Gallery owner arrested for forged and stolen Ansel Adams photographs

[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/suprem...20221012%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/regi...TP-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/suprem...20221012%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...t-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...t-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.