Gallery owner arrested for forged and stolen Ansel Adams photographs

[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.