe Foundation claim. It is possible that someone is mixing up the AG with the court, or even that the AG or the Foundation followed up the AG's statement with getting an injunction yesterday, but that would a temporary order while the rest of the process gets sorted out. If a court actually reversed the previous order in Fisk's favour, not only has it not been widely reported, but nobody even reported that such a hearing was about to take place. Odd.

[Merg Ross]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/arts/08arts-FISKUNIVERSI_BRF.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=fisk+university&st=nyt&oref=slogin

[r.e.]

Merg, have a look at your URL link and the by-line on the story, which say that it was published not today but two years ago. The decision referred to in the story has been overruled.

[Merg Ross]

Merg, have a look at your URL link and the by-line on the story, which say that it was published not today but two years ago. The decision referred to in the story has been overruled.

Thanks for that. Perhaps just my wishful thinking.

[Scott Davis]

Very interesting background. I was out photographing and listening to NPR on the radio when I heard the story. If this is in fact a cut a dry case then why did I get the impression in listening to a report on the story that there is a contractual dispute?

I don't think it is cut and dry from a contractual or legal standpoint. Part of the issue is the Barnes Foundation bequest. If I recall correctly, the Barnes will that created the foundation had specific, very difficult to overturn stipulations about the display of the collection, so there's a battle going on within the board of trustees, and with the various communities that stand to gain and lose from the move.

[Bill_1856]

I was at the Barns Foundation several years ago, and they treated me like dirt -- like they shouldn't have to put up with the public wanting to look at their pictures. They finally escorted me out, which really frosted my girlfriend (at me) who had gone to a great deal of trouble to arrange our visit. (She was a Professor of Art at a nearby university.)
I hope they burn to the ground.

[Jan Pietrzak]

Bill

Welcome to the world of special collections. Having worked for one in SoCal, and not the one up on the hills over looking LA. All I will say is that the pay and some of the staff I worked for and with were nice. Other than that you just wonder what the f... . Talk about people with bad day syndrome.

Jan Pietrzak

[Jim Ewins]

Perhaps there is a fear that if the Prints get on the market a value will be established.

[srbphoto]

It looks like Michael is getting Ansel's prints back.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVagXrREyw2n5JDJQrkHsXz6z4SwD9F82KG00