"Ansel Adams" plates found at garage sale

[Scott Davis]

Again, playing the role of Norsigian's defense counsel, I'd further point out that the best that could be said about the negatives, assuming that they are in fact Ansel's, is that they were abandoned by him 80 or more years ago!

Now that's what I call a coup de grace.

If they are NOT Ansel's, then using his name in conjunction with the plates is not only trademark infringement, it is also fraud. Regardless, what Norsigian owns is the physical object, NOT the intellectual property therein. He does not have the copyright, nor does he have a legally executed transfer of copyright document. I would think that it would be up to Norsigian to prove his assertion, and that the Adams Trust assertion to the contrary would be fairly compelling. Were I on the jury that might hear this case, I'd want evidence as compelling as a paternity test before I'd allow that these were indeed Adams' negatives, and from what I've seen of the evidence and counter-evidence presented so far, nothing compels me to conclude these were indeed Ansel Adams' work.

[Sirius Glass]

Again, playing the role of Norsigian's defense counsel, I'd further point out that the best that could be said about the negatives, assuming that they are in fact Ansel's, is that they were abandoned by him 80 or more years ago!

Now that's what I call a coup de grace.

How could it be proved that it was abandoned and not just lost? To prove that, they would have to prove the intent to abandon.

So legally it is coup de crappé.

Steve

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe this will evaporate as Norsigian finds himself printing more disclaimers than
actual prints. Somone should frame one of these.

[philip964]

I read in the paper today, but I can't find the story on line that one of the experts has said he made a mistake and that the true photographer appears to be Uncle Earl Brooks.

[Don7x17]

I read in the paper today, but I can't find the story on line that one of the experts has said he made a mistake and that the true photographer appears to be Uncle Earl Brooks.

http://www.ricknorsigian.com/lost_re..._Statement.pdf

[David Karp]

I read in the paper today, but I can't find the story on line that one of the experts has said he made a mistake and that the true photographer appears to be Uncle Earl Brooks.

Here is an article on the subject from the Los Angeles Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cult...norsigian.html

[Eric Woodbury]

I like the LA Times, but I have found their reporting of this slow and shallow.

[John T]

But the Times "broke" the original story back in 2007 (I think)

[Mike Anderson]

http://www.ricknorsigian.com/lost_re..._Statement.pdf

Why the heck does someone try to communicate by posting on their website a PDF file which is basically a bitmap image of textual statement? Is this obfuscation intentional, or Norsigian's media/communications person quit too?

Anyway, allow me to quote a bitmap image:



So Ms. Walton doesn't have proof her Uncle Earl took those photos (because she doesn't have the negative), so it's possible AA did take the picture possessed by Ms. Walton, and either Uncle Earl lied about it or Ms. Walton is lying about now. And apparently there are more missing negatives out there.

...Mike

[Drew Wiley]

Now that all this is approaching rigormortis, Mr Norsigian should look at the bright
side: he won't have to fuss with this much longer, and will finally have time to kick
back in front of the TV and watch some re-runs of "The Price is Right" and "My Name is Earl".